• 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

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
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.


Econ, re. Schroeder's Demand Report, (from at least 5 years ago). Did you ask the cattle producers who asked for that report about it? Did you even know that it was and is cattle producers who decide what the Beef Checkoff shall fund and why? Do you believe (or admit) that it is entirely cattle producers who control the Beef Checkoff, with the USDA function ONLY to assure the law is followed?

Also, you are connecting that report to a court case unrelated to the reasons for Checkoff leaders funded the report, in your silly little game of attempting to "trap" Agman in some way only your fertile brain is privy to. HOW or WHY does your scheme validate your claim that the report is "bogus"?????

Why would you think I don't care about "cattlemens' concerns"? My family makes our living from raising cattle. Do you? Not all cattlemen have the same concerns. Some of us believe there is opportunity and we make our own 'luck' by adding value to our cattle, while others have been led to believe that only by stopping imports, and donating money to hire attorneys to file lawsuits can cattlemen make a living. Two different philosophies operating in cattle production, and we don't belong to the 'blamers club'.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "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 declined nothing. You claimed my original statement that "Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost more money than Tyson's Lakeside plant made (while the Canadian border was closed)" was a lie.

PROVE IT!

Double or nothing!

You made the allegation that I lied, now back it up or dance and divert like the little chickensh*t you are.

You wouldn't accept the proof I offered so prove that I lied.

What a waste of my time. Sandbag thanks Agman for his honesty after Agman claimed my original statement was correct. Now he wants to backpeddle creating another "ILLUSION".

You claimed that I lied. Prove it or prove once again what a complete phony you are.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
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.


Econ, re. Schroeder's Demand Report, (from at least 5 years ago). Did you ask the cattle producers who asked for that report about it? Did you even know that it was and is cattle producers who decide what the Beef Checkoff shall fund and why? Do you believe (or admit) that it is entirely cattle producers who control the Beef Checkoff, with the USDA function ONLY to assure the law is followed?

Also, you are connecting that report to a court case unrelated to the reasons for Checkoff leaders funded the report, in your silly little game of attempting to "trap" Agman in some way only your fertile brain is privy to. HOW or WHY does your scheme validate your claim that the report is "bogus"?????

Why would you think I don't care about "cattlemens' concerns"? My family makes our living from raising cattle. Do you? Not all cattlemen have the same concerns. Some of us believe there is opportunity and we make our own 'luck' by adding value to our cattle, while others have been led to believe that only by stopping imports, and donating money to hire attorneys to file lawsuits can cattlemen make a living. Two different philosophies operating in cattle production, and we don't belong to the 'blamers club'.

MRJ

MRJ, I do talk to myself from time to time to actually think about the world instead of just taking someone else's "expert" opinion. And yes, I did ask about the report. Thank you for seeing that time is an important factor in looking at the data. You do get at least a few things right from time to time, but your knack for not putting it all together is astonishing.

Are you saying that checkoff funded research can be done with little or no standard? Why the differing standards between the checkoff spent money and the court's acceptance of the "expert". Who to believe should be left up to the jury in this country, not overturned by an elite hand picked set of judges that were appointed and owe their advancement to a political party that is paid off by industry. Do you even believe in America anymore or are sold out to self interest and corporate influence?

I am glad you believe you are doing the right thing in the cattle business. It is part of your job to do the best you can do. It is too bad you can not think for the benefit of producers as a whole instead of your outdated NCBA cheerleading beliefs. A vigorous debate on this subject is healthy for the industry and puts a light on the same methods Tyson has used in its other industy takeovers. I am sorry you can not see it. There are some people just like that.


You mentioned that your family makes a living off of raising cattle. Does that make you an expert in the economic reports being issued? Do you even know any economics? Using your status to defend something you don't understand eats away at your credibility.

Have you read the OIG report yet?

Sometimes you need to look at the facts before drawing conclusions. Maybe you should try talking to yourself instead of taking NCBA propaganda as the gospel truth. Its called THINKING INDEPENDENTLY!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "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 declined nothing. You claimed my original statement that "Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost more money than Tyson's Lakeside plant made (while the Canadian border was closed)" was a lie.

PROVE IT!

Double or nothing!

You made the allegation that I lied, now back it up or dance and divert like the little chickensh*t you are.

You wouldn't accept the proof I offered so prove that I lied.

What a waste of my time. Sandbag thanks Agman for his honesty after Agman claimed my original statement was correct. Now he wants to backpeddle creating another "ILLUSION".

You claimed that I lied. Prove it or prove once again what a complete phony you are.


~SH~

You offered no proof. You tried to BS your way with slaughter figures - buy you just couldn't seem to bring any bottom line dollar figures. Proof would be "Lake side made $xxx, the other two plants made $yyy"

You lied. Proof of that is the information that you would of needed to be able to make that comment truthfully is not available to you. It's not available to Agman, either, or he would of PMed it to you. You're just flapping your lips with no factual information - just as you accuse others of. You're a hypocrite, SH, and a dang juvinile and annoying one at that.

