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

Tam's Knives, Slander and "Proof"

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam,

Here is another statement that is posted on the net at:

http://tinyurl.com/mjx3k

"These guys are nothing but old-time gangsters, thugs and thieves. They beat your brains in with their market power and take your money."

You might want to read the whole site.

Here is my question I posed:

Econ: I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Now what part of the question was slanderous Tam? Was it any more "slanderous" in your opinion than the above quote about Tyson being old time gangsters......?

Tam, you are a Canadian, am I right? Do you know what free speech is? Do I think your calling the above quote "slanderous" is anything but your opinion that has absolutely no affect on me?

Now you could have been talking about this quote:

Tam: "By the way the fact that the Japanese inspected a slaughter plant that Tyson owned is not proof the Tyson officials and USDA officials threatened them with knive so unless you have some proof to that slanderous little comment I think you should live but your own words...

Is my quote about knives, Japanese, and Tyson crooks any worse than the above quote on gangsters? Is it slanderous in your mind?

The fact is that you don't even know what slander is. If the quote on gangsters was slanderous then Tyson would have taken Mike C. to court and won. I don't need a foreigner coming close to telling me the limits of free speech in the USA.

I just proved to you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you quoted the Alberta report or the Texas A&M professor in drawing your conclusions. I can't help it if you post dumb things and get embarassed. Does that mean I am slandering? Do you have your own definition of slander? Is it anything that anyone says that you disagree with? Stop embarrassing yourself.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Econ101 said:
Tam,

Here is another statement that is posted on the net at:

http://tinyurl.com/mjx3k

"These guys are nothing but old-time gangsters, thugs and thieves. They beat your brains in with their market power and take your money."

You might want to read the whole site.

Here is my question I posed:

Econ: I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Now what part of the question was slanderous Tam? Was it any more "slanderous" in your opinion than the above quote about Tyson being old time gangsters......?

Tam, you are a Canadian, am I right? Do you know what free speech is? Do I think your calling the above quote "slanderous" is anything but your opinion that has absolutely no affect on me?

Now you could have been talking about this quote:

Tam: "By the way the fact that the Japanese inspected a slaughter plant that Tyson owned is not proof the Tyson officials and USDA officials threatened them with knive so unless you have some proof to that slanderous little comment I think you should live but your own words...

Is my quote about knives, Japanese, and Tyson crooks any worse than the above quote on gangsters? Is it slanderous in your mind?

The fact is that you don't even know what slander is. If the quote on gangsters was slanderous then Tyson would have taken Mike C. to court and won. I don't need a foreigner coming close to telling me the limits of free speech in the USA.

I just proved to you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you quoted the Alberta report or the Texas A&M professor in drawing your conclusions. I can't help it if you post dumb things and get embarassed. Does that mean I am slandering? Do you have your own definition of slander? Is it anything that anyone says that you disagree with? Stop embarrassing yourself.

The fact is that you don't even know what slander is
I looked up the word Slander and Econ for once you are right it wasn't slanderous it was libelous as to be slanderous it would have to of spoken word, to be libel its has to be written or printed and by you posting it on the web you are then libelous which means any written or printed statement or any sign, picture or effigy, not made in the public interest, tending to expose a person to public ridicule or contempt or to injure his reputation in any way. or anything that gives an unfattering or damaging picture of the subject or person. Now since your statement and the one you posted to defend your statement were both written not spoken and meant to expose Tyson to public ridicule and sent unfattering pictures of Tyson running thought our minds, you and Mike are LIBELOUS. You don't have to be sued to be slanderous or Libelous at least not by the dictionary I look in.

Tam, you are a Canadian, am I right?
I don't need a foreigner coming close to telling me the limits of free speech in the USA.
I think you missed some of the fluff about me Econ. :D Maybe Oldtimer would like to tell you which School system taught me how to debate the issues The Canadian or the same system that taught every other kid that grew up in MONTANA. You know Econ the fourth largest state in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA :lol: :lol: :lol:

I just proved to you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you quoted the Alberta report or the Texas A&M professor in drawing your conclusions. .
Would you like to bring the quote I was suppose to have used from the Texas A&M professor That is the quote I USED FROM THE TEXAS EXPERTS.

I can't help it if you post dumb things and get embarassed. Does that mean I am slandering? Do you have your own definition of slander? Is it anything that anyone says that you disagree with?
Again Slander is the spoken word of Libel. But that said it still means the same if you speak or print statements that are meant to damage the reputation of Tyson which you and Mike both did with your statements you are LIBELOUS, unless you have some prove that Tyson officials were chasing the Japanese around a room with knives and that Tyson had something to do with BSE being introduced to the Canadian herd. So back up your comments with proof or withdraw them. I don't think that freedom of speech gives you the right to say what ever you like about someone or there wouldn't be people being suit for slander or libel. when they make statements they can't back with evidence :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam, you are an idiot. You can't debate anything because of this problem. You don't make sense, just a lot of garbage. Every time you post your idiotic nonsense I am not going to waste my time responding, I am just going to call you an idiot. If you make a point that has some sense, I might respond to it. Otherwise I am going to call it like I see it. I wish you could debate because I like debating. If you were intelligent to know how bad you were at it, you wouldn't call it debating.

