Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
End Poverty and War
Victorious
Grim Veteran
I am wondering if there is any organisation bent on ending world poverty?
Also organisations bent on world peace is of interest.
Any such forums?
A secular nonpolitical one would be nice. Something that requires engagement on a grass root level?
I mean one with an action plan or at least an intention to get a practical action plan.
Does anybody know?
Thank you for any tips
/Victor
0
Comments
Sadly, I don't know whether there are.
The rich wouldn't stand for it, because it would mean redressing the balance in someone else's favour.
World Poverty could be ended today - NOW - This very minute - if the major powers and those in charge of the Global Economy re-directed just one day's expenditure on the Militia, in a different direction.
The Lords of War would be up in arms.
Take that as literally, or otherwise, as you wish.
I found this. I think the ubiquitous Bono has something to do with it....
I am wondering because Bill Gates expressed an opinion or maybe hope that world poverty would be ended by 2030 or something like that.
But I cannot find any information on it.
Also the Bahai faith is intent on bringing about paradise, as I understand it, they have project meetings. Cooool.
I like the idea. But am no Bahaier.
I have been thinking about these problems for a while and come across so many saddening stories due to the economic reality we live in.
I have no proof but I think the only way to solve war is to end poverty and the only way to truly end poverty is to change the entire economical model by which we determine progress.
But I have no idea where to begin looking or even if I can or want to participate (Whether I believe in the approach or not.)
/Victor
Sadly, the main banner slogan of the website I linked to is
"Join the FIGHT against extreme poverty - Which makes me think:
Why is it a Fight?
Why should we have to struggle, as a people, to determine a beneficial end for so many? Why should there be any mention of conflict?
Where's the conflict/fight?
With whom is the fight?
Well, see my previous comments, and I rest my case...
And their wording is noteworthy.
There is nothing there about 'ending poverty'.
Its just a fight against extreme poverty.
I take that to mean that the organisation realises that ENDING WORLD poverty is an unattainable ideal.
So let's just focus on the extreme... the serious, severe, or even mild cases will just have to stand....
I think as you do.
Today, now. We have the means and the ends to end poverty and war.
But there is no interest to do so.
Also, if I may say so, it's relative.
While the website (again, link, above) seems bent on focusing on Poverty largely occurring in Africa (MASSIVE place, Africa - Immense - the scale of the continent is truly breathtaking) As their 'whizz-by' slogans seem to suggest, Poverty exists elsewhere, too...
And where is the Conscience of society and Governments of the Prime, richest countries in all this, while they themselves are dealing with internal poverty issues of their own?
The street beggars, the mentally afflicted, the homeless, all out on a limb and viewed as a problem rather than a cause...
Jesus Christ, if we can't successfully tackle problems on our own doorsteps, what hope does anyone ever have of eradicating extreme World Poverty on such a colossal scale?
I'm reminded of the slogan "People who wish to change the world should start with a small Garden" or more succinctly, 'Think Global, Act Local'.
Look around you Victor.
What needs doing in your very own community?
Where can you actively get yourself - and you family - involved in helping Local needs and urgent requirements?
Any shoes you no longer need?
Find a homeless guy and give them to him.
Got a spare blanket, scarf, hat, gloves, jumper....?
I went to some charity shops, bought unused, spare, remnants of skeins of wool, and knitted hats and scarves, then gave them to The Salvation Army for distribution.
I didn't even scratch the surface.
But it helped someone.
Mother Teresa was commended and lauded for having helped over 67,000 people in her work.
She denied this.
She said she helped just one person.
Just one.
no more than that.
Just one.
At - a - time.
As she said, 'just a drop in the ocean.
"But if that drop were removed, that ocean would be one drop wanting...."
That drop is up to us.
The unorganized helping homeless and needy with meals, clothes, medicine and occasionally money or giving to promote education is stuff I do for me.
This is samsara and MT is right. One at a time is a drop in the ocean. It will not stop the tide.
Now I am wondering what I can do that really helps out in a planned way.
There must be a plan that is on a level outside the box.
There must be someone who really sees at what level the tables can be turned.
Without violence or bloody revolution.
I am not so sure about the organisation ONE. But ending extreme poverty (with any given value for extreme poverty) is not a bad idea as such.