Isn't it about time you spent more time on your 4-H projects instead of wasting the time of adults?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Day 4 and no answer. Here is the question again, in case you are too busy hob nobbing and forgot, Agman.


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.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
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.


Econ, re. Schroeder's Demand Report, (from at least 5 years ago). Did you ask the cattle producers who asked for that report about it? Did you even know that it was and is cattle producers who decide what the Beef Checkoff shall fund and why? Do you believe (or admit) that it is entirely cattle producers who control the Beef Checkoff, with the USDA function ONLY to assure the law is followed?

Also, you are connecting that report to a court case unrelated to the reasons for Checkoff leaders funded the report, in your silly little game of attempting to "trap" Agman in some way only your fertile brain is privy to. HOW or WHY does your scheme validate your claim that the report is "bogus"?????

Why would you think I don't care about "cattlemens' concerns"? My family makes our living from raising cattle. Do you? Not all cattlemen have the same concerns. Some of us believe there is opportunity and we make our own 'luck' by adding value to our cattle, while others have been led to believe that only by stopping imports, and donating money to hire attorneys to file lawsuits can cattlemen make a living. Two different philosophies operating in cattle production, and we don't belong to the 'blamers club'.

MRJ

MRJ, I do talk to myself from time to time to actually think about the world instead of just taking someone else's "expert" opinion. And yes, I did ask about the report. Thank you for seeing that time is an important factor in looking at the data. You do get at least a few things right from time to time, but your knack for not putting it all together is astonishing.

Are you saying that checkoff funded research can be done with little or no standard? Why the differing standards between the checkoff spent money and the court's acceptance of the "expert". Who to believe should be left up to the jury in this country, not overturned by an elite hand picked set of judges that were appointed and owe their advancement to a political party that is paid off by industry. Do you even believe in America anymore or are sold out to self interest and corporate influence?

I am glad you believe you are doing the right thing in the cattle business. It is part of your job to do the best you can do. It is too bad you can not think for the benefit of producers as a whole instead of your outdated NCBA cheerleading beliefs. A vigorous debate on this subject is healthy for the industry and puts a light on the same methods Tyson has used in its other industy takeovers. I am sorry you can not see it. There are some people just like that.


You mentioned that your family makes a living off of raising cattle. Does that make you an expert in the economic reports being issued? Do you even know any economics? Using your status to defend something you don't understand eats away at your credibility.

Have you read the OIG report yet?

Sometimes you need to look at the facts before drawing conclusions. Maybe you should try talking to yourself instead of taking NCBA propaganda as the gospel truth. Its called THINKING INDEPENDENTLY!!


Econ, maybe you spend too much time "talking" to yourself! Your "self" obviously could use some input from those who are actually making a living from various segments of the cattle/beef industry as well as from those who successfully study trends in all aspects of cattle and beef production and consumption and advise competent cattle producers (Agman is one of the best in that field!).

You little put-downs and insults and "instructions" are uselessly boring, except for them being indicative of your personality traits.

Checkoff funded research has high standards, set within the rules and regulations of the law. BTW, you fail again, to understand that it is the Cattlemens Beef Board, rather than NCBA in control of the Beef Checkoff.

Why do you insist on tying that particular study to your court case? The study had the purpose of learning why beef demand was the way it was at the time and in previous years. Period. That information, helped to enable checkoff projects designed to increase that Demand picture even more rapidly than projected.

You cut "self interest" and seem to praise socialistic methods of business as superior to the Private Enterprise system which has made individuals in this nation so successful. Why do you want to tear down our successful business systems? Socialism is not the American way, and you are off-base implying that I do not believe in America anymore. Maybe you need to check your own understanding of Patriotism and loving America!

So far as who is "an expert" in economic reports, surely there are many who do not believe you are one. You claim to be involved in the cattle business, yet many things you say make it quite apparent you have learned much of what you claim as your knowledge, right here on this websiter rather than from your own experience or study.!

You really don't need to tear down NCBA or the ranchers who are members of that group in order to build yourself, IF you have any real knowledge of the cattle/beef industry or the economics thereof. Disagreements in philosophy do not require to continually put us down to build your own arguments up, IF you have any substance to them.

Poor guy, you must need something to boost your confidence pretty badly if you need to resort to such efforts on this website.


MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ, re. Schroeder's Demand Report, (from at least 5 years ago). Did you ask the cattle producers who asked for that report about it? Did you even know that it was and is cattle producers who decide what the Beef Checkoff shall fund and why? Do you believe (or admit) that it is entirely cattle producers who control the Beef Checkoff, with the USDA function ONLY to assure the law is followed?

Also, you are connecting that report to a court case unrelated to the reasons for Checkoff leaders funded the report, in your silly little game of attempting to "trap" Agman in some way only your fertile brain is privy to. HOW or WHY does your scheme validate your claim that the report is "bogus"?????

Why would you think I don't care about "cattlemens' concerns"? My family makes our living from raising cattle. Do you? Not all cattlemen have the same concerns. Some of us believe there is opportunity and we make our own 'luck' by adding value to our cattle, while others have been led to believe that only by stopping imports, and donating money to hire attorneys to file lawsuits can cattlemen make a living. Two different philosophies operating in cattle production, and we don't belong to the 'blamers club'.

