What is wrong with capitalism?

[John21652]

After over ten posts of debating whether the US was responsible or not you finally have acknowledged this is correct … whew took a while.

You still don’t get it, do you. You mocked Abu because he said the European welfare state helped their financial crisis. He was right, you mocked him mercilessly and you still haven’t apologised to him.

Your generalization as above again suggests a welfare state meant getting caught with your pants down as you put it:… you yourself have not managed to successfully defend this position.

And you conveniently ignored all the links to European commentary that said exactly that. Typical.

As in your posts you have used Greece’s Olympic games as a reason for being too much in debt, in defense of my statement that yes they had a welfare system but the cost of it was too low a % of annual GDP to be significant on its own as a cause of collapse - only then did you begin to start talking about GENERAL government overspending.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? I added in the Olympic spending as an extra example of Greece’s financial profligacy. They piled debt on top of debt. You are now being desperate.

You have admitted that Iceland had no welfare system – but that’s okay because you still used it as an example simply changed the reason behind it:

I originally asked you to explain the connection between Iceland’s failure to invest in its traditonal fishing industry and what you wrote of as “U.S greed and lack of regulation”. It has now been amply demonstrated that lack of regulation in the U.S. as the cause of the financial collapse is false. You still hven’t answered my question about the Icelandic fishing industry.

You then pushed Sweden and your own country as a wonderful examples of a countries who didn’t suffer, however your own statement only backs up what i have been saying - a welfare state is not a signifyor of whether countries were affected or not:

False again. Abu wrote that Sweden was cutting back its social welfare spending as a result of the financial crises. You denied that and we have spent countless pages proving otherwise to you. You are in denial. I also did not use my country as a “wonderful example”. I pointed out that it was barely affected. Your misconstruction of posts just proves my point even further, that you are disengenuous.

Sweden is not winding down its welfare state, it is making it more efficient it is not cutting services but implementing total welfare that drives people off welfare when necessary but still manages to pay for education, healthcare, generous pensions. So this hardly signifies winding down.

“Drives people of welfare” is not winding it back? Too funny.

The most profligate countries were not Greece – The US drew down $1143billion and pumped 30% of its GDP - $7.36 TRILLION and you cant possibly argue that the US has a welfare state comparable to those you have used to critize such efforts in Europe. There’s no free education, no universal and free healthcare etc.

The topic was welfare states in Europe, not the U.S. All the links given to you were about European countries.
…

Until your last few posts you have termed it as in issue solely perpetuated by the nature of a having a welfare state. Once you had no where left to argue on this track you simply then started adding the comment that government spending was responsible whether on welfare or not --thats hardly defending your position, its widening the net to try and make it credible.

Stop making things up. The argument was about Abu writing the simple phrase that the welfare state in Europe helped them into crisis. You denied that phrase and mockingly so. You have become shrill.

 

[essie7777]

.

I have answered appropriately with evidence all the points you raised, at this point you are so confused as to what you are actually defending that you have lost the thread of your own position.

There are more than enough comments on this for you to go back and ACTUALLY READ them, rather than picking one word here and there and making up your own spin. Feel free to look at #305, 344, 345,346, 354, 355, 363, 366(by Abu), 367, 368, 372(Abu), 376, 378, 379 (Carn) etc etc. (I have added those from Abu as they again demonstrate what he states rather than your spin and has appropriate rebuttal comments later. Carn’s post so ably challenges you definitions of welfare state and highlight what you actually believe versus what you like to argue when you have no answer!)

I’ll point out your glaring errors AGAIN:

And you conveniently ignored all the links to European commentary that said exactly that. Typical.

My response from #376

I’m not even going to point out the clear bias in your choice of examples.

I felt that was enough but allow me elaborate – ONE source a blog run website for Conservatism in Europe – clearly has an agenda and bias. The only other source you referenced was an op-ed company site which provides editorial comment free and charged to papers globally – you quoted from their publication – this is a list of what is available not something used in a publication of merit.

Do you really need me to explain how these sources --are not credible without having peer review or objective reporting aims and no bias one way or another?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? I added in the Olympic spending as an extra example of Greece’s financial profligacy. They piled debt on top of debt. You are now being desperate.

Nope not desperate; frustrated you still can’t see that you added this government spending after i’d challenged your view on the welfare state spending as being skewed and not the cause of you were so ineptly discussing.

