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

SH in a tree

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
First of all, the dictionary's definition of "Deceive";
To make a person beleive as true something that is false

Now a quote from good ol SH,
"Creekstone admitted that "BSE TESTED" did not mean "BSE FREE" so what's the point in testing cattle less than 24 months of age? CONSUMER DECEPTION! "

SH, how is Creekstone attempting to make a person believe testing means free with their statement? :? Where is the attempt to make a person believe a falsehood? :? Perhaps you have a different definition of "deception"? :lol: Thank you for proving your "deception" arguement full of bunk for us! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Face it SH, your "deception" and "false advertising" arguements are poorly thought out excuses in an attempt to justify the USDA's actual reasoning of "not based on sound science" when they had already had an established precidence of allowing products that were not based on sound science.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "SH, how is Creekstone attempting to make a person believe testing means free with their statement? Where is the attempt to make a person believe a falsehood? Perhaps you have a different definition of "deception"?"


If "BSE TESTED" did not imply "BSE FREE" there would be no reason to test, period.

No consumer would want "BSE TESTED" beef if they knew it didn't mean "BSE FREE".

"BSE TESTED" IMPLIES "BSE FREE" and any idiot knows it.

Why would any consumer buy "BSE TESTED" beef if they didn't believe it was "BSE FREE"?

You can't answer that because you can't face the reality of your deception.

Throw more sh*t against the wall and claim victory in obvious defeat.

The closest you'll ever get to treeing me is looking up and watching a tree fall on your head, AGAIN.

Keep making a fool out of yourself with your phony arguments.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Yada, yada, yada. :roll: You have the proper defintion of "deceive" before you and your own comments on what Creekstone said. Once again, where is the deception?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Deception - the state of being deceived; something that deceives or tricks, a hoax, imposture


Sandman: "Once again, where is the deception?"

"BSE TESTED" implies "BSE FREE"!

That is the deception.


Would you be willing to stamp "BSE TESTED BUT NOT NECESSARILY BSE FREE" on the boxes of exported beef Sandman?

Why not?

Let's be totally honest about this.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Deception - the state of being deceived; something that deceives or tricks, a hoax, imposture


Sandman: "Once again, where is the deception?"

"BSE TESTED" implies "BSE FREE"!

That is the deception.


Would you be willing to stamp "BSE TESTED BUT NOT NECESSARILY BSE FREE" on the boxes of exported beef Sandman?

Why not?

Let's be totally honest about this.



~SH~

I didn't see the word "imply" anywhere in the definition. :roll: Care to try again? :lol: :lol:

Sure, I'd have no problem putting that on the side of boxes. No problem at all.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Probably wouldn't do a lot of good to put

"BSE TESTED BY THE USDA" on a box of beef anyway.

Might get a few laughs though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "I didn't see the word "imply" anywhere in the definition."

SINCE WHEN DOES A DEFINITION HAVE TO USE THE WORD "IMPLY" FOR THAT DEFINITION TO IMPLY SOMETHING.

That's as stupid as USDA having to use the term DECEPTION for 100% BSE TESTING to be DECEPTIVE.

Quit acting like such an idiot! I'm getting sick of your antics.




~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandman: "I didn't see the word "imply" anywhere in the definition."

SINCE WHEN DOES A DEFINITION HAVE TO USE THE WORD "IMPLY" FOR THAT DEFINITION TO IMPLY SOMETHING.

That's as stupid as USDA having to use the term DECEPTION for 100% BSE TESTING to be DECEPTIVE.

Quit acting like such an idiot! I'm getting sick of your antics.




~SH~

Hmmm, animals certainly do get testy when cornered! :lol:

Definitions don't imply anything. They state things as clear and concise as possible.

Face it, you are using the word "deceive" and "deception" loosely and incorrectly. Creekstone stated a fact clearly - no deception involved.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "Definitions don't imply anything."


If consumers buy "BSE TESTED" beef, do they assume it's "BSE FREE"?

Yes or no?



~SH~
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
~SH~ said:
Sandman: "Definitions don't imply anything."


If consumers buy "BSE TESTED" beef, do they assume it's "BSE FREE"?

Yes or no?



~SH~

I'll type this analogy for you slowly Sandbeenie. BSE testing can also refer to Breeding Soundness Evaluation. 99% of buyers want their bulls BSE tested. They assume it means a result where the bull has viable semen. You could advertise a tested bull (with a failed test) if the buyer didn't ask and he had another bull picking up the slack, you might get away with it. Did you infer he was viable? Not directly, just that he was tested. The buyer would assume the test meant a good score.

One breeder here has had a sale for 5 years with his bulls "scrotal evaluated by a qualified vet". He never says if they pass. They are not semen tested, but the inference has caught many buyers unaware. The past 2 years he hasn't been able to sell all his bulls, and his prices are falling. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

EVERYTHING in advertising has implied benefits. To deny it is to be willfully stupid.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Jason, "EVERYTHING in advertising has implied benefits. To deny it is to be willfully stupid."

I will agree with you on that comment. However, Creekstone has said in plain English that "BSE tested" does not mean "BSE free." Yet, SH still says they are involved in deception. :roll: What else to they have to do?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,021
Reaction score
234
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Jason, "EVERYTHING in advertising has implied benefits. To deny it is to be willfully stupid."

