The RKaiser, SH & Agman Show

[Mike]

Three days of non-stop fun and games featuring the kings of ridicule against a lowly uneducated kindergardner that knows no end. Watch closely for the fun and games as they square off in a public forum as the kings keep coming back for more time after time, and saying the same after same.

Arguments are entertaining the masses.

Names go from "Suck-Hole" to "Finger Painter" to just plain "Idiot" as the suspense mounts and frustration emerges, leaving the audience gasping and laughing, only to remember that it's just words. And more words. But some have such fierce pride in ruling the day, that they let emotions overcome good judgement and lose support from the gallery. Back and forth, forth and back. When will it end? Never! Say the kings, UNTIL I SAY SO, and everyone else admits defeat.

Tune in tomorrow night at the same time and same station.
(Show temporarily supercedes the Sandhusker/Oldtimer/Haymaker Show due to a change in subject matter) Under 17 not allowed.
Rated - Questionable

Entertainment value depends on interest in personality disorders.

 

[the chief]

"And now, the continuing saga of the Hatfield's and McCoys. The Hatfields accuse the McCoys of being 'Packah bwamers' while the McCoys accuse the Hatfields of being 'anti-producer'. This week Scooter Hatfield will exclaim that only he and God know all the answers to worldly questions and we should all bow down to their intelligence."

:wink:

 

[RobertMac]

The voting is in...Randy Kaiser, by a large margin, is the next recipient of the prestigious "BLOODY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL" award!!!!!
Good luck, Randy

 

[Anonymous]

As the factually armed Hatfields and the overly emotional McCoys square away to battle it out. Chief sits on the mound with a jug of whiskey knowing that he certainly doesn't have anything of substance to add besides possibly a review for the Toothless Times.


~SH~

 

[RobertMac]

Hey Chief, where you at...and is that some of that Canadian whiskey Mike likes????? :mrgreen: I see a pardy comin on :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

As the factually armed Hatfields and the overly emotional McCoys square away to battle it out. Chief sits on the mound with a jug of whiskey knowing that he certainly doesn't have anything of substance to add besides possibly a review for the Toothless Times.


~SH~

The "factually armed Hatfields" could shut up Mr. McCoy simply by providing the breakout in profits (facts). Instead, by the continued battle of opinions, they show they have no facts to brandish.

 

[pointrider]

Sandhusker, did I read a couple of days ago that Nebraska is sending a delegation to Cuba to work out a trade agreement with them?

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, did I read a couple of days ago that Nebraska is sending a delegation to Cuba to work out a trade agreement with them?

Yes, there are some of our boys down there. I don't think they have any authority to actually ink a deal, but they're trying to figure out ways to sell Nebraska products.

 

[agman]

As the factually armed Hatfields and the overly emotional McCoys square away to battle it out. Chief sits on the mound with a jug of whiskey knowing that he certainly doesn't have anything of substance to add besides possibly a review for the Toothless Times.


~SH~

The "factually armed Hatfields" could shut up Mr. McCoy simply by providing the breakout in profits (facts). Instead, by the continued battle of opinions, they show they have no facts to brandish.

Or you could tell me your choice. I did post annual profits. Also there were quarters other than the first two quarters of fiscal 2005 that posted losses following the closure of the Canadian border. If quarterly losses occurred you are left with these options. U.S. losses exceeded any gains which occurred in Canada. Both Canada and U.S plants lost money simultaneously. Finally, Canadian losses were sufficiently large to offset gains in U.S. plants. The latter is unlikely which leaves you with the two previously mentioned conditions. Either of those choices eliminates any validity that Mr. McCoy has with assumptions. It is quite clear that Mr Hatfield has provided the necessary information to determine the facts regarding this situation. In the game of chess a three move checkmate is called a "fools mate". This game is over.

If you wish to corroborate my comments concerning quarterly profit/loss results I will be happy to point you in the right direction.

 

[Sandhusker]

As the factually armed Hatfields and the overly emotional McCoys square away to battle it out. Chief sits on the mound with a jug of whiskey knowing that he certainly doesn't have anything of substance to add besides possibly a review for the Toothless Times.


~SH~

The "factually armed Hatfields" could shut up Mr. McCoy simply by providing the breakout in profits (facts). Instead, by the continued battle of opinions, they show they have no facts to brandish.