I originally asked you to explain the connection between Iceland’s failure to invest in its traditonal fishing industry and what you wrote of as “U.S greed and lack of regulation”. It has now been amply demonstrated that** lack of regulation** in the U.S. as the cause of the financial collapse is false. You still hven’t answered my question about the Icelandic fishing industry.

Misquoting me and throwing in three words i wrote out of context in everything you state( i have highlighted them for you) has been more than adequately defended and proven that you have purposely misconstrued and edited this for your own benefit.

And just on another note – we all know how closely related the lack of investment in the fishing industry is to a welfare state and banking crisis!!! (Please read as highly sarcastic) As i pointed out irrelevant to the thread so didn’t even bother to answer.

I also did not use my country as a “wonderful example”. I pointed out that it was barely affected.

Another laughable point for you premise that high indebtedness and a welfare state meant countries were caught with their pants down. So why wasn’t Australia?

You are aware that your own country has an expensive welfare state, over 20% of annual GDP, at at the point of financial meltdown had debts over $1 trillion – by your estimation then it meets the criteria to have been hit … hmmmm now i wonder why it wasn’t?? Hmmm could it be the exposure to toxic assets from the US was not sufficient to cause collapse???

Abu wrote that Sweden was cutting back its social welfare spending as a result of the financial crises.

Abu wrote they were “winding down” having learnt their lessons about welfare not being appropriate for the state in post #303

You then responded in post #353

What he wrote about Sweden is true and it is also true of Greece, Iceland and Ireland.

As Iceland doesn’t have a welfare state as your self commented surely you can see that this is laughable in its lack of facts.

Also please stick to the correct meaning of the views you have so ably pushed for days now, don’t feel you have to change them to simply try and discredit what little old me is saying. (again read sarcasm)

As you so aptly go back to the correct phrases and meaning just one sentance later in your own post:

“Drives people of welfare” is not winding it back?

You use winding back as an euphemism for dismantling as all the posts on this issue you and Abu have made say the same thing.

Another point AGAIN – the sentence commented on discussed the drive to take people off welfare when it was appropriate not to STOP WELFARE. LOL seriously

The topic was welfare states in Europe, not the U.S. All the links given to you were about European countries.

Ahh so when the content doesn’t agree with your myopic perception you now saying it was only discussing Europe??? Do you simply just not have a defense against the logic put forward???

When you posted your links --you were demonstrating the headlines that suggested Europe’s welfare system was causing economic meltdown. So naturally they were going to be focused on Europe --i certainly didn’t anticipate seeing something on India or the Antarctic! Get serious.

 

[John21652]

The only problem with your continued reference to this one written document is that this peice is defending the free market and deregulation, which unless i am mistaken the capitalist economy of the US had neither:

More dishonesty. This time in the form of selective quoting to distort the message in the letter of economist Steven Horwitz.

The full quote you should have given us was this -

In the last week or two, I have heard frequently from you that the current financial mess has been caused by the failures of free markets and deregulation. I have heard from you that the lust after profits, any profits, that is central to free markets is at the core of our problems. And I have heard from you that only significant government intervention into financial markets can cure these problems, perhaps once and for all.

Immediately from the first sentence the hypothesis for discussion is laid out:

And you cut the hypothesis in half to suit your own, by now very transparent, agenda.

Swiftly followed by the request:

The full quote is this -

I ask of you for the next few minutes to, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, consider that you may be mistaken. Consider that both the diagnosis and the cure might be equally mistaken.

The hypothesis this open letter answers if fundamentally flawed – The US system was not a free economy and was not deregulated so any conclusions will be flawed and what follows is simply the author’s attempt to “sell” free economy in light of the current situation the US was in, he wrote in 2008.

Your hypothesis is that the U.S. was not deregulated enough and that lack of regulation was the cause of the sub-prime fiasco. Horwitz proves you wrong. So to does Monty RCMS with the links he provides in post #391.

It is nothing more than propaganda because of its bias and intent.

Again, stop deriding those whose expertoise is clearly greater than the sum total of your left wing ideology. Of course, it is typical of those of the left to subvert truth and should it rear its head, to label it as ‘propoganda’.

 

[essie7777]

And you cut the hypothesis in half to suit your own, by now very transparent, agenda."

