That darn Dittmer!

[Bill]

He nailed it again!

It Depends on What Your Definition of "Is" Is
Colorado Springs, CO March 7, 2006

Remember when Bill Clinton was pondering the definition of "is" while testifying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Well, consider the testimony of R-CALF's key expert witness, Louis Anthony Cox, Jr.

The claims R-CALF made in their legal brief suing USDA over the BSE and Canadian border issue are proof positive that just because something is presented in legal papers doesn't mean it is factual. The FDA excluded the testimony of Cox in a separate case because "Dr. Cox's testimony lacked credibility and was unreliable," according to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the case. Dr. Lester Crawford, FDA head at the time, also reviewed the case and concurred.

"I agree with the ALJ that Dr. Cox's credibility was such that his testimony was so unreliable that it was inadmissible. The ALJ found that Dr. Cox's credibility was 'severely compromised' because he intentionally misquoted published articles.

Now, the judge didn't say Cox was mistaken, he said Cox "intentionally misquoted published articles." Bill Clinton might say that depends on what your definition of "intentional" is, but the dictionary includes these definitions: by conscious design or purpose; "intentional damage"; "a knowing attempt to defraud." That's pretty plain isn't it?

vCox's credibility is key to R-CALF, as his research and testimony underpinned R-CALF's insistence that BSE was as rampant in Canada as it was at its peak in 1980s U.K. With Dr. Cox's analysis, R-CALF insisted the prevalence was more than 13 times what USDA calculated.

In the FDA case, Cox had attributed a quote regarding a risk assessment to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). But he later admitted to FDA that the quote was not attributable to CVM and he added the quotation marks himself because "it seemed to be an important concept." Crawford concluded his evaluation of Cox's testimony, methods and his explanation of his actions by saying the FDA expects of witnesses that "when using quotation marks, the material should, in fact, be an accurate quote."

That's asking a lot isn't it? Imagine, expecting a witness to be truthful. What's the world coming to?

But the story gets even better. R-CALF recently filed motions seeking to restart the border case. Their filings cite Dr. Cox's work again! Now, wouldn't a rational conclusion be that after your expert witness is described as being severely compromised and gets his hand slapped for intentionally misquoting published articles, you might want to consider using another source? Sure. So why don't they?

Because if there was real merit to their case all they would have to do is present the facts. But the facts don't support their case. And it probably isn't easy finding expert witnesses willing to go as far out on a limb as R-CALF needs them to go.

Imagine, there are cattlemen out there who have forked over their hard-earned dollars (over $1 million) to pay R-CALF's lawyers – to keep doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results. Remember we mentioned that as the definition of insanity in the last issue. Of course, Bill Clinton would say that depends on what your definition of insanity (like "is") is. Most people would call it just plain nuts.

This whole case is typical of the tactics of all liberal activist groups (LAG). If the law doesn't support their case and if they cannot persuade people on the merits of their argument, they go to court and hope and pray that justice is indeed blind – to the facts and common sense. But what do you do when someone insists that you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Ask Bill Clinton. Well, on second thought...

 

[Econ101]

Bill, what has dittmer said about the OIG report on GIPSA?

 

[Sandhusker]

This clown is making digs at somebody else's credibility? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Bill]

This clown is making digs at somebody else's credibility? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought you would get a kick out of that. :lol:

Is he wrong in what he wrote about Dr. Cox?

In the FDA case, Cox had attributed a quote regarding a risk assessment to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). But he later admitted to FDA that the quote was not attributable to CVM and he added the quotation marks himself because "it seemed to be an important concept." Crawford concluded his evaluation of Cox's testimony, methods and his explanation of his actions by saying the FDA expects of witnesses that "when using quotation marks, the material should, in fact, be an accurate quote."

 

[Mike]

Quantitative Health Risk Analysis Methods
Modeling the Human Health Impacts of Antibiotics Used in Food Animals
Series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Vol. 82
Cox, Jr., Louis Anthony
2006, XVIII, 354 p. 33 illus., Hardcover
ISBN: 0-387-25909-0

A quick google shows that Cox must be very well known in the Statistical and Quantitative Analysis world. Question is did he really do what Dittmer said he did and if so, why? That is the questions I would be asking if on either side of the debate.