Or you could tell me your choice. I did post annual profits. Also there were quarters other than the first two quarters of fiscal 2005 that posted losses following the closure of the Canadian border. If quarterly losses occurred you are left with these options. U.S. losses exceeded any gains which occurred in Canada. Both Canada and U.S plants lost money simultaneously. Finally, Canadian losses were sufficiently large to offset gains in U.S. plants. The latter is unlikely which leaves you with the two previously mentioned conditions. Either of those choices eliminates any validity that Mr. McCoy has with assumptions. It is quite clear that Mr Hatfield has provided the necessary information to determine the facts regarding this situation. In the game of chess a three move checkmate is called a "fools mate". This game is over.

If you wish to corroborate my comments concerning quarterly profit/loss results I will be happy to point you in the right direction.

Yeah, Agman, you posted annual profits. However, that number does nothing to settle the dispute between you and Randy as total profits are not in question. The same applies to your quarterly numbers. You're throwing up a strawman. You know dang well you haven't provided the necessary information to determine an answer. If you want to settle this, break out the Canadian and US numbers from the total and compare them per Randy's original request. Anything less and you're both speculating on incomplete information.

 

[the chief]

As the factually armed Hatfields and the overly emotional McCoys square away to battle it out. Chief sits on the mound with a jug of whiskey knowing that he certainly doesn't have anything of substance to add besides possibly a review for the Toothless Times.


~SH~

A little touchy, SH???
First, I was simply adding some "comic relief" to this post. SORRY if you took it personally.
Second, to accuse me of having a "jug of whiskey" is an insult to someone who does not drink.
Toothless? Not hardly. Full set of teeth. Full head of hair. All my wits and common sense are intact.

I cannot believe you can take my first post and find fault. Sounds to me like paranoia is an issue. Hope not.

Now, take a deep breath and repeat "Not everyone is out to get me."
Keep repeating until the feeling goes away.

 

[agman]

The "factually armed Hatfields" could shut up Mr. McCoy simply by providing the breakout in profits (facts). Instead, by the continued battle of opinions, they show they have no facts to brandish.

Or you could tell me your choice. I did post annual profits. Also there were quarters other than the first two quarters of fiscal 2005 that posted losses following the closure of the Canadian border. If quarterly losses occurred you are left with these options. U.S. losses exceeded any gains which occurred in Canada. Both Canada and U.S plants lost money simultaneously. Finally, Canadian losses were sufficiently large to offset gains in U.S. plants. The latter is unlikely which leaves you with the two previously mentioned conditions. Either of those choices eliminates any validity that Mr. McCoy has with assumptions. It is quite clear that Mr Hatfield has provided the necessary information to determine the facts regarding this situation. In the game of chess a three move checkmate is called a "fools mate". This game is over.

If you wish to corroborate my comments concerning quarterly profit/loss results I will be happy to point you in the right direction.

Yeah, Agman, you posted annual profits. However, that number does nothing to settle the dispute between you and Randy as total profits are not in question. The same applies to your quarterly numbers. You're throwing up a strawman. You know dang well you haven't provided the necessary information to determine an answer. If you want to settle this, break out the Canadian and US numbers from the total and compare them per Randy's original request. Anything less and you're both speculating on incomplete information.

Think about what you just said and the options I provided. Contrary to your opinion when losses occurred by quarter either of the two options negates his theory. Understand the position RK took is that they wanted the border to remain closed to help their profitability.

The data you are asking for is internal. Although I do have the means to obtain such data it is not something I could or would divulge publicly. As a banker that would be the equivalent of me asking you to show me the impact of each individually named loan to your profitability. I trust you could not and would not divulge that either.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Think about what you just said and the options I provided. Contrary to your opinion when losses occurred by quarter either of the two options negates his theory. Understand the position RK took is that they wanted the border to remain closed to help their profitability."

"The data you are asking for is internal. Although I do have the means to obtain such data it is not something I could or would divulge publicly. As a banker that would be the equivalent of me asking you to show me the impact of each individually named loan to your profitability. I trust you could not and would not divulge that either."

Sorry, Agman, but the data you provided tells nothing. I don't know why you would expect us to believe it does. Basically, what would be needed is the performance of one plant compared to the rest, not total figures. If half of Tyson's performance came from Canada and half from the US, one could maybe draw a rough conclusion. However, we all know that is not the case.

I disagree with your comparison to Tyson's numbers and a bank's customer's accounts. In fact, I think you're trying to snow me. :lol: Tyson is a public company and all information would concern only them. I can bet you any fund manager or analyst asking for a break out would certainly get it easily. A multi-national's exposure in a foreign country would be a legitimate concern. How else can one estimate profits? Asking for individual account information concerns many different entities and there are specific laws against devulging such information.