The first sentence is the hypothesis – which i quoted, his further explanation of what a free economy is doesn’t change that, which i didn’t quote.

Your hypothesis is that the U.S. was not deregulated enough and that lack of regulation was the cause of the sub-prime fiasco. Horwitz proves you wrong.

I am so FED UP of checking that you understand what i wrote in all the way back in post#344 which i have copied here for you AGAIN.

The US banking regulations were not sufficient enough to prevent sub prime assets from being repackaged into collateralized debt obligations(CDOs). This created a secondary market of originating and distributed subprime loans. the way regulation worked at the time in some cases the trail back to the original sub-prime loans was so distorted it became impossible for investors to even know where they originated.

Therefore the comment that a “lack of regulations” took this issue global through INSTITUTIONAL financial products is valid, correct and supported.

STOP misquoting and purposely manipulating what i said. The comments you refer to in Monte RCMS discuss the regulations direct to the RETAIL sub prime market are spot on they still firmly follow the comment “The US banking regulations were not sufficient enough”. A point i have made, see quote from my response #393

If i was discussing this element of the market then your direction would be appropriate. However i would say the say thing as i did originally: The US banking regulations were not sufficient - in this case they were pushing inappropriate lending criteria

.

It is you who has distilled to three words what i said and taken them out of context and have tried to use as a stick to beat me over the head with … unsuccessfully in my opinion. As pointed out above.

Again, stop deriding those whose expertoise is clearly greater than the sum total of your left wing ideology. Of course, it is typical of those of the left to subvert truth and should it rear its head, to label it as ‘propoganda’.

Please you are falling into the American trap of confusing social awareness qith left wing subversion. It’s in appropriate and unfounded.

As i have stated before you have no concept of my expertise, knowledge etc, if you are so interested ASK. But don’t insult because you can not argue the rebuttal appropriately.

I notice though that you haven’t answered it only slandered me … if a piece of writings fundamental hypothesis is to defend the free economy and deregulation failures in light of the current economy, doesn’t it then translate that said economy should have been a free economy and deregulated …which the US wasn’t and isn’t. Shocking that you have no answer to that!

 

[John21652]

I have answered appropriately with evidence all the points you raised, at this point you are so confused as to what you are actually defending that you have lost the thread of your own position.

You still have not explained why you derided Abu and altered his statement that the welfare system in Europe helped their economic demise. You still haven’t apologised to him for your deliberate mocking.

I felt that was enough but allow me elaborate – ONE source a blog run website for Conservatism in Europe – clearly has an agenda and bias. The only other source you referenced was an op-ed company site which provides editorial comment free and charged to papers globally – you quoted from their publication – this is a list of what is available not something used in a publication of merit.

Do you really need me to explain how these sources --are not credible without having peer review or objective reporting aims and no bias one way or another?

So, let’s get this straight. You think sources from Europe about European economic problems are not credible? In fact, you think they need to be “peer reviewed”. So, even when multiple European reviews are given, including from respected academics, you dismiss them as biased and a part of an ‘agenda’. You mean, like maybe, as part of an agenda to learn from their own mistakes?!

Oh, that’s precious. We must write to the Europeans and tell them they need to be peer reviewed!! Too funny.

When an American economics Professor is quoted, you label his thinnking as “propoganda”. And along the way you were dismissive of a Greek academic, an advisor to overseas governments, who observed that political party state welfarism was destroying his country.

All too funny.

Misquoting me and throwing in three words i wrote out of context in everything you state( i have highlighted them for you) has been more than adequately defended and proven that you have purposely misconstrued and edited this for your own benefit.

You wrote about "U.S greed and lack of regulation". I shortened that to “lack of regulation”. You highlighted my phrase and not your own assertion. Silly you, eh?!

And just on another note – we all know how closely related the lack of investment in the fishing industry is to a welfare state and banking crisis!!! (Please read as highly sarcastic) As i pointed out irrelevant to the thread so didn’t even bother to answer.

Silly you again. I originally asked you to explain the connection between Iceland’s failure to reinvest in its fishing industry and “*U.S greed and lack of regulation”. *After all, you were blaming all of Europe’s financial ills on"U.S greed and lack of regulation". The only place a connection was made between the fishing industry and the welfare state was in your head!