Idiot.

I hope you are happy.

Hugs and kisses again. I hope BMR is not jealous, but he probably enjoys the respite from you. One can still like/love an idiot without buying into the stupidity.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Econ101 said:
Tam, you are an idiot. You can't debate anything because of this problem. You don't make sense, just a lot of garbage. Every time you post your idiotic nonsense I am not going to waste my time responding, I am just going to call you an idiot. If you make a point that has some sense, I might respond to it. Otherwise I am going to call it like I see it. I wish you could debate because I like debating. If you were intelligent to know how bad you were at it, you wouldn't call it debating.

Idiot.

I hope you are happy.

Hugs and kisses again. I hope BMR is not jealous, but he probably enjoys the respite from you. One can still like/love an idiot without buying into the stupidity.


Econs reply on the name calling post.
I don't want to call people names, but I do want to argue the points with LOGIC and information. It is not fair for one side of this group to call names and the other side to nicely sit back and take it. Name calling is what you do when you don't have enough logic to make a point.[/quote]
:clap: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :clap:
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,117
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Econ. You should have your ugly mug slapped for saying that to a lady. Did your mother not teach you anything about talking to a lady with respect??? You do not bring one bit of knowledge to this board. If I was BMR I would personally hunt you down and kick your scrawny butt for calling my wife an idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Econ. You should have your ugly mug slapped for saying that to a lady. Did your mother not teach you anything about talking to a lady with respect??? You do not bring one bit of knowledge to this board. If I was BMR I would personally hunt you down and kick your scrawny butt for calling my wife an idiot. You should be ashamed of yourself.

MR, I haven't ever met Tam. I don't know if Tam is a man or a woman. Tam never admitted to me one way or the other if he/she was married to BMR.

Don't blame me for facts not in evidence especially since I asked.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam,

Here is another statement that is posted on the net at:

http://tinyurl.com/mjx3k

"These guys are nothing but old-time gangsters, thugs and thieves. They beat your brains in with their market power and take your money."

You might want to read the whole site.

Here is my question I posed:

Econ: I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Now what part of the question was slanderous Tam? Was it any more "slanderous" in your opinion than the above quote about Tyson being old time gangsters......?

Tam, you are a Canadian, am I right? Do you know what free speech is? Do I think your calling the above quote "slanderous" is anything but your opinion that has absolutely no affect on me?

Now you could have been talking about this quote:

Tam: "By the way the fact that the Japanese inspected a slaughter plant that Tyson owned is not proof the Tyson officials and USDA officials threatened them with knive so unless you have some proof to that slanderous little comment I think you should live but your own words...

Is my quote about knives, Japanese, and Tyson crooks any worse than the above quote on gangsters? Is it slanderous in your mind?

The fact is that you don't even know what slander is. If the quote on gangsters was slanderous then Tyson would have taken Mike C. to court and won. I don't need a foreigner coming close to telling me the limits of free speech in the USA.

I just proved to you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you quoted the Alberta report or the Texas A&M professor in drawing your conclusions. I can't help it if you post dumb things and get embarassed. Does that mean I am slandering? Do you have your own definition of slander? Is it anything that anyone says that you disagree with? Stop embarrassing yourself.

The fact is that you don't even know what slander is
I looked up the word Slander and Econ for once you are right it wasn't slanderous it was libelous as to be slanderous it would have to of spoken word, to be libel its has to be written or printed and by you posting it on the web you are then libelous which means any written or printed statement or any sign, picture or effigy, not made in the public interest, tending to expose a person to public ridicule or contempt or to injure his reputation in any way. or anything that gives an unfattering or damaging picture of the subject or person. Now since your statement and the one you posted to defend your statement were both written not spoken and meant to expose Tyson to public ridicule and sent unfattering pictures of Tyson running thought our minds, you and Mike are LIBELOUS. You don't have to be sued to be slanderous or Libelous at least not by the dictionary I look in.

Tam, you are a Canadian, am I right?
I don't need a foreigner coming close to telling me the limits of free speech in the USA.
I think you missed some of the fluff about me Econ. :D Maybe Oldtimer would like to tell you which School system taught me how to debate the issues The Canadian or the same system that taught every other kid that grew up in MONTANA. You know Econ the fourth largest state in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA :lol: :lol: :lol:

I just proved to you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you quoted the Alberta report or the Texas A&M professor in drawing your conclusions. .
Would you like to bring the quote I was suppose to have used from the Texas A&M professor That is the quote I USED FROM THE TEXAS EXPERTS.

