Adventism and Conspiracy Theories

[Sulla]

Well honestly I dont really care to wast a lot of time trying to convince people their theories are not true. I just want to point out the harm it can do to the final message. And how Ellen White did not dwell on the huge amount of theories of her time.

[Kountzer]

A conspiracy theory forum? What's wrong with discussing that in the open? It can't be any more harmful than some of the other inane gibberish kicked around here.

DB

[Woody]

Well .... that is the way it is.

[fccool]

fccool you illustrate my point very well. With your views in 9/11 and why the US has more regulation and is not the same as it was 200 years ago.

Now lets looks at just one thing 9/11. You mix your theories with the truth of the final message and it will turn people away from the truth. They rightfuly detest these theories about 9/11.

Now will I ever change your mind. No I am sure of that. No matter what facts I ever show you it will all be part of the "coverup". But my goal is not to change your mind. Its to point out that the theories will harm the final message. And again I point you to Ellen White and here example. On say the assassination of President Lincoln. The conspiracy theory that the papacy/Jesuits killed Lincoln was well known in her time. But it was something she never wrote about. The conspiracy theories of jewish bankers running the world were well known in her time also. But she does not talk about them. No she was VERY specific about what she talked about. And I would just ask that we should follow her example.

Don't you expressing the same attitude that you criticize me for? On your part... your mind is made up, and no matter how much real factual evidence I point you to, you will take it for a "theory".

Again, you are avoiding my question... even concerning E.G.White. Great Controversy is one of the greatest conspiracy theory books there is. But your religious views automatically validate it, and you don't even notice or care that the people outside of the church view it as such. I am not saying that it's not truth, but that's exactly my point. And you validate it

As far as not talking about the "conspiracy theories" in the forum, why not? To some people, everything is a conspiracy theory... even Christianity is a conspiracy theory of control in mind of atheists. My discussions are usually not usually to try persuade people of a "conspiracy", but to show people the trends that they are not noticing and are unprepared for. They sit in the pews saying that "God will help us" without taking any action or consideration of what's going around them and the sense of urgency that needs to be there that our time is really short.

[bygjymbo]

Satan's most successful ruse is to convince humans that he doesn't even exist.

When you deny his actions, you deny his existance.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

[Kountzer]

There are large networks of non adventists who fervently believe many of the same conspiracy theories that adventist also believe. Most of the leading proponents of these theories are non adventists.

And why call it a theory when the RCC openly admits that it plans to rule the world again. In his book "keys of the blood" jesuit priest and vatican insider malachi martin go into about 700 pages of detail about how and why the RCC should take over and rule this world. It's no secret.

DB

[Sulla]

Quote:

Don't you expressing the same attitude that you criticize me for? On your part... your mind is made up, and no matter how much real factual evidence I point you to, you will take it for a "theory".

Again, you are avoiding my question... even concerning E.G.White. Great Controversy is one of the greatest conspiracy theory books there is. But your religious views automatically validate it, and you don't even notice or care that the people outside of the church view it as such. I am not saying that it's not truth, but that's exactly my point. And you validate it

Clearly you missed something. I did talk about how the GC has compiracy theories. But I also talked about what it left out. And I talked about what kinds of things it dwells on and does not dwell on.

And if I see good evidence of something I would change my mind. But I have not seen good evidence for the majority of these theories.

[Sulla]

Quote:

There are large networks of non adventists who fervently believe many of the same conspiracy theories that adventist also believe. Most of the leading proponents of these theories are non adventists.

And why call it a theory when the RCC openly admits that it plans to rule the world again. In his book "keys of the blood" jesuit priest and vatican insider malachi martin go into about 700 pages of detail about how and why the RCC should take over and rule this world. It's no secret.

The reason I mentioned adventist is thats who I am concerned about. These theories are most widely believed in the Muslim world as I have mentioned. But large numbers of believers does not make it true.

[Guest truthseeker007]

Interesting stuff. I am going to investigate the powers of the Roman catholic church so i ll be able to clarify whether the church is really just a church or actually a world power hiding itself in churchclothing...

[Kountzer]

Msg board skeptics from swau don't make it untrue.

DB

[fccool]

If you really want to discuss the validity of certain theories, then why not discuss why you think they are untrue with some substantial factual reasons that would prove without shadow of a doubt that you are correct? But, that would be impossible in a world of "classified" information and government secrecy... perhaps one of the reasons we are stuck guessing about these theories.

