Taking the bonuses away from the AIG execs. was unconstitutional. That probably doesnt matter to a Liberal like you though. What law did the AIG execs break? There isnt one.
“You don’t agree that the majority of stockholders in a company should have a say in what their top executives get paid?”
Well, that’s not the case here, Christopher… it will be the “czar” who reports to the President ONLY (not the people) or the President himself unilaterally making that decision… No oversight, NONE… if the stockholders made that decision, I would have absolutely no problem with that, as the MARKET would be dictating that NOT the government… Do you think that now that WE THE PEOPLE as the stockholders in GM, etc. we will get ANY say in these stockholders decisions? So that really is irrelavent as a description of the situation…
“If the President caps earnings on the officers of companies that we the people of this country have bailed out he is a socialist.”
No, Chrisopther, he is a socialist because that is what he is practicing…
so·cial·ism (sō’shə-lĭz’əm) n.
[i]1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
-
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
-
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
-
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. [/i]
We, as a people, can’t set a cap on the TRILLIONS of dollars the government is borrowing and spending and printing money to boot, devaluing the dollar, creating inflation, and INCREASING oil prices as it is traded in dollars, which will INCREASE what people are spending on gas… and who do you think this will HURT the most? The very people they SAY they are trying to help! But the UNIONS, whose people make MORE than the average person, gets bailed out along with the company AT OUR EXPENSE… it’s absolute lunacy!
You want to cap Execiutive pay, but DON’T want to cap the amount the POLITICIANS are borrowing and spending AGAINST our own self-interests, which causes MUCH more misery to EVERY economic level… quite a contradiction…
The more POLITICIANS pretend they know what they are doing with regards to business, when MOST of them have never even run a company or employed people, responsible for payroll et al, the WORSE it gets all around… They’ve already show they do NOT know how to do this, as they have already wasted BILLIONS of the money from the MULTIPLE spending plans they passed… and the answer is giving them more money and more power???
This is simply NOT government’s role… It is power NEVER provided by our Constitution, but literally TAKEN by politicians (ALL), AGAINST the very reason the country was founded, and DESTROYS peoples lives in the process, financially ENSLAVING them to the government in the coming TAX INREASES for EVERY economic level, BECAUSE of their bad decisions…
Now, after they have ONCE AGAIN demonstrated that they can literraly WASTE BILLIONS of dollars at a time, with the government being the WORST steward of money provided to them, and their handling of the housing crisis, we want to put them in charge of nationalized healthcare all under the guise of saving money??? :banghead
It is proven, over and over again, that with very few exceptions, that whenever the government meddles with the private sector things get WORSE… if a company CANNOT make it, they should go out of business… it’s a good thing the government didn’t subsidize the horse and buggy market…
BTW, congratulations on your first insult-free post in a while… :beer See, we can discuss and disagree without them…
Christopher, I would ask that you consider the motiviation behind the whole executive pay issue… If the government wants to put a condition on companies who receive TARP money regarding executive pay, as long as they know that BEFORE they accept the money, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that… but not are they doing it AFTER the fact, but are refusing to let banks pay back the money… add to that, the Dem’s want to EXPAND this across the board, even if they did not take TARP money…
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Administration-Rein-in-pay-apf-15500519.html?.v=6
From the article - “On Wednesday, it set pay limits on companies that receive TARP assistance, with the toughest restrictions aimed at seven recipients of “exceptional assistance.” They are Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC, American International Group Inc., GMAC LLC and Chrysler Financial.”
You’ll note, that Fannie and Freddie who have taken MORE, are not subject to the same conditions, nor were they excoriated and crtitized by the media for retention bonuses… only AIG… why???
IMHO, the real reason behind the executive pay compensation issue, especially since the Dem’s are now being vocal about doing it across the board, is simply to increase the TAX REVENUE… The lower the compensation for the exec’s, the fatter the bottom line, the more TAX extracted…
You don’t hear them saying to lower the exec compensation to INCREASE worker pay are you? That would be a net-loser for the politicians…
Well, that’s not the case here, Christopher… it will be the “czar” who reports to the President ONLY (not the people) or the President himself unilaterally making that decision… No oversight, NONE… if the stockholders made that decision, I would have absolutely no problem with that, as the MARKET would be dictating that NOT the government…
If the US Goverment has bailed you out and owns a majority of your stock then as majority shareholder they should have some say in executive compensation.