MRJ

MRJ, I do talk to myself from time to time to actually think about the world instead of just taking someone else's "expert" opinion. And yes, I did ask about the report. Thank you for seeing that time is an important factor in looking at the data. You do get at least a few things right from time to time, but your knack for not putting it all together is astonishing.

Are you saying that checkoff funded research can be done with little or no standard? Why the differing standards between the checkoff spent money and the court's acceptance of the "expert". Who to believe should be left up to the jury in this country, not overturned by an elite hand picked set of judges that were appointed and owe their advancement to a political party that is paid off by industry. Do you even believe in America anymore or are sold out to self interest and corporate influence?

I am glad you believe you are doing the right thing in the cattle business. It is part of your job to do the best you can do. It is too bad you can not think for the benefit of producers as a whole instead of your outdated NCBA cheerleading beliefs. A vigorous debate on this subject is healthy for the industry and puts a light on the same methods Tyson has used in its other industy takeovers. I am sorry you can not see it. There are some people just like that.


You mentioned that your family makes a living off of raising cattle. Does that make you an expert in the economic reports being issued? Do you even know any economics? Using your status to defend something you don't understand eats away at your credibility.

Have you read the OIG report yet?

Sometimes you need to look at the facts before drawing conclusions. Maybe you should try talking to yourself instead of taking NCBA propaganda as the gospel truth. Its called THINKING INDEPENDENTLY!!


Econ, maybe you spend too much time "talking" to yourself! Your "self" obviously could use some input from those who are actually making a living from various segments of the cattle/beef industry as well as from those who successfully study trends in all aspects of cattle and beef production and consumption and advise competent cattle producers (Agman is one of the best in that field!).

You little put-downs and insults and "instructions" are uselessly boring, except for them being indicative of your personality traits.

Checkoff funded research has high standards, set within the rules and regulations of the law. BTW, you fail again, to understand that it is the Cattlemens Beef Board, rather than NCBA in control of the Beef Checkoff.

Why do you insist on tying that particular study to your court case? The study had the purpose of learning why beef demand was the way it was at the time and in previous years. Period. That information, helped to enable checkoff projects designed to increase that Demand picture even more rapidly than projected.

You cut "self interest" and seem to praise socialistic methods of business as superior to the Private Enterprise system which has made individuals in this nation so successful. Why do you want to tear down our successful business systems? Socialism is not the American way, and you are off-base implying that I do not believe in America anymore. Maybe you need to check your own understanding of Patriotism and loving America!

So far as who is "an expert" in economic reports, surely there are many who do not believe you are one. You claim to be involved in the cattle business, yet many things you say make it quite apparent you have learned much of what you claim as your knowledge, right here on this websiter rather than from your own experience or study.!

You really don't need to tear down NCBA or the ranchers who are members of that group in order to build yourself, IF you have any real knowledge of the cattle/beef industry or the economics thereof. Disagreements in philosophy do not require to continually put us down to build your own arguments up, IF you have any substance to them.

Poor guy, you must need something to boost your confidence pretty badly if you need to resort to such efforts on this website.


MRJ

MRJ, you have a lot of words there. Can you stop cheerleading and tell me if you read the OIG report?

If you weren't so tribal and used a little logic, I wouldn't be so hard on you.

I don't blame ranchers that belong to the NCBA. I blame the leadership. If you happen to be both, I am sorry for you. Tyson used the same method of infiltration in the poultry business. They have all their stooges in the state poultry associations and pretend they represent the poultry growers. If you did a little research, you would know this. Instead, you take as gospel the garbage that is handed down to you. You are being played for the fool that you are. I don't get any satisfaction out of it.

WHAT DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE OIG REPORT?
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
~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.

Another bold faced total lie from the conman himself-Econ1. "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."

Any wonder why I would not waste a minute of my time in dialog with a total and absolute fool like you. You know no more about what I do than you do about the markets, economic analysis and the the legal system.

You grasp at any accusation no matter how false and misleading. You are a truly pathetic person who has qualified himself through your rampant lies and unsupported allegations.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
~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.

Another bold faced total lie from the conman himself-Econ1. "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."

Any wonder why I would not waste a minute of my time in dialog with a total and absolute fool like you. You know no more about what I do than you do about the markets, economic analysis and the the legal system.

You grasp at any accusation no matter how false and misleading. You are a truly pathetic person who has qualified himself through your rampant lies and unsupported allegations.

Surprise, surprise. Agman does not answer!!!!

Maybe he is not competent enough in economics to answer!!!

Hide behind your minions. You have been revealed.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Day 6.

Here is the question again, Agman:

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
Day 7, Agman. Here is the question again:

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
What is the matter agman, cat got your tounge?

Afraid of the "tough" questions?

Do you have any substance under all the propaganda you throw out?

What is today, The 20th? Thats Day 12 and no answer.
 

Latest posts

Top