Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95723 sci.agricultu59615

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:41:57 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:04:58 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

has introgressed English to become 'floe', meaning sea ice.

I knew that! smacks self in head

concepts, going with the floe means going with
the ice.

An English tongued person might yield to associations from floe
to flee/fly/fled/flight, particularly when he is in a belligerent
state of mind, but again, flee/fly is an altogether different concept
than floe.


Any connection to the rhyme:
Flee Fly Floe Flumb I smell the blood of a Danish man?
vbg

Self evidently now, you just made it:-) The direct template of
this new expression would of course be King Lear,

My mind was drifting to Hamlet - it seemed somewhat more appropriate,
unless you were to prefer I identify you as Claudius? g

I am sure you also recognised my misquoting of the rhyme.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:09:34 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:41:57 -0000, David P
Any connection to the rhyme:
Flee Fly Floe Flumb I smell the blood of a Danish man?
vbg

Self evidently now, you just made it:-) The direct template of
this new expression would of course be King Lear,

My mind was drifting to Hamlet

Floe, how the muske-cod smells!

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:09:34 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:41:57 -0000, David P
Any connection to the rhyme:
Flee Fly Floe Flumb I smell the blood of a Danish man?
vbg

Self evidently now, you just made it:-) The direct template of
this new expression would of course be King Lear,

My mind was drifting to Hamlet

Floe, how the muske-cod smells!

Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK had in
1996 a farm income peak, the
highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why
couldn't the farmers.

and you never did answer my direct questions did you?

But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

On Wednesday, in article

"David P" wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:41:57 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:04:58 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

has introgressed English to become 'floe', meaning sea ice.

I knew that! smacks self in head

concepts, going with the floe means going with
the ice.

An English tongued person might yield to associations from floe
to flee/fly/fled/flight, particularly when he is in a belligerent
state of mind, but again, flee/fly is an altogether different concept
than floe.


Any connection to the rhyme:
Flee Fly Floe Flumb I smell the blood of a Danish man?
vbg

Self evidently now, you just made it:-) The direct template of
this new expression would of course be King Lear,

My mind was drifting to Hamlet - it seemed somewhat more appropriate,
unless you were to prefer I identify you as Claudius? g

I am sure you also recognised my misquoting of the rhyme.

Philologically, there are traces of Old Friesian in all this, with some
masculine inflections mistakenly merged with the root form at some
intermediate point, and then suffering a confusing agglutination of a
conventional gender differentiation, which is disregarded in modern
English where the ancient doubling of the masculine form is now taken as
a gender-neutral default.


--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95728 sci.agricultu59624

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P
wrote:
Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK had in
1996 a farm income peak, the
highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why
couldn't the farmers.

and you never did answer my direct questions did you?

But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P
wrote:
Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK
had in
1996 a farm income peak, the
highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so
why
couldn't the farmers.

and you never did answer my direct questions did you?

But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:15:45 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in
subsequent years.

Meaning no comment on McSharry in either way , may I ask which errors
and adjustments you are referring to?

How did I know I would regret saying this? Someone else may have proper
details, I am merely reporting memories of agricultural magazine comment
of some 7/8 years back.

When you said error in relation to McSharry I got to thinking of the
inability to negotiate any effective capping into the system when it
was created. Without that, the reform turned rather predictably into
an effective instrument to make big farmers outcompete the small
farmers. There was an interview with McSharry, he explained it got
that way, because the policy had to be acceptable to farmer's
organisations, e.g. NFU, which are effectively run by big farmers.

In article , Jim Webster
writes
But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer

The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable?

We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there were
a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured without
advisory cost:-)

Anyway, you weren't holding him properly.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:38:58 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Friday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:15:45 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in
subsequent years.

Meaning no comment on McSharry in either way , may I ask which errors
and adjustments you are referring to?

How did I know I would regret saying this? Someone else may have proper
details, I am merely reporting memories of agricultural magazine comment
of some 7/8 years back.

When you said error in relation to McSharry I got to thinking of the
inability to negotiate any effective capping into the system when it
was created. Without that, the reform turned rather predictably into
an effective instrument to make big farmers outcompete the small
farmers. There was an interview with McSharry, he explained it got
that way, because the policy had to be acceptable to farmer's
organisations, e.g. NFU, which are effectively run by big farmers.

As a small farmer, and an NFU member, I find that horribly plausible.

McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to
negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers.
The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that
capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held
to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not
receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less
land.

It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from
small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is
to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean
losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held
that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm.

Tim Lamb wrote in message
news
In article , Jim Webster
writes
But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble
enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer

The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable?

We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there
were
a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured
without
advisory cost:-)

Anyway, you weren't holding him properly.

nah, he kilfiled me a long time ago I think
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


regards
--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
When you said error in relation to McSharry I got to thinking of the
inability to negotiate any effective capping into the system when it
was created. Without that, the reform turned rather predictably into
an effective instrument to make big farmers outcompete the small
farmers. There was an interview with McSharry, he explained it got
that way, because the policy had to be acceptable to farmer's
organisations, e.g. NFU, which are effectively run by big farmers.

I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the
sums available for export support etc.

The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I hear the Poles are unhappy about what has been offered by way of
support payments.

regards



--
Tim Lamb

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to
negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers.
The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that
capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held
to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not
receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less
land.

It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from
small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is
to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean
losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held
that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm.

Not being a member, I could not possibly comment. The situation is not
helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim the monetary compensation.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
says...
In article , Jim Webster
writes
But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer

The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable?

Ahem!

We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there were
a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured without
advisory cost:-)

Typical - always want summat for nowt. g
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

In article ,
says...

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P
wrote:
Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK
had in
1996 a farm income peak, the
highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so
why
couldn't the farmers.

and you never did answer my direct questions did you?

But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough
to
avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings.

You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind.

looks like you are not going to get an answer

No, I came to that conclusion a while back. Not that I was too surprised
though.
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:20:15 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to
negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers.
The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that
capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held
to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not
receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less
land.

It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from
small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is
to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean
losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held
that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm.

Not being a member, I could not possibly comment.

??

The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim
the monetary compensation.

Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we
looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the
situation)