Do you think that now that WE THE PEOPLE as the stockholders in GM, etc. we will get ANY say in these stockholders decisions? So that really is irrelavent as a description of the situation
That is not irrelavent as a description of the situation just because you say it does. The US Govt. has brought on a consultant to go in and make the decision for us. Do you really want to take time out of your day. Way from your kids, and your business to go sit in on meetings in Washington regarding the pay of executives for companies that you own shares in? So what if they call him a czar. Seriously. It is not costing us a dime, and as it says in the article it is reducing the risk on our investment.
No, Chrisopther, he is a socialist because that is what he is practicing…
[b]
so·cial·ism (sō’shə-lĭz’əm) n.
-
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.- What were the options here? Let the financial system fail?The President did not create this problem. He walked into it, and now he is doing what he can to fix it. I have asked you multiple time Positive…What is your solution? What would you have had us do? You have never answered my question. You have never come out and said “This is what I would have done. Bernanke Idiot! Geithner. Idiot. Here is my solution to the financial mess we are in.”
-
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. Don’t see this happening. Yet.
-
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. - I got news for you this has been happening for years. When a city comes in and forces a landowner out for a highway or a power plant what do you think they are doing?
-
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. [/b] Don’t even want to waste my time on this one.
We, as a people, can’t set a cap on the TRILLIONS of dollars the government is borrowing and spending and printing money to boot, devaluing the dollar, creating inflation, and INCREASING oil prices as it is traded in dollars, which will INCREASE what people are spending on gas… and who do you think this will HURT the most? The very people they SAY they are trying to help! But the UNIONS, whose people make MORE than the average person, gets bailed out along with the company AT OUR EXPENSE… it’s absolute lunacy!
So your okay with outrageous executive pay, but the unions are what are making you angry? I am with you. I can’t stand unions. They have long outlived their purpose. Even when I was very young and Ronald Reagan fired ALL of the Air Traffic Controllers it made total sense to me. Nobody has a RIGHT to a job. If you show up everyday and do a good job I believe you should get to keep your job, but if you are stupid enough to walk off your job because someone else is unhappy about something then you are an idiot.
You want to cap Execiutive pay, but DON’T want to cap the amount the POLITICIANS are borrowing and spending AGAINST our own self-interests, which causes MUCH more misery to EVERY economic level… quite a contradiction…
I want a cap on executive pay for companies that have taken taxpayer dollars. That is all. If you are doing fine on your own and have not take govt. money then more power to you to pay your executives. I would love to be able to cut down on all this money that is being printed, but once again I ask you… What is your solution? Let banks fail? Let unemployment jump to double digits? Not have the real estate market stabilize for years? Once again I will say it.
WHEN A GUY WITH A PHD IN ECONOMICS FROM MIT SAYS THE BAILOUTS WERE NEEDED I AM GOING TO TRUST HIM. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE IS ALSO CONSIDERED AN EXPERT ON THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
This is simply NOT government’s role… It is power NEVER provided by our Constitution, but literally TAKEN by politicians (ALL), AGAINST the very reason the country was founded, and DESTROYS peoples lives in the process, financially ENSLAVING them to the government in the coming TAX INREASES for EVERY economic level, BECAUSE of their bad decisions…
The constitution was written over two hundred years ago. I don’t think they had words like “derivatives” and “credit default swaps” back then. My point is times have changed and we are in uncharted waters right now. I can only hope and pray that the people at the Fed and the White House know what they are doing.
It is proven, over and over again, that with very few exceptions, that whenever the government meddles with the private sector things get WORSE… if a company CANNOT make it, they should go out of business… it’s a good thing the government didn’t subsidize the horse and buggy market…
In a perfect world this statement would be true, but when a business failing can have catastrophic consequences on the entire financial system (the bank bailout)or world economy (AIG) somebody has to step in. You have stated in this forum that you are a contractor. As a contractor you probably work for yourself. True? What happens when your money supply drys up? Your credit line (if you have one) dry up? The builder you just did work for can’t pay you? Now you can’t pay your workers. Your suppliers close down your credit lines because there banks shut down their lines of credit.
