R-CALF Convention in January

[Bill]

Sandhusker, I don't mean to drive you away from attending but I would point out that a likely speaker will be Secretary Johanns.

And get this, HE asked to come to speak. He is to be a luncheon speaker. (It may have to be a light lunch).

Now let me try understand this. The US Secretatry of Agriculture ASKS to come and speak to a group struggling with credibility and getting NATIONAL media attention and he is a "likely" luncheon speaker.

That's too funny!!!!! :lol: I would think that the powers that be in the Klan shopuld be tripping over themselves and getting him added as a headliner on their agenda as early as possible. A little over a month away from the convention and their speakers aren't finalized?

 

[Anonymous]

ocm,

How can R-CULT maintain any credibility when they said "canadian beef is high risk and contaminated due to having bse in their native herd" then turn around and say that "we have the safest beef in the world due to our precautionary measures" after we had bse in our native herd WHEN THE BSE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES ARE THE SAME IN EACH COUNTRY???

Hmmmm???

Answer that question OCM!

Most everyone in Washington could see right through that pack of lies. That will be R-CULT's legacy. Nobody with any conscience can support an organization that lies and deceives like R-CULT does.

For R-CULT, the end justifies the means.

Sandcheska: "How can rules that were based on knowledge be outdated when that same knowledge is still current?"

Risk designations must consider the bse precautionary measures that have been applied. That is how other countries will also perceive us. Only hypocritical R-CULT wants to play both sides of the argument.

Sandcheska: "Some folks want BSE testing. What is it to you if I want to meet their need?"

First, the only people who want bse testing assume "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE". If that is not the case, then it's fraud.

Second, I don't want your UNJUSTIFIED desire to deceive consumers with a fraudulent bse test impose an unnecessary expense on the rest of the industry.

Sandcheska: "How are you being injured?"

Not injuring someone is not justification for deceiving them with a fraudulent test.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "I'm not going to comment on your deliberate misinterpretations, Tam."

Talk is no cheaper than it is from you Sandcheska.

POINT OUT THE MISINTERPRETATIONS CHEAP TALKER!

Watch the diversion.........


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

"Quote:
Sandcheska: "How can rules that were based on knowledge be outdated when that same knowledge is still current?"


SH, "Risk designations must consider the bse precautionary measures that have been applied. That is how other countries will also perceive us. Only hypocritical R-CULT wants to play both sides of the argument."

Those precautionary measures aren't new. They were known when policy was set.


Quote:
Sandcheska: "Some folks want BSE testing. What is it to you if I want to meet their need?"


SH, "First, the only people who want bse testing assume "BSE TESTED" means "BSE FREE". If that is not the case, then it's fraud."

The only reason somebody buys hormone free is because they think it is safer then regular beef. Both you and the USDA says hormone free is NOT safer. That would be fraud as well. You're pretty selective on your fraud policing.

SH, "Second, I don't want your UNJUSTIFIED desire to deceive consumers with a fraudulent bse test impose an unnecessary expense on the rest of the industry."

What expense on the rest of the industry? If Creekstone sells tested beef to the Japanese, what expense does Tyson incur?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandcheska: "Those precautionary measures aren't new. They were known when policy was set."

Whether or not the precuationary measures were "KNOWN" is a red herring. The issue is the IMPLEMENTATION of those precautionary measures, not knowledge of them you idiot. Their implementation and measured effectiveness is what changes the risk designation.

Sandcheska: "The only reason somebody buys hormone free is because they think it is safer then regular beef. Both you and the USDA says hormone free is NOT safer. That would be fraud as well. You're pretty selective on your fraud policing."

There is no label claiming "hormone free beef" to be safer. That would be fraud. Offering it to consumers is not fraud and it's certainly not less safe.

In contrast, when consumers buy "bse tested" beef, they expect it to be "bse free". That is not the case with the test Creekstone planned to use and they admitted that.

Sandcheska: "What expense on the rest of the industry? If Creekstone sells tested beef to the Japanese, what expense does Tyson incur?"

