SH - Help me understand!
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
Agman asking you a question???
Hahahahaha!
For entertainment value regarding your response, possibly!
~SH~
Hahahahaha!
For entertainment value regarding your response, possibly!
~SH~
agman
Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Your question about "pi" was directed to someone else as I recall.
First question: Under "Duabert" is it not a requirement that theories be tested for validity to have any bearing with the court? A yes or no answer will do.
Second question: Did Domina co-author a publication with Azzam as you indicated? This is a copy of your comment verbatim from a previous post. "I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication." Later you said he did not publish with Azzam, which is it?
A simple yes or no answer will do.
Mike
Well-known member
agman wrote:
The answer is, Yes. Judge Strom addressed the testing requirements pre-trial and cleared the "testing" of Taylor's equations at that time.
Judge Strom; "Dr. Taylor conducted numerous tests which appear to confirm the reliability of his conclusion." " He corroborated his opinion by using the Granger causality test. Dr. Taylor used the econometric procedure of cross-validation to examine the validity of the relationship between captive supply and the cash market price."
The answer is, Yes. Judge Strom addressed the testing requirements pre-trial and cleared the "testing" of Taylor's equations at that time.
Judge Strom; "Dr. Taylor conducted numerous tests which appear to confirm the reliability of his conclusion." " He corroborated his opinion by using the Granger causality test. Dr. Taylor used the econometric procedure of cross-validation to examine the validity of the relationship between captive supply and the cash market price."
I believe the first question and your statement on pi were answered in the following former post by me:
This post answers your first question, Agman. Please read the next to last paragraph, Agman. Read it real carefully. This post was in reply to your previous post.
I guess we can all surmise from the above post that you are not miles ahead of me when it comes to having court transcripts. You are included in the pi question. We can conclude, however, that you are a cherry picker when it comes to your understanding of what someone else says. Maybe you were trying to make a cherry pi.
The jury was charged with the responsibility of discerning the truth of the evidence, not judge Strom. They heard the evidence and they decided.
Second question:
Azzam told me he published Domina's article. This was published in the publication he oversees. I never said that Azzam co-published an article with Domina. Very similar wording but very different meanings. You again made the frog leap and jumped to conclusions, not I.
Where is the yes or no question? When you structure a question where the answer is ambiguous it requires clarification of the question. Do you want to try again, or do you wish to remain a frog?
This post answers your first question, Agman. Please read the next to last paragraph, Agman. Read it real carefully. This post was in reply to your previous post.
I guess we can all surmise from the above post that you are not miles ahead of me when it comes to having court transcripts. You are included in the pi question. We can conclude, however, that you are a cherry picker when it comes to your understanding of what someone else says. Maybe you were trying to make a cherry pi.
The jury was charged with the responsibility of discerning the truth of the evidence, not judge Strom. They heard the evidence and they decided.
Second question:
Azzam told me he published Domina's article. This was published in the publication he oversees. I never said that Azzam co-published an article with Domina. Very similar wording but very different meanings. You again made the frog leap and jumped to conclusions, not I.
Where is the yes or no question? When you structure a question where the answer is ambiguous it requires clarification of the question. Do you want to try again, or do you wish to remain a frog?
agman
Well-known member
Mike said:
Why then did he say under cross exam, not pre-trail, that he failed to test his theories? You keep confusing pre-trail with the actual testimony at trial. Those are two vastly different issues. But thanks for answering my question with a "yes" which is the correct answer. There is no further need to discuss this as by his own admission under oath Dr Taylor admitted he did not test his theories for validity. Those are his words, not mine. I am certain you can locate that in the TRIAL transcript Mike.
agman
Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Mr Phony, you have yet to answer a question. Mike had the integrity to answer the simple yes or no question which I posed. BTW Mike answered the question correctly with a "yes". Wow, you of all people ASSUME I do not know how to calculate the circumference of a circle!!! What a laugh from a disgruntled, tenured teacher of the art of false accusation.
You only printed one part of what the court said regarding Taylor's claims. You failed to print their comment regarding his testimony, footnote #7 from page 13 of their opinion. Is that just a coincidence or oversight on your part? You also failed to acknowledge that under oath at trail he admitted he failed to test his own theories for validity. What legal requirement is there for theories advanced to the court that they MUST be tested for validity????? Ask Mike, he knows since it is apparent that you don't.
