• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Questions for Agman

Econ101

Well-known member
Agman, what "demand" determinates that were identified in Schroeder's paper (see "Discussion for the more Advanced: Beef Demand") that incidentally you admitted you had an input on, were the causative factors in the differences that Taylor calculated when he calculated market damages?

I know that we are talking about two different levels in the chain, but we can discuss transmissability in another topic.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
This is day 2, Agman. What is the matter, does the cat have your tounge? Perhaps you could put SH's pms friends on it.

Oh, by the way, there was an article in the Wall Street about how Bernanke flip flops (C1 left hand column). What did he give you, a flip or a flop?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Working on day 3 here and all we have is MR smart allecking?

Is this how you set things up, Agman?

The questions are out here for you to answer, Agman.

What is the matter----are you scared to answer?

There is a fraidy cat here, but it isn't me.

Please don't "Delay".

Do you think he is the only one?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Agman afraid of a chronic liar like you??

Now that's funny! While your on this forum pretending to understand cattle/beef economics, Agman is busy living it. His clients depend on accurate information. I'm quite certain that you have nobody relying on your lies for their marketing decisions.

Agman answering your question first assumes that it even has relevance. Most of your bullsh*t doesn't.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Agman afraid of a chronic liar like you??

Now that's funny! While your on this forum pretending to understand cattle/beef economics, Agman is busy living it. His clients depend on accurate information. I'm quite certain that you have nobody relying on your lies for their marketing decisions.

Agman answering your question first assumes that it even has relevance. Most of your bullsh*t doesn't.


~SH~

Rkaiser gives you too much credit with the Super Hero thing.

So boy robin has to prep and play interference for Agman? What else is new?

Agman is busy helping packers profit with captive supplies and market manipulation. Sometimes it does help his clients, but it also puts money in his pocket and helps with packer propaganda.

Hey, I just described the "Demand Determinants" report we are discussing.

I would like to discuss this in a gentlemanly way, but I am having a hard time getting Agman to engage.

What is he afraid of to have to send his #1 minion, SH? Agman's responses to me have been filled with less substance and more junk. If that is what it takes to engage him, so be it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Agman is busy helping packers profit with captive supplies and market manipulation. Sometimes it does help his clients, but it also puts money in his pocket and helps with packer propaganda."

That statement reflects what a complete idiot you are. The vast majority of Agman's clients are producers and feeders. Yup, Agman would really be benefitting his producers and feeders by supporting packers with captive supplies and market manipulation wouldn't he?

I'd give a weeks salary to see you in a public debate with Agman on what factors truly affect cattle prices. While he has a business that relies on accurate information on factors that affect cattle markets THAT IS GROWING, you are a pathetic little liar that spreads lies on a forum who is afraid to reveal his identity.

Some debate that would be.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Agman is busy helping packers profit with captive supplies and market manipulation. Sometimes it does help his clients, but it also puts money in his pocket and helps with packer propaganda."

That statement reflects what a complete idiot you are. The vast majority of Agman's clients are producers and feeders. Yup, Agman would really be benefitting his producers and feeders by supporting packers with captive supplies and market manipulation wouldn't he?

I'd give a weeks salary to see you in a public debate with Agman on what factors truly affect cattle prices. While he has a business that relies on accurate information on factors that affect cattle markets THAT IS GROWING, you are a pathetic little liar that spreads lies on a forum who is afraid to reveal his identity.

Some debate that would be.



~SH~

I don't accept gopher tails for payment. These questions are for Agman. If you can't answer them take your sideshow somewhere else. No, wait, don't even try to answer them. Your answers are not worth reading and they are probably Agman's words regurgitated into a one sided sales pitch.

Is the man scared of answering for himself?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You are really some idiot to think that Agman, who conducts speaking engagements nationwide, is anxiously awaiting responding to your next lie. Hahaha! You're such a joke!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
You are really some idiot to think that Agman, who conducts speaking engagements nationwide, is anxiously awaiting responding to your next lie. Hahaha! You're such a joke!


~SH~

I don't care if Agman was president of the united states. He can't answer them because knows the trap. It covers two of our topics of discussion very well; the checkoff funds are being used to fund bogus reports and research and in those reports, the economics, has vastly different standards regarding causality than what the courts are requiring.

This is total propaganda and he knows it.

I am quite certain agman puts his pants on one leg at a time. This morning I jumped in with both feet.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "He can't answer them because knows the trap."

Hahaha! What trap?

An "ILLUSION" is not a trap Conman.

You haven't backed a single "CLAIM" you have made on this site with facts yet.

Fly eggs in your pork loins.
Walmart selling "USDA SELECT" beef as "USDA CHOICE".
Your phone line being tapped.
Market manipulation conspiracy theories.

The list of your lies grows bigger with every post you make. You're a complete phony that still lives under the false impression that your opinion carries relevance without supporting facts.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "He can't answer them because knows the trap."

Hahaha! What trap?

An "ILLUSION" is not a trap Conman.