I am talking about 100% bse testing. If Creekstone's test was legitimate, which is not so we are talking hypothetically again, it would add an expense that would need to be offset by a higher selling price or lower purchase price for cattle.


~SH~

 

[Mike]

If Creekstone's test was legitimate, which is not so

Do you know which test Creekstone wanted to use? If it is "not legitimate", why does the USDA, the Japs and most every other country use it.

Did the USDA not say, that the test is sufficiently sensitive as to find PrPsc If they were possibly there?

Ron (SANTA GERTRUBIS) De Haven:"Screening tests are designed to identify, to be very, very sensitive to identify any positive animals. But naturally as you increase that sensitivity you also increase the possibility that you will have samples that show positive on a screening test which in fact are not positive."


Your argument is comical.

 

[mrj]

Mike, how is it going to help the cattle/beef industry and the consumer to have frequent false positive BSE tests making the headlines if/when all the cattle are tested?

It certainly will be a boon to the anti-animal agriculture people who are increasing their attacks!!!!

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Mike, how is it going to help the cattle/beef industry and the consumer to have frequent false positive BSE tests making the headlines if/when all the cattle are tested?

It certainly will be a boon to the anti-animal agriculture people who are increasing their attacks!!!!

MRJ

Simple- you quickly retest and don't announce anything until you have a true positive......

 

[Mike]

Mike, how is it going to help the cattle/beef industry and the consumer to have frequent false positive BSE tests making the headlines if/when all the cattle are tested?

It certainly will be a boon to the anti-animal agriculture people who are increasing their attacks!!!!

MRJ

I cannot believe you asked this question. Since the tests are usually conducted at "Contract" labs, just tell them to keep their mouth shut until a confirmatory test is done. :???:

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandcheska: "Those precautionary measures aren't new. They were known when policy was set."


SH,"Whether or not the precuationary measures were "KNOWN" is a red herring. The issue is the IMPLEMENTATION of those precautionary measures, not knowledge of them you idiot. Their implementation and measured effectiveness is what changes the risk designation."

"MEASURED EFFECTIVENESS " I'd say that when half of your cases are born AFTER the "precautionary measures" - the last one discovered 5 YEARS after, the effectiveness has been measured - and it doesn't measure up.

Britian has done much more than Canada, why weren't you, the packers, and the USDA squaking to open the border to them?


Quote:
Sandcheska: "The only reason somebody buys hormone free is because they think it is safer then regular beef. Both you and the USDA says hormone free is NOT safer. That would be fraud as well. You're pretty selective on your fraud policing."


SH, "There is no label claiming "hormone free beef" to be safer. That would be fraud."

There is no label claiming BSE tested beef to be safer, either. Strike one.

SH, "Offering it to consumers is not fraud and it's certainly not less safe."

BSE tested beef is not less safe than non-tested, either. Strike two.

SH, "In contrast, when consumers buy "bse tested" beef, they expect it to be "bse free". That is not the case with the test Creekstone planned to use and they admitted that. "

Creekstone also said that BSE tested does not mean BSE free. For an outfit trying to deceive consumers, they sure have a funny way of going about it.

Consumers buy hormone free because they expect it to be safer. Strike three. Get out.


Quote:
Sandcheska: "What expense on the rest of the industry? If Creekstone sells tested beef to the Japanese, what expense does Tyson incur?"

SH, "I am talking about 100% bse testing. If Creekstone's test was legitimate, which is not so we are talking hypothetically again, it would add an expense that would need to be offset by a higher selling price or lower purchase price for cattle. "

Creekstone was talking about VOLUNTARY testing. You don't even know the topic.

Hormone free carries with it added expenses. Do does organic. So does Kosher. So does Halal. So does source verified. These are offset by higher selling prices, as "extras" should be. The same would be with BSE tested.

You should try thinking before forming an opinion, instead of just trying to defend everything the USDA does. You just got shot down in flames - and it was sooooooo easy.