So once again Positive I am asking for an alternative solution. And I mean that in a most sincere way.
Positive,
Christopher, I would ask that you consider the motiviation behind the whole executive pay issue… If the government wants to put a condition on companies who receive TARP money regarding executive pay, as long as they know that BEFORE they accept the money, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that… but not are they doing it AFTER the fact, but are refusing to let banks pay back the money… add to that, the Dem’s want to EXPAND this across the board, even if they did not take TARP money…
This whole bailout thing happened so quickly I don’t believe there was time to think of every contingency. They are not refusing the money completely they just want guidelines on how it should be paid back and with what funds.
Everybody knows when you dance with the devil you get burned. When they went to the govt asking for money they should have been smarter about getting it. If you go to a loan shark. once he gives you that money you are his. He has the gold. He makes the rules.
Now these companies that borrowered this money want to whine about the guidleines that come along with it? Give me a break.
You’ll note, that Fannie and Freddie who have taken MORE, are not subject to the same conditions, nor were they excoriated and crtitized by the media for retention bonuses… only AIG… why???
Fannie/Freddie were already quasi-govt anyway and they got caught in the middle of the sub-prime crisis. AIG made billions of worthless insurance policies that they wrote on debt instruments. Think about collecting billions of dollars on insurance policies and then when the time came to pay up they gave us the “Oops our bad. We never expected this. If you don’t give us 80B by Wednesday we are going to crumble and probably take a couple of small foreign countries with us. See ya Wednesday!!”. That is probably why Fannie/Freddie get a pass and AIG is getting hammered.
Positive,
On top of this, just like with FDjake… you challenged my integrity by calling me a liar… I asked you to PROVE it using my words from my posts, and you did not, just like FDjake didn’t… so your “truthful” statement rings quite hollow…
I will be happy to point out at least one falsehood that you have posted here, but that would involve me breaking the privacy policy between you and I that could lose me my job. I am not willing to do that. However if you are willing to sign a document that I will email over to you releasing me from liability I will be happy to nail you to the wall. If you are not willing to do this then please quit with the ridiculous diatribes and lets focus on the discussion at hand.
The ball is in your court.
“I will be happy to point out at least one falsehood that you have posted here, but that would involve me breaking the privacy policy between you and I that could lose me my job.”
PM me with the details… and then we’ll see if it is even relevant… Otherwise, it stands…
“lose me my job”
I thought you were a self-employed broker? Did I misunderstand this…
Christopher,
“If the US Goverment has bailed you out and owns a majority of your stock then as majority shareholder they should have some say in executive compensation”
If you are attributing the traits of a separate entity as being the federal government separate from the PEOPLE, then this might make sense… but as it stands now, the federal government is supposed to be a government OF the people, meaning that WE not a separate entity should make this decision, not a Czar or uniliaterally the President, because then what you are saying is that the PRESIDENT owns these shares… They should have some say, as in input, not be able to DICTATE what the pay structure is, and the OTHER stockholders should ALSO be heard, or do we ignore them?
“So your okay with outrageous executive pay, but the unions are what are making you angry?”
Christopher, I never said I was for “outrageous” executive pay… But I AM against the government putting aside CONTRACT LAW, and DICTATING what that compensation is AFTER the fact… Like I said, if it was a condition of getting access to the TARP money, and they accepted it, I would not have a problem with it… Shareholders can make their voice heard in publicly traded companies, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THIS OPTION with our shares…
“The President did not create this problem. He walked into it, and now he is doing what he can to fix it.”