At least it is a step in the right direction and it will give ripple effects that will probably change the world.
Wages in SL is going up because instead of working for slave salaries people go abroad.
Of course currently the abroaders are more or less used as slavelabour in those countries they migrate to but still.
And the basis for recruitment for IS and other extremist might not vanish but will become smaller.
So ...
This is not quite as you have asked but it is the only answer worth giving that I know:
We, you and I, are impoverished and internally at war. As this situation clears, so do the means and individual and collective potential become apparent . . .
Here is a message from my sponsor:
This solves nothing.
It merely shifts the problem sideways, and one country's labour problems become SEP....
Yes more or less true I suppose.
It is because this solution is still within the system and the system we use always will promote a differentiation in income.
Did you know that most politi-economical systems in the world relies on there being a number of unemployed?
Zeroing out that number is not in the best interest of the nation. I am not sure but I think that zeroing out that number would put the entire system at risk of collapsing.
That is why no politician promises to end unemployment. Crass world?
Yeah.
And 'One' want to "Fight Extreme Poverty"...? ironic, isn't it?
I don't think it should matter if a Bahai, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist or an atheist put forward the idea. The important thing is that it was put forward, yes? Maybe we could all focus on the idea and help it grow.
_ /\ _
I was about to submit something, but realised half-way through...."You know what? delete that. It's bullshit."
Just do what you can with the tools that you've got.
Yes.
It will be an Idea that I will spread. But at the moment life too full to pull something like that. Spreading and looking will have to do.
"The best way to get something done, is to ask a busy person to do it."
HA!
For heavens sake.
Do n o t tell my boss.
/Victor
An I know who SHE is....!
It's such a massive problem. What you are looking into, virtually every group I have ever seen has a religious affiliation. There are small Buddhist groups that work with particular populations (such a children) but I doubt you will have much lucky finding one group that is non-political, non-religious, and has taken on an ideal of tackling global poverty.
The problems in each country are quite different, never mind all the continents. The cause of poverty in the US or Europe isn't necessarily the same as the cause of poverty in Africa. Even within Africa, the cause of poverty in South Africa is probably not exactly the same as the cause of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. Where does one start? How does a single group even attempt to organize well enough to deal with poverty in every section of the world? Poverty due to rich greedy people taking more than their share in some areas, but along with that in so many other areas: diseases, unsafe water, drought, natural disasters, misspending of money donated already ($500 billion and counting to Africa and little difference has been made on a large scale), lack of education, lack of resources, religious/cultural/language barriers. There are just SO many problems to overcome, one group can't do it all.
What do you do in a small place like Haiti? Not only do they already have a very high poverty rate but then they are decimated by an earthquake that they are ill-equipped to handle. People see it on the news and donate, and then forget about them. Do you (general you) really think they don't still need help today? That's just a single problem.
Worldwide poverty is a problem on a scale I don't think we can truly even fathom. That's why you can't find a group looking to tackle it as a whole. It's not possible. Lots of groups tackling small problems is probably the only way right now. The people who have the power to make the call to change the swing of things aren't interested in doing so-the 1%ers who own our political systems.
We celebrate Bill and Melinda gates, and no doubt, they do more good than the rest of us can dream...but they are worth still over $80 billion. So far since they started their charity work, they have donated (or pledged to donate) about 35% of their net worth. But they are still worth $80 billion. Bill Gates net worth doubled between 2009 and 2014. What is he going to do with the $80 billion? It's hard to celebrate too much (though I am still grateful for what he does) when he still has SO MUCH MONEY that a person can't even possibly, feasibly, spend it all...yet he holds onto so much of it. Perhaps I just don't understand money at that level. I know, of course, he needs to always keep some to continuing making money to continue helping, but he just has SO much. Warren Buffet is the same. So many billions of dollars.
Of the top 10 billionaires in the world, 7 of them are Americans. They hold, together (just those 7) $373 Billion dollars. You think most of them want to give up a significant, even given up 75% of their fortunes would leave them more money than can be fathomed. But would it even make a dent in the work that needs to be done worldwide? If you won the $450 million lottery tomorrow, what would you do with it? What would make you feel comfortable in taking care of your family? Would what you "need" suddenly change drastically? For most people, it probably would. What we "need" and what someone like Bill Gates "needs" are entirely different. Most of them can't even understand having to make decisions like "Where can I find the $80 I need for this new prescription?" They cannot fathom that the same way we cannot fathom how much money they have. So the question is, for those in power with all the money, do they truly even understand the problem?