I never said Azzam co-authored with Domina. What you said was that "Domina co-authored with Azzam". I posted your own comments twice. Are you in denial of that comment or do I need to post it again in bold print? A simple yes or no answer will do. This is a copy, for the third time, of your comment verbatim from your previous post. "I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication." I copied your spelling error and all, just like Judge Cebull did!!!!! BTW, you mispelled Azzan sic, the correct spelling is AZZAM. ...pi!!!!!
I have to assume the simple and basic questions I asked were over your head since you again went into a dissertation which appealed only to yourself and provided nor proved any result. Maybe those are frogs your you hear tapping on your phone-tap, tap. I my be a frog as you CLAIM but that has been plenty sufficient to out wit you. Go back to the classroom and try to impress your students with more grandiose claims of you intellectual prowess. You have been a total and absolute failure here.
Agman, it is clear you do not know how to discern clear text. You probably have made the same mistake with your trial records. Let us go over your mistakes on this forum.
Agman wrote:
Of course here is my original text:
PROOF that it is clear that you can not even interpret written text, Agman. You are a frog. Not only do you jump around with your little conclusions, but you rail against other people when you CLAIM that they do it. You should more accurately be called Frogman, instead of Agman.
As far as my research for GIPSA, you better believe they know it and they know that I am right. It is probably too technical for you.
Why don't you and SH go back to your day jobs. This Pickett business is way over your head and you have shown it. You go over the same old arguments the jury did not buy.
If all you can pick apart are typing errors then go get a teaching job at an elementary school. SH is fond of Kindergarten so maybe you can join him in his playgroup.
By the way, since we are on spelling errors, here are yours:
Agman wrote:
I don't think you are going to get that teaching job, Agman, you have two misspellings in that one sentence: calculalte and cirlce.
Agman wrote:
Of course here is my original text:
PROOF that it is clear that you can not even interpret written text, Agman. You are a frog. Not only do you jump around with your little conclusions, but you rail against other people when you CLAIM that they do it. You should more accurately be called Frogman, instead of Agman.
As far as my research for GIPSA, you better believe they know it and they know that I am right. It is probably too technical for you.
Why don't you and SH go back to your day jobs. This Pickett business is way over your head and you have shown it. You go over the same old arguments the jury did not buy.
If all you can pick apart are typing errors then go get a teaching job at an elementary school. SH is fond of Kindergarten so maybe you can join him in his playgroup.
By the way, since we are on spelling errors, here are yours:
Agman wrote:
I don't think you are going to get that teaching job, Agman, you have two misspellings in that one sentence: calculalte and cirlce.
agman
Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Hey prof, I did at least catch my own spelling errors in case you did not notice. That is one more up on you. Once again you jump around the issue regarding what you posted. This is your post for the fourth time verbatim from your previous post. "I believe Domina published something on that in Azzan's publication." What he published is irrelevant, because later you said he did not publish with Azzam. You can't keep your story straight. I guess you are just to intellectual to admit your error. But then again all you do is make accusations.
I am certain you have sent research to GIPSA. The same type of crap that others like you who are also full of accusations send. I would credit you with the phony claim of a "shift" in the demand curve caused by captive supply that was sent to GIPSA since you have mentioned that supposed shift frequently in your effort to impress readers. But I know that failed piece of research was sent by a woman prof from Oregon. Her work went down in flames upon review by GIPSA economists so don't think you have the original work on that issue. Regarding your work sent to GIPSA, don't bet on it that it is too technical for me. Don't shower yourself in your intellectual prowess, remember a frog is at home in the water.
As far as being in over one's head, I am certain you know that feeling all to well since you have not been on top of one issue per the Pickett trial. You post one sentence and then take a phony stand on your supposed legal prowess. Your MO, since you have nothing else to offer, is a "back room deal". That is the typical conclusion of one who is ignorant the facts of the trial. Your other phony hypotheses that packers manipulated the market selectively is another of your untested accusations. Just like Taylor who could not show any downward influence from captive supply in 1999-2000, the first two years of rising beef demand. I wonder if he has figured that one out yet? I guess the packers were just selectively generous!!!!!
Regarding the jury, this is the same jury who rejected Taylor's damage assessment. Since no other assessment was shown how did they determine that on their own? I guess they truly did not listen to the testimony. No wonder they failed to realize Taylor was undressed by the defense attorney during cross exam. Remember that he said under oath "he did not test his own theories for validity" or have you not gotten that far in your review of the trail testimony? Those tests for validity are required by the court; he failed. A rambling legal wizard like you certainly knows the legal requirement-Mike knows. He had the integrity to admit it, my compliments.