This is a total FALSEHOOD… the Dem’s have been in CONTROL of the checkbook of this country since 2006, and it was THEY, INCLUDING Obama, who pushed for TARP, (1/3 support for the Rep’s), the “Stimulus” bill (Zero Rep support), the Omnibus (which Bush was going to VETO, but the DEMS, WHO WERE IN CONTROL put it off until Obama was in office, and THEN voted for it WITH the increases INLCUDING the earmarks that Obama COULD have veto’d), the new 3.5 TRILLION dollar budget (very little Rep support)… Never mind the Dem’s STOPPING addressing Freddie and Fannie, like the Rep’s wanted to (who knows how much could have been averted if addressed earlier)…
So, it is in fact NOT TRUE that Obama and the Dem’s “inherited” it… it is replete with THEIR decisions on this… not even WILLING to listen to opposition and shutting the Rep’s down…
“The US Govt. has brought on a consultant to go in and make the decision for us”
This person was neither elected or is accountable to the PEOPLE of the country… NOR was he vettted for the position through Congressional oversight, which is what they are SUPPOSED to be there for… Czar’s are unelected, unaccountable to the people of the country, and subject to the WHIM of the President… The internet provides us with a GREAT TOOL to give our opinion on this… but they will NOT do this, because just like with TARP, etc… which the overwhelming MAJORITY of the people DID NOT WANT, Obama and the Dem’s will IGNORE the will of the people and do whatever they want…
"WHEN A GUY WITH A PHD IN ECONOMICS FROM MIT SAYS THE BAILOUTS WERE NEEDED I AM GOING TO TRUST HIM. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE IS ALSO CONSIDERED AN EXPERT ON THE GREAT DEPRESSION. "
When a guy with a PHD in Economics from MIT REFUSES to provide details on where OUR MONEY is going during congressional oversight, he is NOT the person we should be trusting, and his motvations AND actions become EXTREMELY suspect… THAT is NOT transparency and does NOT deserve trust… the fact that he is an expert in the depression could call into question his motives, but we’ll never know, as apparently HE IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE…
“As a contractor you probably work for yourself. True? What happens when your money supply drys up? Your credit line (if you have one) dry up? The builder you just did work for can’t pay you? Now you can’t pay your workers. Your suppliers close down your credit lines because there banks shut down their lines of credit.”
Christopher, that credit it STILL “dried up”, even though we are borrowing our OWN money that we gave them, which we are borrowing from China to give them, which WE will pay the interest on to do so… So the banks, and FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS (BILLIONS) got the money, but the conditions are STILL the same a year later… actually WORSE… the other shoe of inflation and double-digit unemployment are yet to drop…
They are going to hold onto that money until interest rates continue to climb… So they get it borrowed at almost ZERO ONLY to lend it back to us at an even GREATER profit margin… And you are worried about executive compensation at a HANDFUL of TARP money recipients?..
“I don’t think they had words like “derivatives” and “credit default swaps” back then. My point is times have changed and we are in uncharted waters right now.”
And when they change to Constitution to meet those times, you may have an argument, until then, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL…
Our courts are failing us, our politicians are failing us, they spending us INTO oblivion, with NO HOPE of EVER retiring the national debt and with “DEFICITS as far as the eye can see” (Obama quote), with challenges to our national sovereignty, as well as other rights, Tea Party tax revolts across the county, and you find it hard to believe why people don’t trust what’s going on… Especially when the MAJORITY of PEOPLE said they wanted NONE of these bailout programs and CONTINUE not to…
“What is your solution? Let banks fail?”
As I have indeed said before, YES… if they CANNOT make it on their own, they go into bankruptcy, assets are sold, and/or they are gobbled up… you CANNOT protect one industry over another…
We were TOLD we Absolutely COULD NOT let GM/Chrysler go into bankruptcy… it would RUIN everyone ACROSS THE BOARD… this was their rational… so, after BILLIONS OF DOLLARS LOST, they do it ANYWAY, and the BUSINESS OWNERS (dealers) and their EMPLOYEES get the COMPLETE shaft while the government PROTECTS and gives a better deal to the UNIONS than the SECURED CREDITORS (must make those who have secured investments with the government feel REAL good)… EXACTLY WHY the government SHOULD NOT be doing this… the are MANY critical industries to this country, and they CANNOT ALL BE BAILED OUT…
It affects the “full faith and credit of the United States” - Maybe why the Chines LAUGHED at Geitner when trying to allay their legitimate concerns…
“Let unemployment jump to double digits?”