I think about that a lot.
Specially when I am in SL. It was so clear that what standards my spouse judged from concerning poverty was not applicable to how the sri lankans judged.
Luckily I am a little bit aware of the problem but I have fallen into that trap too. Many times.
But remember it is the other way around too. Many in SL imagine we are wealthy to a fault. But I do not see myself as rich.
I also work in a field where I have the chance to see large amounts of cash flow by literally at my fingertips. I have seen single transactions that are so big they could easily feed 30-40 people in the west with all their needs throughout their lives. It is surreal.
No but there can be consensus between different groups.
Cooperation is the human way.
Discussion can make us understand the needs of others. In SL you do not need warm houses but in these latitudes you do.
Here most water is pure and drinkable. In SL not so much.
There must be a consensus of goal. Standards to meet.
/Victor
Right, so there's your plan then.
Research every single charitable body concerned with the welfare and well-being of specific groups, both 'at home' and 'abroad'.
Write to the chairmen, and invite them all to a collective website/Moratorium, and get them to talk to one another.
There are rich people in the word who think something even as basic as water is not a human need. It's a resource to be bought by the rich and sold to the highest bidders. If you die because you can't afford it? Well, tough, you should have worked harder. I don't know how we can start to work to change those attitudes. I don't think they are interested in having their minds and hearts changed. Most of them, anyhow.
Even within the larger charities operating, like UNICEF and Red Cross, their CEOs tend to make $500k to $1million a year. Averaging it out to $750k, that's $14,000 a week. More than many families in the world take home in a year.
I'm not saying people with skills and difficult jobs shouldn't be adequately paid. But I think income distribution is a major part of the problem. It is just in the US, nevermind comparing the rest of the world. It all comes down to how we value people, and how we (each and everyone of us) places value on our lives over the lives of other. Over what we are willing to give up (usually not much) so others can have better lives. Whether it means giving up our computers and cell phones so we aren't supporting sweat shops or downsizing our homes to save energy or donating our income and time. A lot of people get raises every year. They live fine on their income, but instead of taking the raise to help others, they raise their standard of living. No one wants to give up what they have. I'm not different. It's not because I don't care, but because it seems futile. I think a lot of people are in the same place.
The other problem is that (unless you're so filthy rich you can't even begin to count the zeros) most "normal" people live to the limit of their means.
For example, the family that budgets sensibly, on a salary of £17k a year, will spend every penny of that money on what they perceive to be, essentials. They won't have much, if anything, left over.
The family that has an income of £40k, will do the same, because they believe the things they spend their money on, are THEIR essentials. And they too will believe they're living sensibly.
And to all intents and purposes, they probably are.
But get them to swap, and it would be an eye-opener....
Maybe that's a first step. (I don't think we can ever engineer it, or orchestrate it, but) Get the privileged to live like their impoverished fellow citizens for a year.
Exactly. Everyone has their perception of needs. Having basic needs met no longer means we move on to further development, as in Maslow's hierarchy. We just create more needs so we stay at the same place, which is kind of strange. We finally get a bigger house/more space, and we fill it with more stuff, and then determine we still don't have enough space. It happens in so many areas of life.
I've enjoyed the studies where people have done similar things, Morgan Spurlock has a series I think that is online still called "30 days" where people with one type of view live the other side for a month. One of the first ones was him living on a particular income and how it played into decisions like when to get health care, and so on. It was fascinating. The problem is, only people who already see the problems and are interested in them are the ones watching. The Walton's (owners of Walmart) aren't watching.
I think there was also a series (filmed in different countries) called "undercover Boss" and another titled "secret millionaire" in which (in the former) the 'Boss' actually rewarded members of staff in their company, with various cash gifts, bonuses and training schemes, and in the latter, the millionaire went undercover to operate in four or five different organisations and then ended up donating sums of money to each one....
It's as I've said before: I attended a 'Be a better driver' course, run by our local constabulary and the Officer in charge openly stated that the most culpable drivers who really SHOULD have been there, were in fact those who never attended such a course, voluntarily....
