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

Reminder for SH

Sandhusker

Well-known member
He're what you said today, SH; "If Creekstone included a disclaimer on every package of beef that stated, "BSE TESTED BUT NOT GUARANTEED BSE FREE", then you'd have a legitimate argument. "

But, on Nov 20, I asked you about what if Creekstone put exactly that disclaimer on every package of beef that today you said would give me a legitimate agruement. Your reply, "No I would not! A test that does not reveal anything in cattle under 24 months of age is worthless so there is no sense in testing. NEXT!"

You want to debate when you can't even keep your opinion straight? :lol: :lol: :lol: You're the keeper of factual information? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You don't know what you think - you just want to be arguementative. Just an out of control windbag. Keep talking, SH, maybe you'll blow in some rain!
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
He're what you said today, SH; "If Creekstone included a disclaimer on every package of beef that stated, "BSE TESTED BUT NOT GUARANTEED BSE FREE", then you'd have a legitimate argument. "

But, on Nov 20, I asked you about what if Creekstone put exactly that disclaimer on every package of beef that today you said would give me a legitimate agruement. Your reply, "No I would not! A test that does not reveal anything in cattle under 24 months of age is worthless so there is no sense in testing. NEXT!"

You want to debate when you can't even keep your opinion straight? :lol: :lol: :lol: You're the keeper of factual information? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You don't know what you think - you just want to be arguementative. Just an out of control windbag. Keep talking, SH, maybe you'll blow in some rain!

If I thought the wind bag could make it rain,I would pay him to come to TX :wink: ..............good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Saying that "you'd have a legitimate arument" is not saying "I would support that type of labeling".

Only a "MASTER OF ILLUSION" like you would make that leap.

You blamers can never argue at face value. You have to spin the interpretation on everything. You're such a loser!

I never said I would support that type of labeling.

Another empty tree!

NEXT!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
SH, who cares what a gopher trapper in the Dakotas would or would not support anythng? You don't support truth in labeling.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OK, SH. You're response in Nov. was "NO!, the test is worthless", but now the idea of a disclaimer is legitimate.

Keep blowing, it's terribly dry.

You're a dandy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The disclaimer on the label does not change the validity of the test. The test is not justfied by the disclaimer. If the test was valid, no disclaimer would be needed.

To your credit Sandhusker, I know you relish in acting stupid. I know you're really not that stupid. I just call you a moron and an idiot because you relish in acting stupid. That's not normal behavior.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You were totally against the idea in Nov. when I brought it up, but now it is a legitimate arguement. Can you say "inconsistant", children?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
The disclaimer on the label does not change the validity of the test. The test is not justfied by the disclaimer. If the test was valid, no disclaimer would be needed.

To your credit Sandhusker, I know you relish in acting stupid. I know you're really not that stupid. I just call you a moron and an idiot because you relish in being stupid. That's not normal behavior.


~SH~

So who appointed you to decide if the test was valid or not? Do you also propose that all meat be in packaging that hides the meat and that we all just trust the USDA that it is good? Perhaps you suggest the NCBA putting their name to it. Maybe we could all shop at the same store blindfolded so as not to allow anyone any choice in the matter.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandsnake: "You were totally against the idea in Nov. when I brought it up, but now it is a legitimate arguement. Can you say "inconsistant", children?"

IF Creekstone was allowed to sell bse tested beef, the argument to include a disclaimer with that beef would be a legitimate argument. That doesn't mean I support selling bse tested beef just because I support the disclaimer. The disclaimer does not justify the test.

Besides, you didn't argue for the disclaimer, you claimed that Creekstone's admission that "bse tested does not mean bse free" was good enough.

The disclaimer does not validate the test. You can't spin what I've stated to your satisfaction. I do not support bse testing of cattle under 24 months of age with or without a disclaimer period.

There's no inconsistancy but you can try to create that illusion if you like. I see you have a handful of blamer cheerleaders here to help you.

NEXT!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Who cares what you think, SH. You are not the customer.

Furthermore, if you didn't want to test your beef, you wouldn't have to. It is a free country.
 
Top