Queston for Sandbag

[Sandhusker]

I've been thinking about our latest exchange, SH. You come to me under the white flag of, "I'm going to step outside our normal realm of sabor rattling and ask you a straight up question." I answer your question candidly and without reservation. OCM comes in and demonstrates he knows more about the topic than I do, so I post back and acknowledge that so you would know where the better advice was coming from. You then make up a lie on the transpiration of events.

I've ended many of my posts to you with "You're a dandy". I take that back, you're a horse's ash.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "I've been thinking about our latest exchange, SH. You come to me under the white flag of, "I'm going to step outside our normal realm of sabor rattling and ask you a straight up question." I answer your question candidly and without reservation. OCM comes in and demonstrates he knows more about the topic than I do, so I post back and acknowledge that so you would know where the better advice was coming from. You then make up a lie on the transpiration of events."

More cheap talk!

Where's the lie Sandbag?

Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims, where's the lie cheap talker?

You're just upset because you unknowingly admitted that an R-CALF financial audit coverletter read suspiciously.

Sandbag: "I've ended many of my posts to you with "You're a dandy". I take that back, you're a horse's ash."

Oh poor little master illusionist.

Caught between acknowledging his lack of knowledge on financial audits or stating that an R-CALF financial audit cover letter reads suspicious. As one would expect, you defend R-CULT over your own knowledge of financial audits. A lender no less. What a joke you are. Did they interview anyone else when they hired you?

If you didn't know anything about the topic, why did you take a position prior to changing it after ocm posted? No wonder you and Conman tag team.

Conman: "SH, you have shown time and time again that you do not have the ability to recognize facts. This is just another example. Thanks for allowing me to point it out again. I enjoy your sport."

You blamers never did understand the difference between facts and unsupported statements. If it supports your bias, it must be fact BY GAWD!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "I've been thinking about our latest exchange, SH. You come to me under the white flag of, "I'm going to step outside our normal realm of sabor rattling and ask you a straight up question." I answer your question candidly and without reservation. OCM comes in and demonstrates he knows more about the topic than I do, so I post back and acknowledge that so you would know where the better advice was coming from. You then make up a lie on the transpiration of events."

More cheap talk!

Where's the lie Sandbag?

Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims, where's the lie cheap talker?

You're just upset because you unknowingly admitted that an R-CALF financial audit coverletter read suspiciously.

Sandbag: "I've ended many of my posts to you with "You're a dandy". I take that back, you're a horse's ash."

Oh poor little master illusionist.

Caught between acknowledging his lack of knowledge on financial audits or stating that an R-CALF financial audit cover letter reads suspicious. As one would expect, you defend R-CULT over your own knowledge of financial audits. A lender no less. What a joke you are. Did they interview anyone else when they hired you?

If you didn't know anything about the topic, why did you take a position prior to changing it after ocm posted? No wonder you and Conman tag team.

Conman: "SH, you have shown time and time again that you do not have the ability to recognize facts. This is just another example. Thanks for allowing me to point it out again. I enjoy your sport."

You blamers never did understand the difference between facts and unsupported statements. If it supports your bias, it must be fact BY GAWD!



~SH~

SH, I have asked you before, did you follow up on those suspicions and find anything wrong or do you want to just imply that something is wrong?

You packer backers never did understand the difference between facts and unsupported statements(like your perjury charge). If it supports your bias, it must be fact BY GAWD!

 

[Anonymous]

There's nothing to check out you moron. I simply pointed out the fact that the wording would cause one to be suspicious and asked for Sandbag's opinion knowing he would backpeddle when he found out it was from an R-CULT audit. I didn't claim inpropriety. I'm not of the same conspiring mindset you packer blamers are.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

There's nothing to check out you moron. I simply pointed out the fact that the wording would cause one to be suspicious and asked for Sandbag's opinion knowing he would backpeddle when he found out it was from an R-CULT audit. I didn't claim inpropriety. I'm not of the same conspiring mindset you packer blamers are.


~SH~

"Backpeddling" is your perjorative term. Did Sandhusker lie about anything? Did he commit perjury? Did ANYONE not claim that the wording was meant to notify the reader that there were concerns not addressed in the report?

Did you find ANYTHING that was incorrect in the report after your "intensive" investigation?

Did you find ANYTHING that was wrong with any of the comments made from ANYONE that posted after you posed the question other than your piddly reference to tricycle riding?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Did Sandhusker lie about anything?"