Yes, we have Undercover Boss here, it's decent (thought still typical reality tv). It would be nice if all CEOs and higher ups had to work in the stores/restaurants of the places they have control over. If you are going to be in charge of running the entire company, you should know what your employees have to deal with as a result of your decisions. I always wish they'd do follow ups. I'd like to know how much that experience shapes the large decisions they make for the company instead of just rewarding a small handful (of the thousands) of employees who were lucky enough to be singled out.
I think about this general topic a lot, and right now I keep coming back to the same answer "do what you can in your own community." But at the same time, making small changes feels futile, too. So, I don't really know where that leaves me. Is reducing the number of computers in our home really going to help anyone? We recycle, but the number of vehicles going to the landfill every day hasn't changed as a result. What does it take to make a large scale change in humanity even in one town? Nevermind the whole world. I really don't know. It's frustrating, to say the least.
Here is the effort of one real man . . .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetsugen_Bernard_Glassman
There is a Sufi saying, 'do small things well and great things will seek you out to be done'
You are missing a very vital point about samsaric existence - it is the place where opposites create self-realisation. So to realise anything you have to understand the simple laws of your nature. If you realise you are not a separate ego, it makes sense, but if you act egoistically...
You cannot make a neutral place positive, unless you accept that there will be negative consequences, and that is really what is happening around you now. To try to make everything good and positive is to try and exert control on people and things - and when you push people and things... things and people push back... and things appear to be oppressive and negative.
It is not called the 'middle way for nothing'.
I like this Man so far. Thank you @lobster.
/Victor.
These Sufis are quite good at their sayings....
Thank you this was a very fruitful discussion. I see now that I am not alone in these kind of meditations.
Good thought there @federica. A meetingplace for likeminded. Maybe a facebookgroup.
Will think about it. As I said before I am a bit concerned about pulling this.
Dont want to seem lazy. It is just that I think I get what this means and how much time it could consume.
@karasti and @federica. All these things you lift here have one time or another weighed on my mind. Right down to the indecision due to the fact that I do not know what results my actions produce.
This is why I feel it is not enough to do one thing at a time. There must be a plan with a giant end goal. A goal that can be subdivided and divided again into an action plan.
And constant evaluation and remodeling.
Even ants that seem to stray about has a plan.
In the end three things govern all unskillful action. So the path is an internal path as well as an external.
But people fall into the pits called personalities fabrications they have unwittingly created for themselves. Knowing this and after seeing how desires of people work it is not always difficult to lead people and beckon them. And sometimes push them.
Unfortunately I am pretty good at this. It is a trait I do not like because I consider it unskillful action to manipulate people and I really really try to avoid doing that.
I am not saying this to boast just to explain my unwillingness to pull something like this.
Because sometimes leading and manipulating is only divided by a very thin sheet. That is another reason why I generally do not like pulling things.
I feel I am making people do things they do not want to do had they been left alone.
And then it becomes a responsibility to make the best of the situation because you owe the people you have led into a situation the best you can do.
I do not like burdens. Who does?
/Victor
Explain what you just said @victor - because I am stupid!
I note you quoted me as saying 'nothing'
Maybe I totally misunderstood you! Going into a rant of whatever was in my mind.
That shit happens a lot with my little self occupied ego. The bastard.
I thought you were talking about the Anatta and how the self experience works in a situation like this and what not to do to make things oppressive and negative when working with people and situations.
And I was just trying to say that (I at least think) I got it covered.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
/Victor
No
I may be perceived as someone who might rant and raves but your views and opinions are your own, and I am interested in them...
No offence taken...
I know I have nothing to say anyway...
...\lol/...
bullcrap.
. And you know it.
@Victorious, it may be worth noting that Mother Teresa (yes, her again) had a reputation for being a veritable administrative thorn in the sides of those whose strings she could pull. She was a nuisance, a pain in the neck, and wasted no time in pestering, badgering and cajoling those who could, into giving, and doing. She would not rest until she got results.
Gandhiji was the same way too.
Persistent little so-and-so's.
But as they say, (and I think I mentioned to @SpinyNorman too) "It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil"....
sometimes, prompting and nudging people, is a necessary evil.
It is very much like Tolkiens rings is it not?