 

[Mike]

John Clifford, Head APHIS Vet:

"This inconclusive result does not mean we have found a new case of BSE. Inconclusive results are a normal component of most screening tests, which are designed to be extremely sensitive so they will detect any sample that could possibly be positive."

And SH uses the term "legitimate", or "not legitimate"?

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, you would make a good packer inspector. Hide food safety as much as you can. "What they don't know won't hurt them" mentality.

Are you honest about anything?

 

[ocm]

Sandhusker, I don't mean to drive you away from attending but I would point out that a likely speaker will be Secretary Johanns.

And get this, HE asked to come to speak. He is to be a luncheon speaker. (It may have to be a light lunch).

Now let me try understand this. The US Secretatry of Agriculture ASKS to come and speak to a group struggling with credibility and getting NATIONAL media attention and he is a "likely" luncheon speaker.

That's too funny!!!!! :lol: I would think that the powers that be in the Klan shopuld be tripping over themselves and getting him added as a headliner on their agenda as early as possible. A little over a month away from the convention and their speakers aren't finalized?

Last I knew the BOD of R-CALF had not confirmed an invitation to him. I think it is likely they will (if they haven't already by now).

Most of the speakers are a have been finalized for quite some time.

You must think Johanns is a person to be worshipped. R-CALF board members that I know see him as quite ordinary (except for the honor due him for the office he holds).

 

[ocm]

ocm,

How can R-CULT maintain any credibility when they said "canadian beef is high risk and contaminated due to having bse in their native herd" then turn around and say that "we have the safest beef in the world due to our precautionary measures" after we had bse in our native herd WHEN THE BSE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES ARE THE SAME IN EACH COUNTRY???

Hmmmm???

Answer that question OCM!
~SH~

In order for me tho answer your specific question I would have to know the context of the (alleged) quotes. Who said them, when, and the surrounding statements. All of these make a difference in interpretation.

My questions for you are:

Are the percentages of positives (per total cattle population) the same for the US and Canada.

Is the effectivesness of the MBM feed ban the same in the US and Canada (based on BSE positives)

Is the type of BSE found in the US versus Canada the same?

The answer in all cases is that it is not the same.

That means that with regard to BSE, the US and Canada are different.

And yet you want them to be treated the same. Is this some communist plot to lower everybody to the same equal common denominator that you are pushing here.

IF THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THEY SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

 

[Anonymous]

ocm: "In order for me tho answer your specific question I would have to know the context of the (alleged) quotes. Who said them, when, and the surrounding statements. All of these make a difference in interpretation."

Dodging the bullet just as I suspected. Come on OCM, you know that R-CULT's claims were that Canadian beef was "high risk" and "contaminated" due to having bse in their native herd. They stated that in court documents and in their Washington Post add.

Are you trying to deny this?

Leo McDonnell said, "we have the safest beef in the world due to our precautionary measures" when responding to what the US would say about bse if we had a native case.

How do you take that out of context? Now in order for R-CULT to take their "high risk" and "contaminated" position on Canada, and their "safest beef in the world" position with the US if we had the same number of bse cases, there would have to be a noticeable difference in the precautionary measures in each country.

What are those differences OCM?

Ocm: "Are the percentages of positives (per total cattle population) the same for the US and Canada."

That number would still be misleading because it depends on what percentage of those cattle in the highest risk categories were tested. Dead, dying, diseased, and downers. If one country tested a higher percentage of 4d cattle, the percentages would be misleading.

Typical of R-CULT's slithering ways.

OCM: "Is the effectivesness of the MBM feed ban the same in the US and Canada (based on BSE positives)"

Again, that would depend on whether you were comparing apples to apples on the percentages in the highest risk categories.

OCM: "Is the type of BSE found in the US versus Canada the same?"

I don't know! You tell me!

Ocm: "The answer in all cases is that it is not the same."

So here is the million dollar question for you to divert,

If in all cases it was the same, would our beef be considered "high risk" and "contaminated".