I can't help it if you post dumb things and get embarassed. Does that mean I am slandering? Do you have your own definition of slander? Is it anything that anyone says that you disagree with?
Again Slander is the spoken word of Libel. But that said it still means the same if you speak or print statements that are meant to damage the reputation of Tyson which you and Mike both did with your statements you are LIBELOUS, unless you have some prove that Tyson officials were chasing the Japanese around a room with knives and that Tyson had something to do with BSE being introduced to the Canadian herd. So back up your comments with proof or withdraw them. I don't think that freedom of speech gives you the right to say what ever you like about someone or there wouldn't be people being suit for slander or libel. when they make statements they can't back with evidence :wink:

Tam, in case you did not understand this thread:

It is not slander or libel if it is true.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Econ101 said:
Tam said:
Econ101 said:
Tam,

Here is another statement that is posted on the net at:

http://tinyurl.com/mjx3k

"These guys are nothing but old-time gangsters, thugs and thieves. They beat your brains in with their market power and take your money."

You might want to read the whole site.

Here is my question I posed:

Econ: I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Now what part of the question was slanderous Tam? Was it any more "slanderous" in your opinion than the above quote about Tyson being old time gangsters......?

Tam, you are a Canadian, am I right? Do you know what free speech is? Do I think your calling the above quote "slanderous" is anything but your opinion that has absolutely no affect on me?

Now you could have been talking about this quote:

Tam: "By the way the fact that the Japanese inspected a slaughter plant that Tyson owned is not proof the Tyson officials and USDA officials threatened them with knive so unless you have some proof to that slanderous little comment I think you should live but your own words...

Is my quote about knives, Japanese, and Tyson crooks any worse than the above quote on gangsters? Is it slanderous in your mind?

The fact is that you don't even know what slander is. If the quote on gangsters was slanderous then Tyson would have taken Mike C. to court and won. I don't need a foreigner coming close to telling me the limits of free speech in the USA.

I just proved to you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you quoted the Alberta report or the Texas A&M professor in drawing your conclusions. I can't help it if you post dumb things and get embarassed. Does that mean I am slandering? Do you have your own definition of slander? Is it anything that anyone says that you disagree with? Stop embarrassing yourself.

The fact is that you don't even know what slander is
I looked up the word Slander and Econ for once you are right it wasn't slanderous it was libelous as to be slanderous it would have to of spoken word, to be libel its has to be written or printed and by you posting it on the web you are then libelous which means any written or printed statement or any sign, picture or effigy, not made in the public interest, tending to expose a person to public ridicule or contempt or to injure his reputation in any way. or anything that gives an unfattering or damaging picture of the subject or person. Now since your statement and the one you posted to defend your statement were both written not spoken and meant to expose Tyson to public ridicule and sent unfattering pictures of Tyson running thought our minds, you and Mike are LIBELOUS. You don't have to be sued to be slanderous or Libelous at least not by the dictionary I look in.

Tam, you are a Canadian, am I right?
I don't need a foreigner coming close to telling me the limits of free speech in the USA.
I think you missed some of the fluff about me Econ. :D Maybe Oldtimer would like to tell you which School system taught me how to debate the issues The Canadian or the same system that taught every other kid that grew up in MONTANA. You know Econ the fourth largest state in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA :lol: :lol: :lol:

I just proved to you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you quoted the Alberta report or the Texas A&M professor in drawing your conclusions. .
Would you like to bring the quote I was suppose to have used from the Texas A&M professor That is the quote I USED FROM THE TEXAS EXPERTS.

I can't help it if you post dumb things and get embarassed. Does that mean I am slandering? Do you have your own definition of slander? Is it anything that anyone says that you disagree with?
Again Slander is the spoken word of Libel. But that said it still means the same if you speak or print statements that are meant to damage the reputation of Tyson which you and Mike both did with your statements you are LIBELOUS, unless you have some prove that Tyson officials were chasing the Japanese around a room with knives and that Tyson had something to do with BSE being introduced to the Canadian herd. So back up your comments with proof or withdraw them. I don't think that freedom of speech gives you the right to say what ever you like about someone or there wouldn't be people being suit for slander or libel. when they make statements they can't back with evidence :wink:

Tam, in case you did not understand this thread:

It is not slander or libel if it is true.
I think I did understand that
you are LIBELOUS, unless you have some prove that Tyson officials were chasing the Japanese around a room with knives and that Tyson had something to do with BSE being introduced to the Canadian herd.
So unless you have proof of your statements you are libelous LETS SEE YOUR PROOF. Telling us that the Japanese inspected the Tyson plant where knives are used to cut up beef is not proof that Tyson officials or USDA officials used those knives against the Japanese to get them to say what they wanted to heard just so they could get out of the plant and safely back to Japan before changing their story. And unless you have proof that Tyson set the whole BSE crisis in motion in Canada back in the 80's by importing UK cattle when they didn't even own a part of our industry until 2001 you are libelous for that statement too.

