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

Reply to thread

Message

We will do this point by point:

1. You never did answer my question about the circumference of a circle. Did you just not understand the question? I even gave you the way you solve the problem in the question. I do not think you will ever "get it".

2. Was that the USDA problem on closing the border in the first place? You seem to be saying that r-calf closed the border and caused the all the Canadian problems. I merely pointed out that the USDA created an opportunity to gobble up another Canadian company. Was that true or not?

3. Are you saying none of the witnesses were credible? You are the one who called Mike C. a perjurer, which was never proven. The court could have brought those charges. What strikes me as odd in that episode is that Mike C. presented the tape did he not? If Mike C. willfully and intentionally gave what he thought was false testimony, why would he have even acknowledge he had the tape and try to go back and listen to it? It seems more likely that given the age of the tape, that it was switched without his knowledge. Maybe this is why the court did not press for perjury charges. Someone else posted information that the same information was entered into the trial through a different source. Anyway, that was only one of the witnesses I mentioned. You are really the pot calling the kettle black after your support to R-Calf in that statement. Try being credible before referencing Mike C. as someone who makes "all kinds of baseless allegations that he(you) cannot support.

4. You incorrectly inferred a causuality here that simply does not exist. I merely pointed that out with a current example.

5. You incorrectly infer that without an increase in the spread, there is no manipulation. Don't think you are as smart as to infer any economic reasoning from me as you have failed that test repeatedly. I need to spell everything out for you and you will never be smart enough to be my spokesperson.

6. I wasn't asked to. You are the one who believes in the conspiracy of 12 without any evidence supporting and a lot contridicting appellate logic.

7. Was my statement about the spread not true given the scenario? Didn't you already lose that bet to Sandhusker and become a bonafide R-Calf supporter? (I still respect you for the payment, by the way) If you are implying that additional supply does not affect the supply/demand equilibrium then you have already made the case for market failure, which is what the PSA is intuitively made to prevent.

8. Sleeping in class will "never learn you anything" as you have proven time and again.

<blockquote data-quote="Econ101" data-source="post: 50451" data-attributes="member: 629">We will do this point by point:1.&nbsp; You never did answer my question about the circumference of a circle.&nbsp; Did you just not understand the question?&nbsp; I even gave you the way you solve the problem in the question.&nbsp; I do not think you will ever &quot;get it&quot;.2.&nbsp; Was that the USDA problem on closing the border in the first place?&nbsp; You seem to be saying that r-calf closed the border and caused the all the Canadian problems.&nbsp; I merely pointed out that the USDA created an opportunity to gobble up another Canadian company.&nbsp; Was that true or not?3.&nbsp; Are you saying none of the witnesses were credible?&nbsp; You are the one who called Mike C. a perjurer, which was never proven.&nbsp; The court could have brought those charges.&nbsp; What strikes me as odd in that episode is that Mike C. presented the tape did he not?&nbsp; If Mike C. willfully and intentionally gave what he thought was false testimony, why would he have even acknowledge he had the tape and try to go back and listen to it?&nbsp; It seems more likely that given the age of the tape, that it was switched without his knowledge.&nbsp; Maybe this is why the court did not press for perjury charges.&nbsp; Someone else posted information that the same information was entered into the trial through a different source.&nbsp; Anyway, that was only one of the witnesses I mentioned.&nbsp; You are really the pot calling the kettle black after your support to R-Calf in that statement.&nbsp; Try being credible before referencing Mike C. as someone who makes &quot;all kinds of baseless allegations that he(you) cannot support.&nbsp; 4.&nbsp; You incorrectly inferred a causuality here that simply does not exist.&nbsp; I merely pointed that out with a current example.&nbsp; 5.&nbsp; You incorrectly infer that without an increase in the spread, there is no manipulation.&nbsp; Don&#039;t think you are as smart as to infer any economic reasoning from me as you have failed that test repeatedly.&nbsp; I need to spell everything out for you and you will never be smart enough to be my spokesperson.6.&nbsp; I wasn&#039;t asked to.&nbsp; You are the one who believes in the conspiracy of 12 without any evidence supporting and a lot contridicting appellate logic.7.&nbsp; Was my statement about the spread not true given the scenario? Didn&#039;t&nbsp; you already lose that bet to Sandhusker and become a bonafide R-Calf supporter? (I still respect you for the payment, by the way)&nbsp; If you are implying that additional supply does not affect the supply/demand equilibrium then you have already made the case for market failure, which is what the PSA is intuitively made to prevent.8.&nbsp; Sleeping in class will &quot;never learn you anything&quot; as you have proven time and again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Econ101, post: 50451, member: 629"] We will do this point by point: 1. You never did answer my question about the circumference of a circle. Did you just not understand the question? I even gave you the way you solve the problem in the question. I do not think you will ever "get it". 2. Was that the USDA problem on closing the border in the first place? You seem to be saying that r-calf closed the border and caused the all the Canadian problems. I merely pointed out that the USDA created an opportunity to gobble up another Canadian company. Was that true or not? 3. Are you saying none of the witnesses were credible? You are the one who called Mike C. a perjurer, which was never proven. The court could have brought those charges. What strikes me as odd in that episode is that Mike C. presented the tape did he not? If Mike C. willfully and intentionally gave what he thought was false testimony, why would he have even acknowledge he had the tape and try to go back and listen to it? It seems more likely that given the age of the tape, that it was switched without his knowledge. Maybe this is why the court did not press for perjury charges. Someone else posted information that the same information was entered into the trial through a different source. Anyway, that was only one of the witnesses I mentioned. You are really the pot calling the kettle black after your support to R-Calf in that statement. Try being credible before referencing Mike C. as someone who makes "all kinds of baseless allegations that he(you) cannot support. 4. You incorrectly inferred a causuality here that simply does not exist. I merely pointed that out with a current example. 5. You incorrectly infer that without an increase in the spread, there is no manipulation. Don't think you are as smart as to infer any economic reasoning from me as you have failed that test repeatedly. I need to spell everything out for you and you will never be smart enough to be my spokesperson. 6. I wasn't asked to. You are the one who believes in the conspiracy of 12 without any evidence supporting and a lot contridicting appellate logic. 7. Was my statement about the spread not true given the scenario? Didn't you already lose that bet to Sandhusker and become a bonafide R-Calf supporter? (I still respect you for the payment, by the way) If you are implying that additional supply does not affect the supply/demand equilibrium then you have already made the case for market failure, which is what the PSA is intuitively made to prevent. 8. Sleeping in class will "never learn you anything" as you have proven time and again. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What animal is usually the product of a ranch?