Yes or no?

Very simple straight to the point question that you will unquestionably divert so as to not discredit your hypocritical position.

OCM: "That means that with regard to BSE, the US and Canada are different."

They very well could be. We could have more BSE positives than is being found due to the fact that Canada tested more cattle in the highest risk categories. Canada, to their credit, wanted to find what was out there despite how the R-CULT import blamers would use it against them.

OCM: "Is this some communist plot to lower everybody to the same equal common denominator that you are pushing here."

Not hardly, the communist plot to lower everybody to the same equal level is your communist plan to allow the government to pick and choose who can and who cannot own cattle through the communist packer ban.

OCM: "IF THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THEY SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY."

If their situations were exactly the same, would our beef be considered by R-CULT as "high risk" and "contaminated" or does that just apply to imports?

You couldn't defend R-CULT's hypocrisy here if your life depended on it. You'd change the rules to fit the game just like Dennis McDonald did when he once said that we may have to consider not slaughtering cows if bse was ever found in the US. What happened to that? Change the rules to fit the game. R-CULT's MO which is why they have no credibility in Washington, D.C.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "Do you know which test Creekstone wanted to use? If it is "not legitimate", why does the USDA, the Japs and most every other country use it.

Did the USDA not say, that the test is sufficiently sensitive as to find PrPsc If they were possibly there?

Ron (SANTA GERTRUBIS) De Haven:"Screening tests are designed to identify, to be very, very sensitive to identify any positive animals. But naturally as you increase that sensitivity you also increase the possibility that you will have samples that show positive on a screening test which in fact are not positive."


Your argument is comical."

No Mike, what's comical is your deception that the effectiveness of Creekstone's test when used on cattle older than 24 - 30 months of age applies to cattle under 24 months of age also WHICH IS WHAT CREEKSTONE PLANNED TO TEST.

If Creekstone's test is legitimate on cattle under 24 months of age, why did Creekstone admit that their test didn't guarantee cattle to be "bse free" when questioned? Hmmmm? Can't answer that can you?

Nice try Mike but your apples to oranges comparison (comparing tests on cattle over 30 months to tests on cattle under 24 months of age) is another empty tree. Par for the course. The last time you turned this same dog out, he got run over then too.

Sandcheska: ""MEASURED EFFECTIVENESS " I'd say that when half of your cases are born AFTER the "precautionary measures" - the last one discovered 5 YEARS after, the effectiveness has been measured - and it doesn't measure up."

The MBM feed ban has been accepted world wide as the necessary step in ridding the world of bse. Those positives after the ban could have easily been from the phase out period of the feed ban or due to cross contamination of other feeds which has also been addressed.

SRM removal assures the safety of the beef despite R-CULT's lies to the contrary.

Increased surveilance testing has shown no new cases of bse.

You R-CULTers are simply using bse as a convenient non tarriff trade barrier to stop Canadian imports because you are ignorant about the affect of Canadian imports on our market nor do you understand how banning Canadian imports would affect our export markets. You R-CULTers are just plain ignorant on trade issues all the way around.

If the effectiveness of the bse precautionary measures does not measure up, WHERE'S ALL THE POSITIVE COWS.

Sandcheska: "Britian has done much more than Canada, why weren't you, the packers, and the USDA squaking to open the border to them?"

Not my concern!

Sandcheska: "There is no label claiming BSE tested beef to be safer, either. Strike one."

If bse tested beef is not safer, then there is no reason to test.

Great job defeating your own argument with a stupid wiffle ball that didn't make it 10' past the pitcher's mound.

Sandcheska: "BSE tested beef is not less safe than non-tested, either."

BSE testing cattle under 24 months of age with a test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age is consumer fraud and therefore not justified so your point on bse tested beef not being less safe is irrelevant. Another swing and a miss.

Sandcheska: "Creekstone also said that BSE tested does not mean BSE free."