Never claimed he did.

Conman: "Did he commit perjury?"

How can he committ perjury when he wasn't under oath?

You really are stupid.

Conman: "Did ANYONE not claim that the wording was meant to notify the reader that there were concerns not addressed in the report?"

What would be the relevance of something not claimed?

Conman: "Did you find ANYTHING that was incorrect in the report after your "intensive" investigation?"

I wasn't looking for something "incorrect", I was simply pointing out the suspicious wording.

You can't seperate the two can you?

Conman: "Did you find ANYTHING that was wrong with any of the comments made from ANYONE that posted after you posed the question other than your piddly reference to tricycle riding?"

Other than Sandbag's lack of knowledge on financial audits and your usual stupidity, no.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "I've been thinking about our latest exchange, SH. You come to me under the white flag of, "I'm going to step outside our normal realm of sabor rattling and ask you a straight up question." I answer your question candidly and without reservation. OCM comes in and demonstrates he knows more about the topic than I do, so I post back and acknowledge that so you would know where the better advice was coming from. You then make up a lie on the transpiration of events."

More cheap talk!

Where's the lie Sandbag?

Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims, where's the lie cheap talker?

You're just upset because you unknowingly admitted that an R-CALF financial audit coverletter read suspiciously.

Sandbag: "I've ended many of my posts to you with "You're a dandy". I take that back, you're a horse's ash."

Oh poor little master illusionist.

Caught between acknowledging his lack of knowledge on financial audits or stating that an R-CALF financial audit cover letter reads suspicious. As one would expect, you defend R-CULT over your own knowledge of financial audits. A lender no less. What a joke you are. Did they interview anyone else when they hired you?

If you didn't know anything about the topic, why did you take a position prior to changing it after ocm posted? No wonder you and Conman tag team.

Conman: "SH, you have shown time and time again that you do not have the ability to recognize facts. This is just another example. Thanks for allowing me to point it out again. I enjoy your sport."

You blamers never did understand the difference between facts and unsupported statements. If it supports your bias, it must be fact BY GAWD!



~SH~

Here's the lie, Flicka

You might want to check out the chronographical order of the statements, SH. Let me do it for you;
1) I saw a red flag
2) ocm posted
3) I stated ocm was better versed that I was
4) You revealed it was R-CALF's statement

I changed my position after ocm posted, not after you said it was R-CALF. Go back and check it out. You've got 3 & 4 intentionally mixed. I try to help you out and you show what you're made of by creating a lie and then insulting me. You're a class act. My opinion of you is only solidfied.

 

[Anonymous]

Poor little Sandbag!

I am well aware of the order.

The point I'm trying to make is that you are a lender that is supposed to know about financial audits. You changed your position as soon as OCM challenged you. That just shows that you had an opinion on a topic that you knew nothing about AND YOU SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT DUE TO YOUR JOB.

I only wanted your admission that this letter was worded suspiciously and you agreed.

If you were willing to change your position so quickly once OCM challenged you, why did you present an opinion to begin with? Why not just admit up front that you're not very knowledgeable about financial audits? Just goes to prove what a phony you are. This is consistant with thanking Agman for his honesty when his data supports your bias on calendar year 2004 yet demanding proof for Agman's data when it doesn't support your bias for the entire period of time when the border was closed. Only a complete phony would do that.

Claiming that ocm might be more versed on the topic than you doesn't change the fact that you already presented your opinion.

You can't dance around the fact that you agreed that this cover letter read suspiciously nor can you dance around the fact that you changed your "OPINION" on a topic you should understand.

When you changed that position is a "red herring" to the fact that you changed your position. Talk about setting up strawmen?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Poor little Sandbag!

I am well aware of the order.

The point I'm trying to make is that you are a lender that is supposed to know about financial audits. You changed your position as soon as OCM challenged you. That just shows that you had an opinion on a topic that you knew nothing about AND YOU SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT DUE TO YOUR JOB.

I only wanted your admission that this letter was worded suspiciously and you agreed.

If you were willing to change your position so quickly once OCM challenged you, why did you present an opinion to begin with? Why not just admit up front that you're not very knowledgeable about financial audits? Just goes to prove what a phony you are. This is consistant with thanking Agman for his honesty when his data supports your bias on calendar year 2004 yet demanding proof for Agman's data when it doesn't support your bias for the entire period of time when the border was closed. Only a complete phony would do that.