I may be that frog, but I drug you into the deep water and drowned you in your many phony claims. You are just too easy. Go back to your classroom and impress yourself. Watch out for those wire taps, you might trip over one. If you were lucky enough to be a frog you could just leap over them-no problem!!
agman said:
Yes, Agman, it is just like you to correct mistakes and then say you are vindicated. In the post you were ranting about my spelling errors and then you make two in one sentence. Just because you went back and edited doesn't preclude you from obtaining the crown of hypocrisy. Revisionist!
To set the record straight, I said that Domina published something in Azzam's publication, not that he co-published with Azzam. You made the mistake, not I. It was your froggie jumping that lost you your credibility. Keep it up, your frog legs are growing bigger and bigger with each jump.
I am sure this is exactly what the jury saw with the Tyson witnesses.
Mike's posting on this forum proves that you can not read. You continually compliment Mike on his posting but your comprehension of the post gets a failing grade.
This type of argument does remind me high school. I can go round with you on ANY level. Sometimes I just choose not to. Just because you claim you are right every time, change the facts to fit your story, and just make up stuff does not make you credible. You are a legend in your own mind and a few whose minds are too weak to think for themselves.
The GIPSA economists are a bunch of industry lackeys. They even admit they can not get the information they want to do definitive studies and then they hide behind the "no evidence" theory the packers made up. Senator Grassley put in the money for a better team but we got the same ole same ole. That is why the producers in this industry want concentration limits. I happen to agree with them but they are not going to get it from a justice system that is run as poorly as this one. The lack of oversight of the committees in congress is paid off big time for big agribusiness.
Here is my question for you, Agman: Who put in the Robinson-Patman example in the appellate court's brief? It truly showed their ignorance of economic reasoning. Was it GIPSA economists? That would be about their level. Was it the OGC? They could have made that mistake easily. Or was it the general council for Tyson at the USDA or the leadership in the House and Senate who bend over everytime Agribusiness wants them to in exchange for a little consideration? No matter who did it, it is apparent that the appellate brief was a joke. The best brief money could buy. They would have had a better deal on briefs down in the underwear isle at their Wal-mart store.
The pendulum is swinging, Agman. We may have your froglegs for dinner, but I bet they would taste a lot like TYSON CHICKEN!!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Kindergarten Economics,
For being so factually unarmed, I have to admire your level of self confidence. You remind me of a jungle guide from Animal Planet comforting others that the trail is safe as the quicksand he just stepped in moves from his shoulders to his neck. LOL!
You are truly entertaining.
"The jury got it right, the jury understood it, ...............hahaha!
Your proof is so overwhelming.
~SH~
For being so factually unarmed, I have to admire your level of self confidence. You remind me of a jungle guide from Animal Planet comforting others that the trail is safe as the quicksand he just stepped in moves from his shoulders to his neck. LOL!
You are truly entertaining.
"The jury got it right, the jury understood it, ...............hahaha!
Your proof is so overwhelming.
~SH~
agman
Well-known member
Econ101 said:
You drowned in you own escapade of assumptions for which you provided no facts. You ran from a simple yes or no question regarding the legality of testing theories advanced to the court by falsely claiming I could not read. Mike answered the question correctly with a "yes". You hang onto your interpretation of the law while the appellate court was unanimous that from a legal perspective the case was not difficult and the plaintiffs lost on all counts. You claim Taylor's testimony as fact then fail to explain why the jury rejected his own calculation. Either Taylor's calculation was wrong or the jury got it wrong. which is it? You fail to acknowledge the legal pitfall Taylor created for himself when he admitted under oath that he failed to test his own theories for validity which is a legal requirement. You accept Cebull's abysmal and mostly copied opinion then chastise Judge Strom and the the Circuit Court of Appeals. You failed to answer the legal framework from which Judge Strom legally and correctly voided the jury verdict.
Furthermore, you claim you have submitted data to GIPSA which I do believe would be totally worthless. That submission of data from someone such as yourself who is was so absent fact that you had to ask a basic question on this forum regrading the decline in per capita consumption of beef. BTW, that process began long before marketing agreements and the level of packer concentration and meat industry integration we have today. Who would you blame for that? In your text book world of hypothetical do you even know that consumers exist?
