question for SH

[Econ101]

SH-- let us look at your argument closely. This would be something like a good attorney would do on cross examination in front of the jury. Are you up to scrutiny or do you think your credibility will fall apart?

Quote:
Econ. 101: "Can a person not be in two classes at the same time? Sometimes you might be a cash seller and sometimes you might be a grid/formula seller."


Of course they can be both. That's not the point!

If you had any ability to comprehend what you are reading you would know that's not the point. There is 2 issues here.


First, Mike stated:

Quote:
"All plaintiffs had to be "Cash" market sellers to have credentials as "Plaintiff"."


That was the statement I was responding to.

All the plaintiffs were not cash sellers. Like you said, some were both.

So what part of Mike's (I assume this is Mike Callicrate?) statement is false? Is your reasoning here the same as when you say he perjured himself?[/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "This would be something like a good attorney would do on cross examination in front of the jury. Are you up to scrutiny or do you think your credibility will fall apart?"

How can you compare yourself to a "good attorney" when you don't even know enough about law to understand that the burden of proof falls on the accuser??

Am I up to the scrutiny? Haha! Is that what you call it?

Think my credibility will fall apart? I thought you said I didn't have any credibility so what's left to fall apart? LOL! You packer blamers simply cannot keep your stories straight can you?

Oh, yeh, I'm just pissing down my boots......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Wake me when your so called "scrutiny" is over!

Econ. 101: "So what part of Mike's (I assume this is Mike Callicrate?) statement is false?"

Mike from this forum posted the information about the plaintiffs having to be cash sellers, not Mike Callicrate.

I doubt you comprehended that so you better read it again.

MIKE FROM THIS FORUM, NOT MIKE CALLICRATE.

Econ. 101: "Is your reasoning here the same as when you say he perjured himself?"

Mike Callicrate lied under oath. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Why would the Judge instruct the jury to disregard Mike's testimony in total or in part if Mike had told the truth?

Cant wait to hear what kind of conspiracy theory you can come up with for that one.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Too scared to post it? It figures. Put up or shut up.

Since you say I am getting confused on the Mikes out there, let us take both of them.

Put up or shut up. Are you scared to?

 

[Jason]

Looks like another so called saviour of the packer blamers has fallen. Econ your last several posts have resorted to name calling and inuendo.

I have never called you a name in this entire thread.

Your arguements change as soon as they are addressed and the only thing you can keep saying is that Pickett fooled 12 people with no understanding of the beef industry.

A basic principle you can't seem to grasp I will repeat.

Everytime someone buys something they influence that market.

Think about that for a while.

 

[Econ101]

Looks like another so called saviour of the packer blamers has fallen. Econ your last several posts have resorted to name calling and inuendo.

I have never called you a name in this entire thread.

Your arguements change as soon as they are addressed and the only thing you can keep saying is that Pickett fooled 12 people with no understanding of the beef industry.

A basic principle you can't seem to grasp I will repeat.

Everytime someone buys something they influence that market.

Think about that for a while.

Jason, I am glad to see you return. That is the essence of the Pickett argument. That is why there are bills in the United States Congress right now regarding this issue of market manipulation and captive supply.

Hope you get your operation reversed.