Claiming that ocm might be more versed on the topic than you doesn't change the fact that you already presented your opinion.

You can't dance around the fact that you agreed that this cover letter read suspiciously nor can you dance around the fact that you changed your "OPINION" on a topic you should understand.

When you changed that position is a "red herring" to the fact that you changed your position. Talk about setting up strawmen?


~SH~

You would have to be a "nut" to read that warning and take the report with as much credibility an audited report unless you knew better, SH.

Why is Sandhusker being "suspicious" anything but a correct assesment?

You need to keep going around your circus chicken with your tricycle until you come up with something better than this.

It is clear who was trying to be all of the decietful adjectives you pass out to everyone who doesn't agree with you.

If you need a little more help, I will ask my preschooler to help you out on the side if you like. She would probably like tricycles and circus chickens.

 

[Anonymous]

More Conman diversion and dance routines.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

More Conman diversion and dance routines.



~SH~

I know she likes dance routines too.

 

[Sandhusker]

Poor little Sandbag!

I am well aware of the order.

The point I'm trying to make is that you are a lender that is supposed to know about financial audits. You changed your position as soon as OCM challenged you. That just shows that you had an opinion on a topic that you knew nothing about AND YOU SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT DUE TO YOUR JOB.

I only wanted your admission that this letter was worded suspiciously and you agreed.

If you were willing to change your position so quickly once OCM challenged you, why did you present an opinion to begin with? Why not just admit up front that you're not very knowledgeable about financial audits? Just goes to prove what a phony you are. This is consistant with thanking Agman for his honesty when his data supports your bias on calendar year 2004 yet demanding proof for Agman's data when it doesn't support your bias for the entire period of time when the border was closed. Only a complete phony would do that.

Claiming that ocm might be more versed on the topic than you doesn't change the fact that you already presented your opinion.

You can't dance around the fact that you agreed that this cover letter read suspiciously nor can you dance around the fact that you changed your "OPINION" on a topic you should understand.

When you changed that position is a "red herring" to the fact that you changed your position. Talk about setting up strawmen?


~SH~

I don't even know why I bother to respond to a clown like you, but here goes; I know how to read a financial statement. I make them about every day. I admitted that I did not have much experiece with non-profits. I have none as customers. I backed from my position because ocm showed he knew more about it than I did. You should try that sometime instead of riding the "wrong" horse forever. In case you haven't noticed, ocm and I get along and respect each other's opinion. Another thing you should try - respect and getting along.

I presented my opinion because YOU asked for it. If I wouldn't of, you would of accused me of running from you.

I changed my opinion because I'm smart enough to realize when somebody knows more than I do. That's how one learns and grows. You'll notice it didn't take me long, either.

Don't bother asking me for anything else.

 

[Mike]

By the way, my monthly financial statements from my accountant has the same disclaimer, and I am not "Officially" a non-profit organization. :???:

 

[Soapweed]

This whole exchange has been very funny, but unfortunately it screwed up my noon nap. Why does the old fairy tale "Little Red Riding Hood" come to mind? The big bad Lone Wolf was in disguise. :wink: You guys keep on keeping on.

 

[Sandhusker]

This whole exchange has been very funny, but unfortunately it screwed up my noon nap. Why does the old fairy tale "Little Red Riding Hood" come to mind? The big bad Lone Wolf was in disguise. :wink: You guys keep on keeping on.

The big bad Lone Wolf needs to get his story straight or he'll end up just like the wolf in the tale.

I guess honesty is simply asking too much from some folks.

 

[ocm]

Poor little Sandbag!

I am well aware of the order.

The point I'm trying to make is that you are a lender that is supposed to know about financial audits. You changed your position as soon as OCM challenged you. That just shows that you had an opinion on a topic that you knew nothing about AND YOU SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT DUE TO YOUR JOB.

I only wanted your admission that this letter was worded suspiciously and you agreed.

If you were willing to change your position so quickly once OCM challenged you, why did you present an opinion to begin with? Why not just admit up front that you're not very knowledgeable about financial audits? Just goes to prove what a phony you are. This is consistant with thanking Agman for his honesty when his data supports your bias on calendar year 2004 yet demanding proof for Agman's data when it doesn't support your bias for the entire period of time when the border was closed. Only a complete phony would do that.

Claiming that ocm might be more versed on the topic than you doesn't change the fact that you already presented your opinion.