A ring to bind them. But it binds you too.
And the temptation is. You can do so much good.
I know this is not going to be a popular post, but here goes anyway.
End poverty? Forget it. Not going to happen.
End war? Forget it. Not going to happen. (In fact, I'm not even going to try to address that).
Improve poverty and its symptoms on a small scale, as in your own community? Very do-able. I guess it was Tip O'Neill who said that "All politics is local". In a sense alleviating poverty is best accomplished at a local effort, as well, simply because it is more do-able.
Now, as far as the Bill Gates line of thinking. If Gates gave away half his fortune to the 3 billion people who live in poverty, each of them would gain $13. That's not going to end their poverty for more than a week. What about the next week? It's very much like the old saying: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
One thing pretty much all of us on this forum need to remember is that to truly poor people, we are rich. It's all relative. Before you ask Bill Gates to give away half of his fortune, are you going to give away half of your fortune?
Now you might say that's ridiculous. Let me tell you a quick, bare bones story. Without going into details, when I left Thailand due to the political unrest, I couldn't get my car sold quite in time for when my flight was leaving...missed timing by about 3 days. So I told my ex, finish the transaction, then keep half, and wire me the other half (would have been $15,000 each). I never got that other half. Why? Because, "You are rich and I am poor, so I am the one who really needs that money."
The continent that is richest in natural resources -- Africa -- is also the most mired in poverty. You figure out why that is true, and then you can develop a game plan to fix poverty in Africa. My belief is that it is due in large part to the constant tribalism within Africa, where so many tribes are fighting against each other, rather than working together.
and the rampant consumerism of the west that insists on lots of stuff for good prices that require the resources Africa has...and pay even less to their workers, many of whom are children...than factory workers in China get. So it's not just a "it's their problem because they cause the problem" it's all of our problems on some level and all of our faults. Everything we buy, and many things we do every day continue to push corporations to make the decisions they do. Diamonds alone-how many people here wear diamonds without considering where they come from? Just reading about that is enough to make a person sick, nevermind all the other industries.
Also, I certainly didn't mean Bill Gates should donate his money to each poverty stricken person. I think as a group, the top 100 richest people in the world could do a whole lot and it still wouldn't solve the problem. Because throwing money at the problem is a very small part of the solution. It requires a change in priority and thought process for a whole lot of people (on both the war and poverty fronts) and I think that mass change in people isn't coming any time soon.
The trouble with conventional 'help' organizations is that their strategies focus on changes that OTHER PEOPLE have to make.
Which is hopeless. We humans still operate under the collective delusion we can 'convince' other people to do our bidding if we present a convincing enough case.
Even the people suffering most would have to change as much as the greedy wealth hoarders. Evidence for that is everywhere -- in general, they won't. They can't.
I have an idea, but it is outrageous and I have not even begun to think of all the ramifications. I sincerely believe human beings do not live long enough, as individuals, to 'see through' the long term plans we can put into effect that will 'end poverty'. Add to that the huge majority of individual humans who have to scratch in the dirt for every morsel of food -- how forward thinking are THEY going to be? It will take a lot more than the span of a human's useful life to maintain consistent effort toward this change that we do need to make (agreeing with you all the way, OP).
So we need to get crackin' on extending individual human life. Two or three hundred year lives would make a huge difference.
What would we even begin to consider a livable life, though? What is one person's poverty is another person's wealth. Do we assume that every person who doesn't make an above-poverty-line wage wants or needs our help? Who decides that what that line is going to be? Even assuming what is a livable wage in the US alone has been a joke. We can barely take into account that someone living in North Dakota has a different livable wage than someone living in Hawaii or LA. Yet the poverty line is considered the same. $28,000 goes a long ways in North Dakota, I know people who make that and easily buy cars and houses, because it's a livable wage there (at least in some parts of the state).
Even the simpler questions become incredibly complex.
Sith, Jedi or . . . the Middle Way.
Trust The Force Luke/Victor
Change self, family, community in that order - not 'the world'
We haz plan. So far me and a cushion . . .