MR, I haven't ever met Tam. I don't know if Tam is a man or a woman. Tam never admitted to me one way or the other if he/she was married to BMR.

Just How Stupid do you think we are Econ. Just why do you think Haymaker calls me MISS TAM? If you can read You knew we were married as anyone that was on here after the Deadwood Weekend knew. OR did you miss where BMR and My pictures were posted on this web site more than once. Yes for a long time it was not widely known that BMR and I are married but after the Deadwood get together in SEPT. Everyone on here that can look at a picture and read knew. Did I look like a man to any of the rest of the posters NO I DON"T THINK SO. Not to mention the countless posts from those including yourself trying to discredit us. How low will you go to get yourself out of a spot your embassassing comments get you into. Don't make it worse on yourself by saying another one to cover the first. It has a snowball effect and this is a snow ball fight you have no chance of winning as you can't lift yours to throw it now. Just maybe if you would admit you have stepped over the line once or twice the sun would come out and melt that ball down to a size that will not flatten you if it gets rolling. :roll:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam:"Just How Stupid do you think we are Econ. "

Econ: "we"? I have already expressed myself when it comes to you, Tam. You shouldn't have to ask that question again and again. As I said before, when you are posting nonsensical things, I will refer you to this thread where we can hash it out like this, if you want.

Tam: "OR did you miss where BMR and My pictures were posted on this web site more than once. Yes for a long time it was not widely known that BMR and I are married but after the Deadwood get together in SEPT. Everyone on here that can look at a picture and read knew."

Econ: Yes, I missed those pics. Since I know now, send my condolences to BMR.

Tam: "Not to mention the countless posts from those including yourself trying to discredit us. "

Econ: I don't want to discredit you, just your logic. You always have the possibility of changing.

Tam: "How low will you go to get yourself out of a spot your embassassing comments get you into. "

Econ: As long as it takes.

You are still on the Libel and slander thing. Just to tell you again, Tam, you don't know the definition of libel and you are getting it mixed up with a few other things. You can't make me take it back just because you call it libel. Just say you disagree and why. Now you are being slanderous to my statements I make about Tyson. Since it is in writing, is that libel?

It is hard for you to have a snowball fight in the part of Texas I am from. If you truck in the snow, I will enjoy the fight.

Am I going to back off my statement about Tyson? There is not a snowball's chance in ........ the part of Texas I am from.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Telling us that the Japanese inspected the Tyson plant where knives are used to cut up beef is not proof that Tyson officials or USDA officials used those knives against the Japanese to get them to say what they wanted to heard just so they could get out of the plant and safely back to Japan before changing their story.

It's true Tam. One of them got cut pretty bad in the "Hinny" while trying to escape those wild knife toting butchers.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Mike said:
Telling us that the Japanese inspected the Tyson plant where knives are used to cut up beef is not proof that Tyson officials or USDA officials used those knives against the Japanese to get them to say what they wanted to heard just so they could get out of the plant and safely back to Japan before changing their story.

It's true Tam. One of them got cut pretty bad in the "Hinny" while trying to escape those wild knife toting butchers.
You are getting a better handle on the timing of Humor Mike . :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"These guys are nothing but old-time gangsters, thugs and thieves. They beat your brains in with their market power and take your money."

That statement was made by non other than Mike Callicrate who couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.

Tam, the people that matter know who the real idiot is. Conman proves it with every post he makes. For Conman to call you an idiot is the epitomy of a compliment. I doubt he can tie his own shoes.

As long as he tells packer blamers what they want to hear, his lies will go unnoticed by the mindless packer blamers that follow his fantasy land of lies and theories.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
"These guys are nothing but old-time gangsters, thugs and thieves. They beat your brains in with their market power and take your money."

That statement was made by non other than Mike Callicrate who couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.

Tam, the people that matter know who the real idiot is. Conman proves it with every post he makes. For Conman to call you an idiot is the epitomy of a compliment. I doubt he can tie his own shoes.

As long as he tells packer blamers what they want to hear, his lies will go unnoticed by the mindless packer blamers that follow his fantasy land of lies and theories.



~SH~

SH, did Tyson take Mike C. to court and get damages for "slander"?

We all know you have your own definition for such things.
 

Latest posts

Top