Also please stick to the correct meaning of the views you have so ably pushed for days now, don’t feel you have to change them to simply try and discredit what little old me is saying. (again read sarcasm)

Discredit little ol’ you? No fear of that, sport, you do a fine job of it all by yourself!

You use winding back as an euphemism for dismantling as all the posts on this issue you and Abu have made say the same thing.

Now you are showing signs of paranoia. Abu used “winding back” and I used “cutting back”. Now you see a fiendish plot that we are really saying “dismantling”. Your inventiveness knows no bounds, it seems.

When you posted your links --you were demonstrating the headlines that suggested Europe’s welfare system was causing economic meltdown. So naturally they were going to be focused on Europe --i certainly didn’t anticipate seeing something on India or the Antarctic! Get serious.

And that’s your answer to this “The topic was welfare states in Europe, not the U.S. All the links given to you were about European countries.”?

I really do think you have a comprehension problem.

 

[John21652]

The first sentence is the hypothesis – which i quoted, his further explanation of what a free economy is doesn’t change that, which i didn’t quote.

What you left out was crucial to his argument. Of course, you wouldn’t like that, so you left it out.

Therefore the comment that a “lack of regulations” took this issue global through INSTITUTIONAL financial products is valid, correct and supported.

You say this despite the evidence that regulations forced all this to happen. You want even more regulation, which is why you have consistently written about "U.S greed and lack of regulation".

STOP misquoting and purposely manipulating what i said.

I quote you directly. I know, it sometimes hurts to see your own belief system challenged. You’ll recover.

The comments on the regulations direct to the RETAIL sub prime market are spot on they still firmly follow the comment

But it’s the retail sub prime market that was bastardised by regulation in the first place.

“The US banking regulations were not sufficient enough”

.Horwitz and others say you are wrong.

Apoint i have made every time you or another poster has put this forward in rebuttal to the comments i made, but you distilled to three words and have tried to use as a stick to beat me over the head with … unsuccessfully in my opinion.

A stick over your head? You mean something along the lines of the way you mocked and derided Abu, even though he was right? Oh no, never would I go that low.

Please you are falling into the American trap of confusing social awareness qith left wing subversion. It’s in appropriate and unfounded.

Well, you are pushing for more regulation and that’s a typical knee jerk reaction from left wingers when things go awry. The irony is that the left wingers can’t see that their regulations caused things to go awry in the first place.

As i have stated before you have no concept of my expertise, knowledge etc, if you are so interested ASK. But don’t insult because you can not argue the rebuttal appropriately.

Oh mate, you have been rebutted so hard and not just by me, it’s a wonder your still standing. As for your expertise, it might be OK if you would just take your ideological glasses off. You know, actually read what the experts have to say.

I notice though that you haven’t answered it only slandered me … if a piece of writings fundamental hypothesis is to defend the free economy and deregulation failures in light of the current economy, doesn’t it then translate that said economy should have been a free economy and deregulated …which the US wasn’t and isn’t. Shocking that you have no answer to that!

This paragraph is quite confusing. What piece of writing are you referring to? Horwitz? The failure was one of regulations which forced a misallocation of financial resources. The market was compromised. The complaint is that America is over-regulated and that the over-regulation is the cause of market failures. The sub prime fiasco is proof.

 

[essie7777]

As i am pretty sure i was clear they have BIAS and one is a business selling quotes on a huge number of topics – so picking one out of the list doesn’t make it credible.

When an American economics Professor is quoted,

In a personal blog page, not an academic paper. You are then using his academic credentials to bolster his opinion – however forgetting the one of the sacred rules of professorship – write and be judged by your peers! This isn’t.

And along the way you were dismissive of a Greek academic, an advisor to overseas governments, who observed that political party state welfarism was destroying his country

.

Again you need to REREAD what was written, i didn’t dismiss his views i dismissed your blatant attempt to shift from your original premise that the cost of welfare crippled European countries, to trying to then argue that welfare was a result of socialism. DUH

You wrote about "U.S greed and lack of regulation"

. I shortened that to “lack of regulation”. You highlighted my phrase and not your own assertion. Silly you, eh?!

Actually you picked half a sentence and despite repeated reusing of what i said originally you have stuck to this phrase like gum on a shoe – its desperation.

Silly you again. I originally asked you to explain the connection between Iceland’s failure to reinvest in its fishing industry and “*U.S greed and lack of regulation”. *

After all, you were blaming all of Europe’s financial ills on"U.S greed and lack of regulation". The only place a connection was made between the fishing industry and the welfare state was in your head!