I'm not sure I agree. Africa is not the only continent that survives to a large extent on exports. It is still the poorest. And it's not so much that, "it's their problem because they cause the problem" as it is that it's their problem because they do so little to solve the problem(s). I know you didn't quite say this, but often in discussions like this it comes down to it's the fault of the United States and the rest of the rich "West" for exploiting Africa. Would Africa be better off if we didn't buy their products?
I do agree with you -- mass change in people isn't coming any time soon...as we proved with the League Of Nations and the United Nations. It's not that some people aren't trying; frankly, I think the way it is is just human nature.
I am reading the new Nelson Rockefeller biography (which is excellent). Just today I was reading the section about his opening months as a new governor of New York, and the author was discussing why Rockefeller often bumped up against the voters. He usually looked a decade down the road. The tax payers looked at the current year's tax rate. There is a lack of strategic planning in this world, and a surplus of reacting to situations.
They would be better off if we paid attention to what we were buying and demanded that companies that are run out of the US (for example) had better business practices in other countries.
As @Hamsaka said above, perhaps it's not that they do little to solve problems but that they cannot solve them. We just help create even more of them. I'm not putting the blame solely on consumers, but we share part of the blame for the condition of the world in many ways. I'm sure part of the reason they are as exploited as they are is because corporations know they can get away with it because Africans cannot solve those problems for numerous reasons. They don't know any better and corporations know it. That's exactly exploitation. As consumers of the goods those corporations produce from Africa's resources, some of that is on us to pay attention to how we spend our dollars. One of the best ways to help people out of poverty isn't by giving them money, but in paying them a fair wage for what they do and educating them on how to use their money to their best benefit. Like @vinlyn said when he mentioned the "give a man a fish..." quote. They need to be taught differently, they cannot just spontaneously learn it. To me, knowing that and taking advantage to make the most money is pretty horrendous.
That is something I can control and can do something about, and I try to do my best. Close to 50% of people are willing to pay more to ensure what they are buying is a responsible item. But how many of them know how to find those items? I'm pretty good with google-fu and it's difficult. Because despite the desire from consumers, corporations haven't felt enough of a sting to change their ways. It's hard, what do you do when you need something for work or school, you can't just not buy it. So then you are stuck buying something you aren't comfortable with and the corporations don't feel the sting of losing the sale due to their policies. I try to investigate my true needs and try to make smart purchases. I can't solve world poverty. But I can stop contributing to it.
I haz plan!
Maitriya soon (only five hundred years away) can hardly wait . . .
I'm afraid if we didn't have at least a few forward thinkers among the wealthy and powerful we'd be complaining about much worse things! It's not natural to think past one's life span, hell, it's not exactly natural to think ahead of our personal near future. Be too forward thinking and evolution would have you eaten or falling off of cliffs. Forward thinking was important enough to not be expunged, and it can actually express itself if the person isn't preoccupied with the next meal, or so it appears.
If MORE people thought of their lives in longer swatches of time, it would change . . . everything. Heck, if we could expect to live 120 years, which seems to be the extreme end of 'normal' human lifespans that would change a lot. I think science needs to get a move on, here.
@Karasti said:
Yes, that's an example of how the people we feel sorry for and wish to help are part of the problem. If someone could wave a magic wand and change the leaders of African nations (for instance) into philanthropists, the citizens would unintentionally defeat them at every turn. The parallel is us here in the developed world demanding diamonds or rubber with little regard for how these materials are obtained
I'm 'exploiting' them all right now, we all are.
Just thinking about this question of the OP keeps making me go back to the IRRITATING (lol!) idea that changing your own 'self' is the only place to start. THEN an example could be set that is compelling enough to cause friends, family, colleagues and students to question themselves and so forth.
One part of me keeps challenging what I'm saying with "Buddhist" shoulds and ought to's. How irritating. One thought is that this IS samsara, after all, nothing can be done except avoid rebirth. Except I think that is wrong headed in a lot of ways, at least as a way to conduct yourself while you are alive.
It's the least we can do for others struggling through samsara, right? Then what say to 'samsara is Nirvana?' Well, this is possibly a way that it is done. The individual can careen off the Wheel, but there's a whole lot of others that are gonna be born into the world we leave behind.
I think it will happen. It is just a matter of time.
Cooperation is the Human Way. Inevitably we will find means to cooperate worldwide.
But there are some chinks to work out on the way.
But you and I disagree on this as we have before. Thats ok.