You haven't backed a single "CLAIM" you have made on this site with facts yet.

Fly eggs in your pork loins.
Walmart selling "USDA SELECT" beef as "USDA CHOICE".
Your phone line being tapped.
Market manipulation conspiracy theories.

The list of your lies grows bigger with every post you make. You're a complete phony that still lives under the false impression that your opinion carries relevance without supporting facts.


~SH~

Agman has sent his clown. If you can't address the subject, SH, please stay off this thread.

The more you answer, the more it shows Agman can not.

By the way, this from Wed. June 7 WSJ:

Sen. Specter has backed off plans to call phone executives to testify o Bush's eavesdropping program. Democrats are alleging political cowardice.

It sure is hard to open up committee hearings on frauds you are involved in allowing.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "You haven't backed a single "CLAIM" you have made on this site with facts yet."

Holy Hypocracy, Batman. This coming from the person who "CLAIMED" certain plants made more money than others, but then could not come up with a single dollar figure for any of them? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


You need this disclosure after all your posts, SH: Kids, don't try at home. To be read for comedic purposes only. Not associated with reason or common sense. :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "This coming from the person who "CLAIMED" certain plants made more money than others, but then could not come up with a single dollar figure for any of them?"

What were the facts that proved my position wrong Sandbag?

Please provide them!


Here comes the next dance step..........


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "This coming from the person who "CLAIMED" certain plants made more money than others, but then could not come up with a single dollar figure for any of them?"

What were the facts that proved my position wrong Sandbag?

Please provide them!


Here comes the next dance step..........


~SH~

Nive dance step yourself, SH. You were the one who made the comment. You were the one who bet he could prove it. You were the one who couldn't. Yet, you get on others for making "claims".

If you weren't such a loud mouth fool, I never would of brought this up again. You should try to think before you start typing - you wouldn't be such an easy target.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
You are really some idiot to think that Agman, who conducts speaking engagements nationwide, is anxiously awaiting responding to your next lie. Hahaha! You're such a joke!


~SH~

I don't care if Agman was president of the united states. He can't answer them because knows the trap. It covers two of our topics of discussion very well; the checkoff funds are being used to fund bogus reports and research and in those reports, the economics, has vastly different standards regarding causality than what the courts are requiring.

This is total propaganda and he knows it.

I am quite certain agman puts his pants on one leg at a time. This morning I jumped in with both feet.

Econ, what is your basis for the claim "the checkoff funds are being used to fund bogus reports and research and in those reports, the economics has vastly different standards regarding causality than what the courts are hearing". Which checkoff funded report are you referring to?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The one mentioned on this thread, MRJ, that we have been discussing and that you even posted a reply on.

Schroeder's Demand report.

MRJ, Have you read the OIG report yet?

Maybe you just don't care about cattleman's concerns.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

Why did you divert the question (as if I didn't know)?

If I was proven wrong when I said that Pasco and Boise lost more money than Lakeside made when the Canadian border was closed, which I proved with Tyson's own financial reports against the fact that Pasco and Boise was running at 33% capacity while paying their labor force for a 32 hour work week which was confirmed with a phone call to Tyson.

What were the facts that proved this position wrong Sandbag?

Please provide them!


Watch the dance again folks.........


The only reason you won the bet is because I agreed to calendar year 2004 instead of sticking with my initial statement, WHICH PROMPTED THE CHALLENGE FROM YOU, which was for the entire period of time when the border was closed. Then you relied on my own research and my own integrity to admit that I was wrong on calendar year 2004. You provided absolutely nothing to the debate. You thanked Agman for his honesty when he stated that I was wrong about calendar year 2004 but you wouldn't accept his word for my being right with my initial statement regarding the entire period of time when the border was closed. That proved to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, just what kind of deceptive slime ball you really are. Without doing any research on your own, without providing one stitch of proof to back your position, you accepted Agman's facts to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 but you wouldn't accept those same facts to prove my intitial statement correct. No further proof was needed to show what kind of pathetic person you are. No wonder you and Conman can relate so well. You're two of a kind.

You wouldn't accept the proof that I provided to back my position so bring me the proof that proved me wrong Sandbag or keep dancing like the ankle biter you are because you know you can't.

I'm glad you brought it up again Sandbag. It reminds me of just the kind of deceptive person you are. You couldn't win a bet with me UNLESS I made a mistake on the time period, UNLESS I proved myself wrong, and UNLESS I was willing to admit to being wrong on Calendar year 2004. LOL! How sad that the only way you can win a bet is by relying on someone else's integrity to admit to being wrong after proving themselves wrong. Hahaha!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I offered you double or nothing on your original statement as well and you declined. That offer still stands. If the time period is the only reason you lost the bet, you should have no reason not to take it. What do you say, SH? Can you prove your original statement? I say you're completely full of crap. I say you're just a hypocritical bag of wind.

I brought it back up because you're calling others "factually void" and challenging them to bring facts to back claims when you refuse to do the same yourself. Either bring some numbers that actually mean something or be man enough to shut up.
 
Top