You reference a variable in econometric models. How accurate was your data submitted to GIPSA if you failed to have a variable adjusting for the changing demand structure overtime. Your submission was plain junk, buried by what you don't know as opposed to what you always claim to know in your fantasy world. Taylor seemed to run into the same problem when he could not explain why no downward price bias exited in 1999-2000. Have you gotten that far in the transcript? How about the fact that beef demand began to improve during the fourth quarter of 1998 ending a nineteen year decline? Could that be an serious oversight in Taylor's work.
Last but not least you expect the sane world to believe your phone is or was tapped? You are such an intellectual that the whole world wants to know what you say. I am astonished that in your fairy tale world you forgot that the frog, which you have called me, turned into a prince.
agman said:
In any question the person being asked should be able to have clarification of the question so that the answer matches what is being asked. If you can not ask an unambiguous question, I will answer it unambiguously even if that might tax your frog brain. Kudos to Mike for posting an answer from the trial transcripts, even if it does not match the answer you wanted. You are just trying to dance around the evidence again.
Taylor had to make a calculated estimate of the damages. An exact answer was not required nor necessary. Your wanting an exact number is like me asking you to give me an exact number to your calculation (which you boasted you could do but you never did) of pi. I could always say you were wrong because it is an irrational number, just like your arguments. Juries are not required to give exact numbers to estimated damages. They are asked a judgment question, and then give their best answer. That is just a stupid argument saying they had to say exactly what Taylor estimated. I personally think it should be revisted and raised if warranted. Since I did not see his calculation along with all of the discovery, I will leave that decision where it belongs. I believe that parts of the trial transcripts (which includes interrogatories) were presented which showed that Taylor tested his numbers some 140 times. I am sorry that you can not understand that answer. Do you understand? Yes or no, please.
As far as Cebull's decision, I never read it. This is the second time I have told you that I have not read it. If I didn't make any statements as to Cebull's opinion, why do you keep bringing it up with me? Is this another one of those diversions? Fish? Diverticuli? Get out of your fantasy world on bringing up this with me. Why do you constantly want to dance with me on this one? I am not interested at this time.
As far as the years in question where you say there was no downward price bias in 1999-2000, so what? There should not have been a downward price bias the other years either if the packers were not taking advantage of their marketing power with these agreements. I have never said the agreements were the wrong doer-- the packers were by discriminating against the cash markets to their advantage. You do not have to use a legal gun for illegal activities like robbing a bank, but when you do, you become a felon. It doesn't matter that you owned your gun legally. If you misuse it, you become the felon, not the gun. If IBP did not use their marketing power to extract price concessions during 1999-2000, then they should not have to pay a penalty for it. I do not think that the plaintiffs claimed that to be the case, and that shows they have a little more integrity in what they ask for than you. At least they do not dance around facts trying to make them into an argument that does not make sense. Kudos to Taylor for not making up evidence. It was always only your supposition that captive supplies HAS to be translated into abuse. Stop trying to dance around the arguments, Agman.
BTW, often times I will, and I hope others do too, ask a question I know the answer to. It helps people see the landscape. It is not a trick of my factual knowledge like you use it. Murgen uses it well to get people to think of other paradigms that tunnel vision people like yourself are wrapped up in. Industry facts are important, but thinking about them are more important. I wish your ability to think was not so narrowly focused and self congratulatory.
Taylor's work was not one that was to show the beef cycle or consumer buying cycles. It was to see if producers were being discriminated against unfairly. The jury believed that they had. 1.28 billion is a huge verdict. That shows how much they believed it. Since the price depression that "captive supplies" forced on the market went to consumers, maybe some of the jury thought that Tyson should not be punished with the whole figure. Since they played robin hood with the money, maybe they thought that they already gave some of the money back. I don't know, and neither do you. It was not one of the questions posed to the jury at the end of the trial or they just did not want to answer the question.
Last of all, I do not care if you believe my phone was tapped or not. It is totally immaterial what you think on this issue. I do not consider myself an intellectual, but thank you for the compliment. I can think, however, and that thinking does not have to be your biased world view. To consider yourself as sane and part of another world does shed some light into your morse code martian theory. Maybe you are closer to Kafka than I thought. I don't know whose prince you would be, however. Maybe you would be Prince of the Dancing Frogs.