Pretty sure i have now stated a number of times IRRELEVANT to the point you were desperately trying to push so declined to even humor you with an answer.

Discredit little ol’ you? No fear of that, sport, you do a fine job of it all by yourself!

Only in your mind, as you have yet to succinctly offer a rebuttal to anything i have said that focuses on your points… you simply pick a confused and muddled reason to slander and attack!

Now you are showing signs of paranoia. Abu used “winding back” and I used “cutting back”. Now you see a fiendish plot that we are really saying “dismantling”. Your inventiveness knows no bounds, it seems.

I have listed the posts of both yours and Abu which spread this wonderful view of Sweden winding down welfare in the face of its failure … misquoting and trying to deflect hasn’t answered how this position is true when they have one of the most expansive and successful welfare states in the world!!!

And that’s your answer to this “The topic was welfare states in Europe, not the U.S. All the links given to you were about European countries.”

?

I will let your own words show your ignorance and thinly justified attempts to make the discussion be about Europe rather than the world … from your post #356

I could throw in China, Thailand, plus a few others

.

I really do think you have a comprehension problem.

I simply think you are confused and unable to follow the topics as you keep missing the relevant content to try and “score points” you have not answered any direct questions given so allow me to list them for you:

1. As you clearly hold the belief that free economy and deregulation are the way forward, in keeping with your spin on Church teachings: How to you explain highly successful economies with capitalism and welfare states and NO free economy models as per your premise?
2. You push Sweden as an example of a country who has learnt the lesson about welfare? How do you explain how successful it is economically, one of the richest countries, robust growth and a HUGE welfare state?
3. I have asked numerous times if you understood my point about regulation and the INSTITUTIONAL financial crisis…you state you understand. If so, please offer a rebuttal to the cause of the financial meltdown as laid out for you in post #344
4. You have not yet answered the bias of the open letter by Steve Horwitz, How do you explain its defense of a free economy and deregulation when the US doesn’t have that type of economy? is it not therefore simply expressing the opinion that it should? This would make it propaganda or academic discourse if your being polite and ignoring the forum it was published in.
5. How do you skip from emphasizing that the cost of welfare created crisis to then defending this opinion by discussing the roots of political socialism in said country? This is not on topic. And at no pint in any posts on this thread has anyone looked to promote socialism so really looks irrelevant.
6. How when you are discussing the cost of welfare – is a debate on the fishing industry in Iceland relevant in anyway as anything more than a distraction attempt?
7. Having proclaimed loudly and often that high indebtedness and costly welfare caused financial crisis for countries; how do you justify this opinion when faced with countries that didn’t follow this pattern. Like US and Australia. I use them as one went as far into crsis as possible with no welfare state and the other didn’t and had high debt and a welfare state.

I have more but lets start with those!

 

[essie7777]

What you left out was crucial to his argument.

What i left out didn’t change his hypothesis.

But it’s the retail sub prime market that was bastardised by regulation in the first place.

.

Your showing a lack of understanding for sophisticated finance. AT NO POINT have i used this phrase, lack of regulations" in relation to the RETAIL sub prime market. So how then you are you attributing them to that sector is truly mind boggling.

AGAIN, my comments concerned the INSTITUTIONAL global financial products built off the retail market assets.

Seriously, if you don’t understand ask for clarification as you are showing a complete misunderstanding of the structures being discussed.

Well, you are pushing for more regulation and that’s a typical knee jerk reaction from left wingers when things go awry. The irony is that the left wingers can’t see that their regulations caused things to go awry in the first place.

Please point out where i argue for more regulation, i’m pretty sure the only comment i have made is regulation should be appropriate. And that wasn’t in respect to the future only the past.

As for your expertise, it might be OK if you would just take your ideological glasses off. You know, actually read what the experts have to say.

LOL – my expertise is OK – you don’t even know what my expertise is so please don’t patronize me.

Ideological glasses off – honestly look in a mirror you are so blinded trying to force your beliefs onto events that you are not offering anything but slander and rhetoric in rebuttal.