It is going there DESPITE these efforts…
“Not have the real estate market stabilize for years?”
Tell me how these programs have stabilized the real estate market…
“So once again Positive I am asking for an alternative solution. And I mean that in a most sincere way.”
If they cannot survive on their own, they must be allowed to FAIL… the banking industry is NOT going away, and displaced workers from this will find jobs… subsidizing these companies just makes it WORSE, otherwise AIG would not have had to borrow MORE money, and I suspect they will back at the trough soon enough until sanity returns…
BTW, still haven’t received the PM from you…
Sorry I was at lunch. Doing it now.
Christopher,
Check your PM… you are INCORRECT on your assertion in the PM, read the PM’s I sent you…
If you are attributing the traits of a separate entity as being the federal government separate from the PEOPLE, then this might make sense… but as it stands now, the federal government is supposed to be a government OF the people, meaning that WE not a separate entity should make this decision, not a Czar or uniliaterally the President, because then what you are saying is that the PRESIDENT owns these shares… They should have some say, as in input, not be able to DICTATE what the pay structure is, and the OTHER stockholders should ALSO be heard, or do we ignore them?
The President was elected to run this country by WE the people. We put him there to make these decisions. if he wants to DELEGATE some of this authority to a CONSULTANT and call him a CZAR what is the big deal. I can understand your concern if this was aimed at all large corporations, but at this point it is aimed at companies that took bailout money. Do you want to be in on the decision making for how EVERY tax dollar is spent because honestly that is what it sounds like.
This person was neither elected or is accountable to the PEOPLE of the country… NOR was he vettted for the position through Congressional oversight, which is what they are SUPPOSED to be there for… Czar’s are unelected, unaccountable to the people of the country, and subject to the WHIM of the President… The internet provides us with a GREAT TOOL to give our opinion on this… but they will NOT do this, because just like with TARP, etc… which the overwhelming MAJORITY of the people DID NOT WANT, Obama and the Dem’s will IGNORE the will of the people and do whatever they want…
He is accountable to the President which is who picked him out. The man elected by the majority of voters in this country.
When a guy with a PHD in Economics from MIT REFUSES to provide details on where OUR MONEY is going during congressional oversight, he is NOT the person we should be trusting, and his motvations AND actions become EXTREMELY suspect… THAT is NOT transparency and does NOT deserve trust… the fact that he is an expert in the depression could call into question his motives, but we’ll never know, as apparently HE IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE…
Please show me a Fed chairman in the past that has been as transparent as Bernanke. You can’t. The Fed chairman position as a whole has been cloaked in secrecy from the beginning. While I think that the reason for this is questionable it does make some sense. I don’t want the stock market dropping 500 points because Ben Bernanke missed his Starbucks stop on the way to an interview and is testy.
[b]I don’t think they had words like “derivatives” and “credit default swaps” back then. My point is times have changed and we are in uncharted waters right now."
And when they change to Constitution to meet those times, you may have an argument, until then, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL…[/b]
At this point I am more concerned about getting us out of the recession, off the brink of financial collapse and moving forward. I can’t worry about tomorrow or next week while I am still worrying about today.
We were TOLD we Absolutely COULD NOT let GM/Chrysler go into bankruptcy… it would RUIN everyone ACROSS THE BOARD… this was their rational… so, after BILLIONS OF DOLLARS LOST, they do it ANYWAY, and the BUSINESS OWNERS (dealers) and their EMPLOYEES get the COMPLETE shaft while the government PROTECTS and gives a better deal to the UNIONS than the SECURED CREDITORS (must make those who have secured investments with the government feel REAL good)… EXACTLY WHY the government SHOULD NOT be doing this… the are MANY critical industries to this country, and they CANNOT ALL BE BAILED OUT…
Chrysler and GM are far from out of the woods. This is just the beginning. Without the bail-out funds production would have been stopped months ago. There would have been no time to work with the creditors, no time to find buyers. It would have been LIGHTS OUT. Massive unemployment. From the parts suppliers to the delivery drivers to the car saleman. Heck Ford has not failed yet and many think they could be on their way.