Sandcheska: "For an outfit trying to deceive consumers, they sure have a funny way of going about it."

Creekstone was selling an "ILLUSION OF SAFETY" and had no intention of letting consumers know that "bse tested" does not mean "bse free". They only admitted that to critics that held their feet to the fire.

Another empty self defeating argument.

Sandcheska: "Consumers buy hormone free because they expect it to be safer. Strike three. Get out."

Some consumers buy hormone free beef because they believe it's safer. Some consumers want "bse tested" beef because they believe "bse tested" means "bse free" but it doesn't. It's consumer fraud. "Hormone free" is not consumer fraud because "hormone free" doesn't mean anything but "hormone free".

Sandcheska: "Creekstone was talking about VOLUNTARY testing."

Creekstone was talking about bse testing cattle under 24 months of age with a test that would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age. That is consumer fraud.

Sandcheska: "Hormone free carries with it added expenses. Do does organic. So does Kosher. So does Halal. So does source verified. These are offset by higher selling prices, as "extras" should be. The same would be with BSE tested."

The difference is, there is no justification for bse testing cattle under 24 months of age with a test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age. It's like testing young boys for prostrate cancer but you'd support that too if the packers were against it.

Sandcheska: "You should try thinking before forming an opinion, instead of just trying to defend everything the USDA does. You just got shot down in flames - and it was sooooooo easy."

Hahaha! Listen to you little ankle biter. Shot down in flames.....pffft! The only flames around here are coming out of your ears.

You simply cannot argue the fact that Creekstone's bse test would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age and that is the only point that needs to be made. That is consumer fraud and you cannot justify it.

NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Some consumers buy hormone free beef because they believe it's safer. Some consumers want "bse tested" beef because they believe "bse tested" means "bse free" but it doesn't. It's consumer fraud. "Hormone free" is not consumer fraud because "hormone free" doesn't mean anything but "hormone free"."


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Let me see if I have this straight......
BSE tested is not safer than non tested, yet people buy it because they think it is.
Hormone free is not safer than regular, yet people buy it because they think it is.
BSE tested product is fraud because people are not getting the safer product that they think they are
Hormone free is not fraud because people are not getting the safer product they think they are. Hold on.... are they getting the safer product they think they are, SH? If they're paying for safer product, but not getting it, doen't that meet the definition of fraud?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I can see SH getting interviewed at the meat counter on TV'
TV: I see you're buying hormone free beef there. Why are you buying it?
SH: Because it is hormone free.
TV: Yes, I stated that, but what does "hormone free" mean?
SH: It means it's hormone free.
TV: OK.... Let's try this; What are the advantages? Is it safer?
SH: No.
TV: Does it cost more?
SH: Yes.
TV: Then why do you buy it?
SH: Because it's hormone free
TV: (laughing) Some people equate Angus with quality. What do you equate hormone free to?
SH: Hormone free
TV: Did you go to a "special" school?
SH: LIAR! DIVERSION! R-CULT!

 

[Anonymous]

What a deceptive spin job.

Sandcheska: "Let me see if I have this straight......"

You don't have anything straight and I seriously doubt you ever will!

Sandcheska: "BSE tested is not safer than non tested, yet people buy it because they think it is."

BSE tested beef from cattle under 24 months of age from a bse test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age is not safer than non tested.

A legitimate bse test that would reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age if those prions were present would be safer than non tested beef.

That's not what Creekstone was planning.

Who is buying bse tested beef? Name them!

Sandcheska: "Hormone free is not safer than regular, yet people buy it because they think it is."

Based on the studies, a head of lettuce has more of the same hormones than beef from cattle that have been implanted so yes, some people buy it because they believe it's safer.

Sandcheska: "BSE tested product is fraud because people are not getting the safer product that they think they are"

No, bse tested beef is fraud IF the beef is from cattle under 24 months of age and the bse test that was used would not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age.

The fraud is in the misrepresentation of the test Creekstone planned to use on cattle under 24 months of age.