I have read as much as i can beyond the quotes on everyone’s opinion, if i couldn’t find the full tect i have ordered it and i am very familiar with the CCC and Papal papers so was already aware of them. The fact that i disagree doesn’t mean i am ignoring your spin and perception. when i quote it back and ask you a reasonable valid question on its content --your response is to ignore the question and attack the person that shows a lack of respect and potentially a huge weakness in your argument. I do notice you haven’t rebutted most of the posts i have made which quote works…hmmm wonder why?

I have listed some questions on my last post trying to get you to answer my rebuttals to your perceptions and opinions.

Please answer those directly and stay on point.

 

[John21652]

As i am pretty sure i was clear they have BIAS and one is a business selling quotes on a huge number of topics – so picking one out of the list doesn’t make it credible.

So, you admit there was a list. And doesn’t a list is the same as a miltiplicity of sources. Yet because they are European sources you accuse them of bias. Oh, that’s precious.

In a personal blog page, not an academic paper. You are then using his academic credentials to bolster his opinion – however forgetting the one of the sacred rules of professorship – write and be judged by your peers! This isn’t.

Professor Steve Horwotz posted his link to An Open Letter To My Friends Of The Left on his very own academic homepage which is hosted on the University of St. Lawrence web site. It is there for every person on planet Earth who has computer access to read and review. However, you are saying its intellectual content is to be challenged because it should have been published somewhere else. And because it isn’t published somewhere else, it isn’t an 'academic paper". The logical inference from that is that Professor Horwotz puts his academic mind to sleep whenever he posts something that’s not where you think it should be.

Oh man, you really are a piece of work. A laugh a minute.

.

Again you need to REREAD what was written, i didn’t dismiss his views i dismissed your blatant attempt to shift from your original premise that the cost of welfare crippled European countries, to trying to then argue that welfare was a result of socialism. DUH

You really are capable of inventing some amazing stories. The only comment you made about Professor Horwitz was to ask me how many other opinions do I want that will refute him. I used his paper to illustrate the point that your premise, which was that “U.S. greed and lack of regulation” was the cause of the sub prime meltdown, was false. It still is false. Duh to you, it seems.

Actually you picked half a sentence and despite repeated reusing of what i said originally you have stuck to this phrase like gum on a shoe – its desperation.

You used the phrase “U.S. greed and lack of regulation” and it has destroyed your argument.

I have listed the posts of both yours and Abu which spread this wonderful view of Sweden winding down welfare in the face of its failure … misquoting and trying to deflect hasn’t answered how this position is true when they have one of the most expansive and successful welfare states in the world!!!

Way back on page 21 of this thread, Abu wrote the following, in post #303 -

As the Welfare State has helped Europe to its present meltdown, many Governments have slashed its idiocies – Sweden is an example of what has happened.

He wrote truly and accurately. You, however, saw fit to respond with this -

Nothing like distilling a global economic crisis created and started by US greed and lack of regulation (because obviously you can not infringe on US “freedom”) down to the fact its the welfare state that’s creating the European meltdown!

Seriously are you truly that naive that you don’t think there are numerous reasons for economic strife???

You mocked him most uncharitably. Worse, you denied that Sweden was cutting back its welfare spending. We have now spent many pages proving to you that Abu was right and still you try to make out a case that we are wrong. Now you are being so disengenuous that you suggest we are making out some amazing case about the ‘failure’ of Sweden. Get over yourself.

I will let your own words show your ignorance and thinly justified attempts to make the discussion be about Europe rather than the world … from your post #356
.

Your ad hominem attacks have been picked up by others and yet you continue. In post #323, David Castlen wrote the following -

I am amazed, Essie, at your comments. You only give propositions and provide no evidence , data or valid arguements while Abu is constantly providing consistant data. I try not to comment as Abu does a far far far better job supporting my cause so my comments wil onlyl take up space, but when his adversaries provide nothing but Ad Homen responses … well here I go…

And still you continue.

I simply think you are confused and unable to follow the topics as you keep missing the relevant content to try and “score points” you have not answered any direct questions given so allow me to list them for you:

1. As you clearly hold the belief that free economy and deregulation are the way forward, in keeping with your spin on Church teachings: How to you explain highly successful economies with capitalism and welfare states and NO free economy models as per your premise?

And, pray tell, what “spin on Church teachings” have I used? I have left the Church out of this discussion.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread is now closed. Please keep in mind the forum’s rules on charity and avoiding personal attacks. Thanks to all who participated.