I will agree with you on that comment. However, Creekstone has said in plain English that "BSE tested" does not mean "BSE free." Yet, SH still says they are involved in deception. :roll: What else to they have to do?


So Sandy would Creekstone labels read "BSE tested but not BSE FREE"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Jason, "EVERYTHING in advertising has implied benefits. To deny it is to be willfully stupid."

I will agree with you on that comment. However, Creekstone has said in plain English that "BSE tested" does not mean "BSE free." Yet, SH still says they are involved in deception. :roll: What else to they have to do?


So Sandy would Creekstone labels read "BSE tested but not BSE FREE"

Big Muddy- under USDA's standards they could say anything- like all the Canadian beef that they are not proud enough to think it will sell as Canadian so they allow removal of the Canadian markings and stamp with a USDA stamp so it will sell under the presumption of being a US product....Talk about Deception- Talk about a FRAUD :cry: :mad:
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Jason, "EVERYTHING in advertising has implied benefits. To deny it is to be willfully stupid."

I will agree with you on that comment. However, Creekstone has said in plain English that "BSE tested" does not mean "BSE free." Yet, SH still says they are involved in deception. :roll: What else to they have to do?


So Sandy would Creekstone labels read "BSE tested but not BSE FREE"

Big Muddy- under USDA's standards they could say anything- like all the Canadian beef that they are not proud enough to think it will sell as Canadian so they allow removal of the Canadian markings and stamp with a USDA stamp so it will sell under the presumption of being a US product....Talk about Deception- Talk about a FRAUD :cry: :mad:

Why would you test unless you were trying to give some asurance the product was not infected with B.S.E
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
frenchie said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
So Sandy would Creekstone labels read "BSE tested but not BSE FREE"

Big Muddy- under USDA's standards they could say anything- like all the Canadian beef that they are not proud enough to think it will sell as Canadian so they allow removal of the Canadian markings and stamp with a USDA stamp so it will sell under the presumption of being a US product....Talk about Deception- Talk about a FRAUD :cry: :mad:

Why would you test unless you were trying to give some asurance the product was not infected with B.S.E

Why would you remove all the Canadian (or other countries markings) and put a USDA inspected stamp on unless you were giving someone the presumption and assurance that it was a US product?---Why would the packers and retailers do this, unless they know that if its passed off as a US product it will sell better and will make them more profit :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Jason, "EVERYTHING in advertising has implied benefits. To deny it is to be willfully stupid."

I will agree with you on that comment. However, Creekstone has said in plain English that "BSE tested" does not mean "BSE free." Yet, SH still says they are involved in deception. :roll: What else to they have to do?


So Sandy would Creekstone labels read "BSE tested but not BSE FREE"

It would read whatever the Japanese Government decreed it to say. It's product for their markets, in their sovereign nation. Last I knew, the USDA had no jurisdiction in Japan, although they appear to think they do.
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
564
Reaction score
0
Location
nw manitoba
Oldtimer said:
frenchie said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy- under USDA's standards they could say anything- like all the Canadian beef that they are not proud enough to think it will sell as Canadian so they allow removal of the Canadian markings and stamp with a USDA stamp so it will sell under the presumption of being a US product....Talk about Deception- Talk about a FRAUD :cry: :mad:

Why would you test unless you were trying to give some asurance the product was not infected with B.S.E

Why would you remove all the Canadian (or other countries markings) and put a USDA inspected stamp on unless you were giving someone the presumption and assurance that it was a US product?---Why would the packers and retailers do this, unless they know that if its passed off as a US product it will sell better and will make them more profit :???:

Oldtimer I can understand them putting the U.S.D.a stamp on it , as assurance that it was inspected.

Why do they rub off the imported labels. Don,t know .Why not leave both?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Frenchie, "Why would you test unless you were trying to give some asurance the product was not infected with B.S.E"

In this case, the only reason you would test would be for the simple reason your customers are asking for it and even paying you for the trouble. Meeting your customer's demands is a huge part of running a successful business.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
frenchie said:
Oldtimer said:
frenchie said:
Why would you test unless you were trying to give some asurance the product was not infected with B.S.E

Why would you remove all the Canadian (or other countries markings) and put a USDA inspected stamp on unless you were giving someone the presumption and assurance that it was a US product?---Why would the packers and retailers do this, unless they know that if its passed off as a US product it will sell better and will make them more profit :???:

Oldtimer I can understand them putting the U.S.D.a stamp on it , as assurance that it was inspected.

Why do they rub off the imported labels. Don,t know .Why not leave both?

I think that would be great-- that would be truth in labeling...But for some reason the retailers and the packers remove the Canadian or any other foreign markings :? -- which makes me think they believe that consumers must think it is a second rate product...

Like I've said before- IF and when you get your Canadian slaughter plants up and running- which I would love to see you do rather than ride on the backs of the US producer-- you will have to educate the world to what is Canadian beef..... No one has eaten Canadian beef- It was U.S. because it had the USDA stamp :???: Does Canada raise beef :lol: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top