Tell me how these programs have stabilized the real estate market…
By bring Fannie/feddie into the fold they have allowed them to borrow funds and keep the housing market afloat. If Fannie and Freddie were not bailed out home purchases in general would have come to a screeching halt. We would have been back in the times after the great depression when only local banks loaned money.
If they cannot survive on their own, they must be allowed to FAIL… the banking industry is NOT going away, and displaced workers from this will find jobs… subsidizing these companies just makes it WORSE, otherwise AIG would not have had to borrow MORE money, and I suspect they will back at the trough soon enough until sanity returns…
Your correct the banking industry is not going away but we avoided a lot of pain by taking the measures that were taken. I’m sure the displaced workers out there would love your “oh well” attitude towards job loss. Very easy for you to sit there and say when you are self-employed and not the primary wage earner.
I think he’s referring to his job here as moderator.
Christopher, I responded to your PM again, and as you can see, I also used two SEPARATE threads (including the one YOU RESPONDED TO) from LAST YEAR to show you were incorrect… You could have done the same, had you used the “search” button up top…
Now, let’s hope you have the integrity to apologize PUBLICLY for your incorrect assertion just as you PUBLICLY asserted that I had made this “falsehood”, which is NOT correct…
Sorry Positive you can try and split the hairs all you want but you know the truth and I know the truth. Nothing I send you will matter though because you only accept answers that suit you. I have yet to see a posting from you that admits error. Ever.
As I said when I post something that is incorrect if wrong or out of line you can easily call me on it ar RookieNYC did once and I admitted my mistake.
You on the other hand beat a topic to death and if the answer does not come in the exact form or phrase that you are looking for you accuse people of avoiding the question.
For example you asked me to post my information. When I did what you asked it was not good enough because it was not PERSONAL information. Which you actually never specified. Then when I gave you my personal information it still was not correct because I did not post my SS#. Nothing is going to make you happy at this point other than total alliance to your way of thinking.
I understand your angry with the govt. and I understand that your angry at the economy in general, but all that anger is going to eat you up man.
OK Christopher, I gave you multiple opporunities to set this right, and now you PUBLICLY are now pushing a lie… I will be addressing this further… In the interim…
If I make a mistake, or tell a lie ABSOLUTELY feel free to call me on it… But make sure you bring actual PROOF to the table… You not only out and out lied in your assertion of my “falsehood” that you claimed, but then tried to assign PUBLIC records that did not even BELONG TO ME regaring my investment property from a year BEFORE I purchase my investment property… this was AFTER I provided you with the county, and you, as a mortgage professional, and I assume using your employers work computer and having easy access to this information for verification… If the text on our PM’ing is printed in this thread, Christopher, not only will your truthfulness be in question, but your ethics as a mortgage professional. There were three (3) separate assertions made BY YOU in PM’ing that you KNOW to be false, so you are on pretty shaky ground here… If I am lying right now, you can sue me for defamation of character as it would potentially affect your business, but as you can see I am NOT worried about that for obvious reasons… we know how I feel about putting my family at risk…
I am man enought to admit when I make a mistake, just feel free to back up your assertion on any mistake that I make, especially a “falsehood”… YOU, however, just like FDjake, made the assertion that I told a “falsehood” and after I PROVED it to you using links to threads that were written LAST YEAR and you YOURSELF responded to, you still want to perpetuate this…
“Nothing I send you will matter though because you only accept answers that suit you.”
That is because you DO NOT have anthing to send on this issue Christopher… and you know it…
I gave you multiple opportunities to make this right in PM, this will get worse if you do not retract what you said… All I am looking for is a simple apology and/or retraction… this is basic, what would you tell your kid to do…
Positive,
I am perpetuating nothing. I merely pointed out that you are splitting hairs on a subject. I have done nothing wrong. I explained to you where my information came from. I have done nothing wrong. Feel free to do your own research.
You want me to do research on the WRONG information you provided? :rolleyes
By you not mkaing this right here PUBLICLY in the same forum you made the assertion of my “falsehood”, you ARE perpetuating it by leaving a FALSE impression out there… As I told you in PM, I can’t believe your irrationaility on this… just apologize or retract…