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

Agman, "There was no proof of manipulation contrary to what you think. I clarified for readers what neither OCM or Conman would answer, a very simple and direct question. Also to clarify I explained that "marketing Agreements" per se are not illegal. In fact they have legal protection as I pointed out.

What you fail to point out to readers is that Tyson needs certain types of cattle to fulfill their product agreements. What Tyson seeks is animals that the highest red meat yield. That is vastly different from cattle with the highest carcass yield or quality grade. That said, they were the largest buyer of those type of cattle in the cash market also. Cattle with the highest carcass yield and quality grade often are the lowest in red meat yield for your information.

You have made a valiant attempt to show they did not need marketing agreements is negated by your lack of understanding of the types of cattle they actually need for their customers. Court records did show the yield on their cattle was greater than the industry average. They purchase yield and they were instrumental in paying premiums for #1 & #2 yield grade cattle because of their increased red meat yield. Since you are confused can you now understand how jurors less knowledgeable than you regrading cattle failed to connect the dots properly per this issue. Additional point, even if they did not need marketing agreements as you claim there was nothing illegal about their use or how they were used. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the confusion on your part."

In stating their case for the need to use marketing agreements, what was the adjective Tyson themselves used to describe the cattle they need? What was their exact words to the court?

It seems to me that Strom said that there was evidence that showed that the use of marketing agreements did lower cash prices. That was right before he added the new and previously never-interpreted-before requirement that the plaintiffs had to show no legitimage use.

I believe I mentioned that nobody is disputing the legality of marketing agreements per se. Do you need to point out that water is wet as well?

<blockquote data-quote="Sandhusker" data-source="post: 79211" data-attributes="member: 65">Agman, &quot;There was no proof of manipulation contrary to what you think. I clarified for readers what neither OCM or Conman would answer, a very simple and direct question. Also to clarify I explained that &quot;marketing Agreements&quot; per se are not illegal. In fact they have legal protection as I pointed out. What you fail to point out to readers is that Tyson needs certain types of cattle to fulfill their product agreements. What Tyson seeks is animals that the highest red meat yield. That is vastly different from cattle with the highest carcass yield or quality grade. That said, they were the largest buyer of those type of cattle in the cash market also. Cattle with the highest carcass yield and quality grade often are the lowest in red meat yield for your information. You have made a valiant attempt to show they did not need marketing agreements is negated by your lack of understanding of the types of cattle they actually need for their customers. Court records did show the yield on their cattle was greater than the industry average. They purchase yield and they were instrumental in paying premiums for #1 &amp; #2 yield grade cattle because of their increased red meat yield. Since you are confused can you now understand how jurors less knowledgeable than you regrading cattle failed to connect the dots properly per this issue. Additional point, even if they did not need marketing agreements as you claim there was nothing illegal about their use or how they were used. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the confusion on your part.&quot;In stating their case for the need to use marketing agreements, what was the adjective Tyson themselves used to describe the cattle they need?&nbsp; What was their exact words to the court?It seems to me that Strom said that there was evidence that showed that the use of marketing agreements did lower cash prices.&nbsp; That was right before he added the new and previously never-interpreted-before requirement that the plaintiffs had to show no legitimage use.I believe I mentioned that nobody is disputing the legality of marketing agreements per se.&nbsp; Do you need to point out that water is wet as well?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sandhusker, post: 79211, member: 65"] Agman, "There was no proof of manipulation contrary to what you think. I clarified for readers what neither OCM or Conman would answer, a very simple and direct question. Also to clarify I explained that "marketing Agreements" per se are not illegal. In fact they have legal protection as I pointed out. What you fail to point out to readers is that Tyson needs certain types of cattle to fulfill their product agreements. What Tyson seeks is animals that the highest red meat yield. That is vastly different from cattle with the highest carcass yield or quality grade. That said, they were the largest buyer of those type of cattle in the cash market also. Cattle with the highest carcass yield and quality grade often are the lowest in red meat yield for your information. You have made a valiant attempt to show they did not need marketing agreements is negated by your lack of understanding of the types of cattle they actually need for their customers. Court records did show the yield on their cattle was greater than the industry average. They purchase yield and they were instrumental in paying premiums for #1 & #2 yield grade cattle because of their increased red meat yield. Since you are confused can you now understand how jurors less knowledgeable than you regrading cattle failed to connect the dots properly per this issue. Additional point, even if they did not need marketing agreements as you claim there was nothing illegal about their use or how they were used. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the confusion on your part." In stating their case for the need to use marketing agreements, what was the adjective Tyson themselves used to describe the cattle they need? What was their exact words to the court? It seems to me that Strom said that there was evidence that showed that the use of marketing agreements did lower cash prices. That was right before he added the new and previously never-interpreted-before requirement that the plaintiffs had to show no legitimage use. I believe I mentioned that nobody is disputing the legality of marketing agreements per se. Do you need to point out that water is wet as well? [/QUOTE]

Verification: What city in Missouri has a big arch?