Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Didn't know where to put this
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jogeephus" data-source="post: 1305838" data-attributes="member: 4362"><p>It never ceases to amaze me how many people; people you would normally think as smart and level-headed, cannot grasp the concept of the words "up to". My radar goes up every time I see these two words. I've seen people throw thousands of dollars at the promise of "earning UP TO" some fantastic number. I've beaten my head against the wall on several occasions trying to explain this concept to people when they were promised "up to $10,000/acre/year" for growing some "new crop". I've tried to explain what this range means to them but there is always that fool who thinks that the paper contract guarantees that $10,000/acre/year when nothing is also within the range and meets the conditions of the contract. </p><p></p><p>It doesn't stop at the big dollar things either. These words are used for mineral sales too. You can get up to 10% more weight gain if Brand X is used. Sure, maybe so, maybe if the cow never had a drop of mineral given to it and it was nutritionally deprived then yes, you might get upt to 10% more gain if you gave the animal that dire needed mineral then again - maybe not.</p><p></p><p>What's shameful is how some of these schemes sometimes get the backing of the land grant universities, the very same ones who should be neutral and looking out for the interests of the producer. Thankfully, this is rare but it does happen and is normally associated with some liberal BS agenda coming out of DC like the "clean energy" scheme. Just have to sit back and laugh I guess.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jogeephus, post: 1305838, member: 4362"] It never ceases to amaze me how many people; people you would normally think as smart and level-headed, cannot grasp the concept of the words "up to". My radar goes up every time I see these two words. I've seen people throw thousands of dollars at the promise of "earning UP TO" some fantastic number. I've beaten my head against the wall on several occasions trying to explain this concept to people when they were promised "up to $10,000/acre/year" for growing some "new crop". I've tried to explain what this range means to them but there is always that fool who thinks that the paper contract guarantees that $10,000/acre/year when nothing is also within the range and meets the conditions of the contract. It doesn't stop at the big dollar things either. These words are used for mineral sales too. You can get up to 10% more weight gain if Brand X is used. Sure, maybe so, maybe if the cow never had a drop of mineral given to it and it was nutritionally deprived then yes, you might get upt to 10% more gain if you gave the animal that dire needed mineral then again - maybe not. What's shameful is how some of these schemes sometimes get the backing of the land grant universities, the very same ones who should be neutral and looking out for the interests of the producer. Thankfully, this is rare but it does happen and is normally associated with some liberal BS agenda coming out of DC like the "clean energy" scheme. Just have to sit back and laugh I guess. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Every Thing Else Board
Didn't know where to put this
Top