Why does someone have to be wrong?

[parsley]

twadle.

I've seen and admired the farms that farmers have built, custom designed according to his individual dream.

And I've also seen the farms built by the the farmer with little say, often in a family relationship where the patriarch simply will not let go of the reins. Usually friction abounds.


Being ones own boss, building ones own dream bears fruit, otherwise unattainable.

Forced participation NEVER yields what the sheer joy of being a happy articipant can accomplish.

If you think otherwise, grassfarmer, you are not in tune with the world around you.

Parsley

[Lifer]

and the strongest farms or businesse I've seen have been the ones that can bring together a number of people sharing a vision. When an interdependence occurs each person is respected and has a place.

How many have stacked small square bales by themselves. One person comes to help and three times as much gets done.

So does someone have to be wrong? It is wrong to force your will on some one else.

[parsley]

Lifer,

I agree that co-operation and interdependence can make a good operation, or system into a formidable one.

And I also agree it is because you want to. Force is the factor that has place on the road to long-term success.

Parsley

[parsley]

that should read :

force has NO place.

[SASKFARMER3]

Forced that is the common thing that CWB supporters want to do. And those that want out are being forced by a few to stay in. Then their is the Law that you have to sell YOUR product to the CWB.
Forced, Vs Freedom to do what you want.
NDP Liberals VS all others.
Why does someone have to be Wrong?
They don't but a few are forcing their ways on rest, and that is the problem.

[parsley]

I presume they would also agree with forced marriagess.

Parsley

[wilagro]

parsley: I was going to say something nasty about forced marriage and you BUT I decided not to do so. I'm just not that nasty.

However, I don't see the connection with CWB support and forced marriage. Perhaps you have a greater perception of the bizarre than I do.

[charliep]

craig - Hopefully not putting words in your mouth but I seem to remember you talking about more effective contracting programs including cash pricing alternatives that are not related to the pricing pools. Will note the following press release from the CWB directors strategic planning meeting.

Quote: CWB directors unanimously agree to renewed business relationship with farmers

July 20, 2007

Gimli, Manitoba - The CWB’s farmer-controlled board of directors decided at its annual strategic planning session to focus on creating more pricing and delivery options that meet Prairie farmers’ business needs. Directors also emerged from the July 18-19 session with a unanimous consensus to renew the CWB’s relationship with farmers and look for opportunities to add more value for farmers

“We left politics at the door during this session,” said board chair Ken Ritter. “Instead, our focus was on making sure that farmers are the ones who benefit from any changes or enhancements in the way that the CWB operates.”

The board of directors has asked CWB management to develop new pricing and delivery options to enhance farmers’ choices and to develop strategies that include consultations with farmers in designing programs that will best suit their business needs. Training and education on the programs will be part of the strategy."

Maybe off topic (apologize) but is this taking us some way down the road where the thread started from? Hopefully more creative contracts than the rejected malt barley one announced today.

[craig]

Good comments Charlie. My concern is that the CWB needs strong input from producers who are not strong CWB supporters. In other words you don't ask the NDP to develop policy for the Conservative party. Time and time again the CWB response to marketing proposals is that they are not treated on equal footing with the pool accounts. The underlying theme is that you allow producers the management tools they need.If you never bring the opponents to the table you will never satisfy them.

[AdamSmith]

“We left politics at the door during this session,” said board chair Ken Ritter.

Ah, but Ken here's the rub, at the cwb "politics" IS the door. It's also the windows, the desks, the carpet, the lights, the building, everything. They all exist because of the CWB ACT, a political creation.

So Ken the only way cwb directors can leave politics at the door, is to exit the door.

Now that's some real twadle.
-------------------------
(“Instead, our focus was on making sure that farmers are the ones who benefit from any changes or enhancements in the way that the CWB operates.”)

So Ken, are you saying that up until now your focus wasn't on making sure farmers benifited?

I guess that makes perfect sense because the cwb's court action, if successful, will most definitely not benifit farmers.

Note* read the following paragragh while invisioning Dana Carvey as the Church Lady.

So if farmers weren't the focus of cwb changes, who could have possibly been the focus??? Hmmmm, I wonder, could it have beeeen SATAN, er, I mean THE WHEAT BOARD!