One might find it hard to imagine Dittmer writing this about Cox if it weren't true though.

Depends on what kind of guy Dittmer really is.............

 

[Bill]

Quantitative Health Risk Analysis Methods
Modeling the Human Health Impacts of Antibiotics Used in Food Animals
Series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Vol. 82
Cox, Jr., Louis Anthony
2006, XVIII, 354 p. 33 illus., Hardcover
ISBN: 0-387-25909-0

A quick google shows that Cox must be very well known in the Statistical and Quantitative Analysis world. Question is did he really do what Dittmer said he did and if so, why? That is the questions I would be asking if on either side of the debate.

One might find it hard to imagine Dittmer writing this about Cox if it weren't true though.

Depends on what kind of guy Dittmer really is.............

That's why I asked the question Mike.

 

[ocm]

"This whole case is typical of the tactics of all liberal activist groups (LAG).

This is where Dittmer loses his own credibility. When I was at the R-CALF convention I talked politics with quite a number of people. With VERY few exceptions they were extremely conservative people.

I did meet a few (very few) liberals. They were rational people with whom I could disagree on some things within a very rational discussion. We agreed on a few significant things, too.

Dittmer is way off base calling R-CALF a liberal activist group.

Also his contention that Cox's testimony formed the faoundation of R-CALF's case is off the mark.

To reaffirm what has been said--------he only knows one note. I know for a fact that Dittmer has personally heard evidence that would contradict his accusation of R-CALF and OCM as liberal activist groups---but he didn't print it. He committed the sin of omission.

 

[PORKER]

But what do you do when someone insists that you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Ask Bill Clinton. Well, on second thought...Ask yourself Dittmer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Been listening to SH again?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

"This whole case is typical of the tactics of all liberal activist groups (LAG).

This is where Dittmer loses his own credibility. When I was at the R-CALF convention I talked politics with quite a number of people. With VERY few exceptions they were extremely conservative people.

I did meet a few (very few) liberals. They were rational people with whom I could disagree on some things within a very rational discussion. We agreed on a few significant things, too.

Dittmer is way off base calling R-CALF a liberal activist group.

Also his contention that Cox's testimony formed the faoundation of R-CALF's case is off the mark.

To reaffirm what has been said--------he only knows one note. I know for a fact that Dittmer has personally heard evidence that would contradict his accusation of R-CALF and OCM as liberal activist groups---but he didn't print it. He committed the sin of omission.

He's a paid publicist, it's been demonstrated over and over that he has only one master -- someone who wants to denigrate R-CALF and anyone who gets in the way of the packers. And I say this as someone who has had no contact with R-CALF. This guy is so transparent, it's a joke.

So reader is Dittmer wrong? You don't like what Dittmer is but is that clouding your judgement ?

 

[Bill]

OK But can any of you prove that he is wrong?

All of the above has been said by Dittmer detractors before but when will someone prove where he is wrong other than denying R-Calf being a LAG based on talking politics?? with a handful of people at a cattle convention.

Was Dittmer wrong in writing:

"In the FDA case, Cox had attributed a quote regarding a risk assessment to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). But he later admitted to FDA that the quote was not attributable to CVM and he added the quotation marks himself because "it seemed to be an important concept." Crawford concluded his evaluation of Cox's testimony, methods and his explanation of his actions by saying the FDA expects of witnesses that "when using quotation marks, the material should, in fact, be an accurate quote."

As Mike asked, did Cox really do what Dittmer said he did and if so, why?

 

[Sandhusker]

This is where Dittmer loses his own credibility. When I was at the R-CALF convention I talked politics with quite a number of people. With VERY few exceptions they were extremely conservative people.

I did meet a few (very few) liberals. They were rational people with whom I could disagree on some things within a very rational discussion. We agreed on a few significant things, too.

Dittmer is way off base calling R-CALF a liberal activist group.

