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.
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.