You just can't spin it to your satisfaction can you?

Sandcheska: "Hormone free is not fraud because people are not getting the safer product they think they are."

Hormone free beef is not fraud because it is hormone free beef.

If you want to draw an accurate comparison, then you would compare Creekstone's bse testing to "hormone free beef" that was from cattle that were given hormones. That would be fraud. "Hormone free beef" from a test that could not detect hormones would also be fraud.

Sandcheska: "Hold on.... are they getting the safer product they think they are, SH?"

No, they are getting a product that they believe is safer but it's not.

Sandcheska: "If they're paying for safer product, but not getting it, doen't that meet the definition of fraud?"

Not hardly! USDA is not claiming that hormone free beef is safer.

Just because a consumer believes hormone free beef is safer and someone is willing to capitalize on that does not mean there is fraud UNLESS SOMEONE MAKES THAT CLAIM WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVE IT.

This is so funny! I have never seen anyone so desperate to justify consumer fraud.


~SH~

 

[ocm]

ocm: "In order for me tho answer your specific question I would have to know the context of the (alleged) quotes. Who said them, when, and the surrounding statements. All of these make a difference in interpretation."

Dodging the bullet just as I suspected. Come on OCM, you know that R-CULT's claims were that Canadian beef was "high risk" and "contaminated" due to having bse in their native herd. They stated that in court documents and in their Washington Post add.

Are you trying to deny this?

Leo McDonnell said, "we have the safest beef in the world due to our precautionary measures" when responding to what the US would say about bse if we had a native case.

How do you take that out of context? Now in order for R-CULT to take their "high risk" and "contaminated" position on Canada, and their "safest beef in the world" position with the US if we had the same number of bse cases, there would have to be a noticeable difference in the precautionary measures in each country.

What are those differences OCM?

Ocm: "Are the percentages of positives (per total cattle population) the same for the US and Canada."

That number would still be misleading because it depends on what percentage of those cattle in the highest risk categories were tested. Dead, dying, diseased, and downers. If one country tested a higher percentage of 4d cattle, the percentages would be misleading.

Typical of R-CULT's slithering ways.

OCM: "Is the effectivesness of the MBM feed ban the same in the US and Canada (based on BSE positives)"

Again, that would depend on whether you were comparing apples to apples on the percentages in the highest risk categories.

OCM: "Is the type of BSE found in the US versus Canada the same?"

I don't know! You tell me!

Ocm: "The answer in all cases is that it is not the same."

So here is the million dollar question for you to divert,

If in all cases it was the same, would our beef be considered "high risk" and "contaminated".

Yes or no?

Very simple straight to the point question that you will unquestionably divert so as to not discredit your hypocritical position.

OCM: "That means that with regard to BSE, the US and Canada are different."

They very well could be. We could have more BSE positives than is being found due to the fact that Canada tested more cattle in the highest risk categories. Canada, to their credit, wanted to find what was out there despite how the R-CULT import blamers would use it against them.

OCM: "Is this some communist plot to lower everybody to the same equal common denominator that you are pushing here."

Not hardly, the communist plot to lower everybody to the same equal level is your communist plan to allow the government to pick and choose who can and who cannot own cattle through the communist packer ban.

OCM: "IF THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THEY SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY."

If their situations were exactly the same, would our beef be considered by R-CULT as "high risk" and "contaminated" or does that just apply to imports?

You couldn't defend R-CULT's hypocrisy here if your life depended on it. You'd change the rules to fit the game just like Dennis McDonald did when he once said that we may have to consider not slaughtering cows if bse was ever found in the US. What happened to that? Change the rules to fit the game. R-CULT's MO which is why they have no credibility in Washington, D.C.


~SH~

I rest my case.

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandcheska: "If they're paying for safer product, but not getting it, doen't that meet the definition of fraud?"


SH, "Not hardly! USDA is not claiming that hormone free beef is safer"

You dodged. I think my point has been proven to anybody with an I.Q. over 50.