Also his contention that Cox's testimony formed the faoundation of R-CALF's case is off the mark.

To reaffirm what has been said--------he only knows one note. I know for a fact that Dittmer has personally heard evidence that would contradict his accusation of R-CALF and OCM as liberal activist groups---but he didn't print it. He committed the sin of omission.

He's a paid publicist, it's been demonstrated over and over that he has only one master -- someone who wants to denigrate R-CALF and anyone who gets in the way of the packers. And I say this as someone who has had no contact with R-CALF. This guy is so transparent, it's a joke.

So reader is Dittmer wrong? You don't like what Dittmer is but is that clouding your judgement ?

I've posted probably half a dozen times things Dittmer was waaaaay wrong on. Him bring wrong again is no stretch.

 

[Anonymous]

Bill- All I can account for is locally- Lived in this county all my life, was involved in local politics for years and served in several elected positions- county and statewide...The local people that belong to R-CALF could never be considered liberal by any degree of the term-- many are very outspoken Republicans and involved in politics as such...Statewide, the majority I know personally also could not be called liberal-- a few are Democrats- but would not fit the liberal label...Then look at our state representation in D.C.- 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat which have supported every issue that R-CALF has promoted that I can think of...Be darn tough to call either Burns or Rehberg LIBERALS :???: .....

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So Reader your telling us that you can't prove him wrong but you don't like him so therefore he must be.

 

[Sandhusker]

So Reader your telling us that you can't prove him wrong but you don't like him so therefore he must be.

Tell you what, BMR, I'll bet you your $100 to R-CALF vs my $100 to who ever you choose that reader can find more than one thing that Dittmer is wrong about. Money talks.....Dittmer walks. Are you a talker or a walker?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So Reader your telling us that you can't prove him wrong but you don't like him so therefore he must be.

Tell you what, BMR, I'll bet you your $100 to R-CALF vs my $100 to who ever you choose that reader can find more than one thing that Dittmer is wrong about. Money talks.....Dittmer walks. Are you a talker or a walker?

I asked if was he wrong about Cox. Your just diverting again Sandy. Hope R-Calf doesn't rely on your gambling for to much funding.

 

[Sandhusker]

So Reader your telling us that you can't prove him wrong but you don't like him so therefore he must be.

Tell you what, BMR, I'll bet you your $100 to R-CALF vs my $100 to who ever you choose that reader can find more than one thing that Dittmer is wrong about. Money talks.....Dittmer walks. Are you a talker or a walker?

I asked if was he wrong about Cox. Your just diverting again Sandy. Hope R-Calf doesn't rely on your gambling for to much funding.

You are offering challenges to doubters on one of Dittmer's topics, but you shy completely away from any other of his statements? Looks to me like you are saying he might be only a part-time idiot.

So far, my gambling for R-CALF's coffers is undefeated. My offer to you remains.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So Reader your telling us that you can't prove him wrong but you don't like him so therefore he must be.

Your cause does not need Dittmer. He's bad for anyone's cause because he lacks credibility because of his methods. He uses innuendos like calling R-CALF a liberal activist group. In fact, using labels (thinking they are catchy ones) and trying to tar someone / some group by comparing them to someone with whom they have no connection (Bill Clinton) is dumb and manipulative. Can't you admit that the guy communicates with a hammer?

I don't care if he uses a really big hammer. Was he wrong about COX?
You are letting your bias show . Your also diverting like a trained R-CALFer.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

You flatter me

Don't be to flattered. It wasn't a compilment. :roll:

Oh yea was he wrong about Cox?


Sandhusker nobody is as perfect as you my little princess. I didn't say he was right about everything I asked if he was wrong about Cox.

 

[Econ101]

Bill, BMR, what has dittmer said about the OIG report on GIPSA?

 

[Bill]

Bill, BMR, what has dittmer said about the OIG report on GIPSA?

I don't search for Dittmer's articles they are sent to me by his organization and I only post the ones I know are of interest to this site.

I have no idea what Dittmer said about the OIG report on GIPSA so please enlighten us.