You can't dance around the fact that you agreed that this cover letter read suspiciously nor can you dance around the fact that you changed your "OPINION" on a topic you should understand.

When you changed that position is a "red herring" to the fact that you changed your position. Talk about setting up strawmen?


~SH~

I don't even know why I bother to respond to a clown like you, but here goes; I know how to read a financial statement. I make them about every day. I admitted that I did not have much experiece with non-profits. I have none as customers. I backed from my position because ocm showed he knew more about it than I did. You should try that sometime instead of riding the "wrong" horse forever. In case you haven't noticed, ocm and I get along and respect each other's opinion. Another thing you should try - respect and getting along.

I presented my opinion because YOU asked for it. If I wouldn't of, you would of accused me of running from you.

I changed my opinion because I'm smart enough to realize when somebody knows more than I do. That's how one learns and grows. You'll notice it didn't take me long, either.

Don't bother asking me for anything else.

Sandhusker, your initial response was just exactly what we would expect from a lender. I'm not a lender. Don't want to be one. Your expertise as a lender will be handy to me someday I'm sure.

Indeed, our respect is mutual.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "Indeed, our respect is mutual."

You packer blamers need your little support groups to compensate for your lack of factual data to support your market manipulation conspiracies.

Tyson closes two packing plants to remain competitive IN AN INDUSTRY THAT YOU PACKER BLAMERS ALLEGE AS "ANTI COMPETITIVE".

Tyson loses $64 million in an industry where your hero Mike Callicrate says they are making $400 profits off the backs of producers.

Who's lying OCM? Is Tyson lying to their investors and laying off workers and closing plants to make it look like they are suffering financially???

Yeh, duck and dodge and divert. I would expect nothing less.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

OCM: "Indeed, our respect is mutual."

You packer blamers need your little support groups to compensate for your lack of factual data to support your market manipulation conspiracies.

Tyson closes two packing plants to remain competitive IN AN INDUSTRY THAT YOU PACKER BLAMERS ALLEGE AS "ANTI COMPETITIVE".

Tyson loses $64 million in an industry where your hero Mike Callicrate says they are making $400 profits off the backs of producers.

Who's lying OCM? Is Tyson lying to their investors and laying off workers and closing plants to make it look like they are suffering financially???

Yeh, duck and dodge and divert. I would expect nothing less.


~SH~

Cattlemen are worried about the competition for their cattle, SH. That is what the enumerated prohibitions in the PSA in Section 202 a-c and parts of the other sections are about, SH.

Looks like they sidelined Swift on the Japanese market which looks like the next market move. We'll see.

 

[Sandhusker]

OCM: "Indeed, our respect is mutual."

You packer blamers need your little support groups to compensate for your lack of factual data to support your market manipulation conspiracies.

Tyson closes two packing plants to remain competitive IN AN INDUSTRY THAT YOU PACKER BLAMERS ALLEGE AS "ANTI COMPETITIVE".

Tyson loses $64 million in an industry where your hero Mike Callicrate says they are making $400 profits off the backs of producers.

Who's lying OCM? Is Tyson lying to their investors and laying off workers and closing plants to make it look like they are suffering financially???

Yeh, duck and dodge and divert. I would expect nothing less.


~SH~

You base your views on the industry on one company's quarter? :roll: No wonder you can't see what is going on.

Tyson's consolidating reveals nothing about competition - only a company taking measures to increase profitibality.

Isn't there a Junior-High website that you can go to be with your intellectual peers?

 

[mrj]

OCM: "Indeed, our respect is mutual."

You packer blamers need your little support groups to compensate for your lack of factual data to support your market manipulation conspiracies.

Tyson closes two packing plants to remain competitive IN AN INDUSTRY THAT YOU PACKER BLAMERS ALLEGE AS "ANTI COMPETITIVE".

Tyson loses $64 million in an industry where your hero Mike Callicrate says they are making $400 profits off the backs of producers.

Who's lying OCM? Is Tyson lying to their investors and laying off workers and closing plants to make it look like they are suffering financially???

Yeh, duck and dodge and divert. I would expect nothing less.


~SH~

Cattlemen are worried about the competition for their cattle, SH. That is what the enumerated prohibitions in the PSA in Section 202 a-c and parts of the other sections are about, SH.

Looks like they sidelined Swift on the Japanese market which looks like the next market move. We'll see.

Econ, please tell us who "sidelined Swift on the Japanese market", and how they did it.

MRJ