But, I agree with you in part, that church is not a place for discussing the conspiracy theories. Many people do not have background knowledge or understanding and it will seem foreign concept to them, as it is in many cases. For that reason I don't speak about these to people, unless I'm asked and people say "what do you think about that or this", as many do.

As far as discussing these on the forums, IMO that's what the forum is for. If it is withing a subject and context of the thread... I don't think we should be afraid to discuss it. If we discuss the most trivial thing, why not discuss the most trivial things? There's nothing wrong with exploring possible scenarios.

Otherwise, how would you be warned of things like these?

http://www.share-international.org/

[Kountzer]

I don't discuss conspiracies at church. this is an unofficial sda msg board. Disinformation runs rampant around here.

DB

[Pockey]

Srsly, the gall of them.

[Sulla]

Quote:

If you really want to discuss the validity of certain theories, then why not discuss why you think they are untrue with some substantial factual reasons that would prove without shadow of a doubt that you are correct? But, that would be impossible in a world of "classified" information and government secrecy... perhaps one of the reasons we are stuck guessing about these theories.

These theories are the alternant theories so the burden of prove is on proving them.

Quote:

But, I agree with you in part, that church is not a place for discussing the conspiracy theories. Many people do not have background knowledge or understanding and it will seem foreign concept to them, as it is in many cases. For that reason I don't speak about these to people, unless I'm asked and people say "what do you think about that or this", as many do.

Agreed

Quote:

As far as discussing these on the forums, IMO that's what the forum is for. If it is withing a subject and context of the thread... I don't think we should be afraid to discuss it. If we discuss the most trivial thing, why not discuss the most trivial things? There's nothing wrong with exploring possible scenarios.

I have no problem with talking about these things on the forum.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

So its damaging to put these false theories with the truth.

“the truth”? And, that is...? There are absolute truths and there are subjective truths – and, I suppose, there is such a thing as perceived truth.

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

What I have also found from study is that peoples percieved best interest explains the vast majority of actions. From the white house to the vatican to the UN.

And, the .Org? ...no “best interest” – such as where concern peculiarly distinctive ‘truths’?

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

fccool interesting how you use some rather iffy quotes to back up your point.

Am somewhat confused – you address fccool, yet you’re spinning off of my quotes... nevertheless:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I remember that John Q Public was against the giveaway of the Panama canal by about 75% to 25%; yet, the canal was given to Panama with the subsequent fact that now China has de facto control of it.

Lousy Statecraft on our part? or intended ? ...meaning, conspiracy.

Quote:Sulla

A well documented move with lots of support in the goverment.

Indeed, it is evident that there was sufficient support in gov’t to have given away sovereign American territory to a quasi-communist Torrijos and agitating Panamanian mobs; however, per my notation: John Q Public did not agree with such wrongheadedness. The fact that it occurred in spite of the American people’s opposition speaks to, at the least – ‘conspiracy’ in its strictest sense.

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

To give back to Pananama something they should control.

It would have been difficult to have “given back to Panama” a thing, which they had never owned.

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

Not to mention if in some case there was a war China could never hold the area.

Presently, China occupies both the Atlantic port of Cristobal and the Pacific port of Balboa. They also occupy former US bases in the zone. In the event of hostilities with China (high probability), China would not have to “hold the area” – but simply to render the canal impassable. The result would be a catastrophic loss to America. (A New York to San Francisco passage would be more than doubled – from 6,000 miles to 14,000 miles necessitated by a Cape Horn transit)

That would prove to be very large logistical nightmare to our military.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Holy Writ explicitly tells us that it will be an angel who delivers the Third-Angel’s Message.

Quote:Sulla

I think its clear the church will have its part in spreading the message. By what writ says:)

Nevertheless, Writ notes that it is a work belonging to the Third Angel.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

Evil Bankers controlling the world.

Quote:jasd

Disabuse me should I think that they, largely, do.

Historically, banker-priests have inordinately influenced “control” of the world – as fractional banking was invented in Babylon. (per current charges that prophetic Babylon is inextricably linked to ‘religion’ ignore the fact that the religions of Ancient Babylon had their origins in Persia; whereas, ‘Banking’/lending upon interest {or usury} was uniquely Babylon by inception)

Quote:Sulla

Your more than free to think what ever you like. But it still does not change the fact of the anti jewish history of these theories.

Indeed, as are you free to think as you wish. Per “the fact of the anti jewish history of these theories”: the question obtaining would be – is the fact that one notes historical aspects and evolution of peoples and/or tribes – necessarily to be read in the negative; that is, “anti”?

Why do you think that so few OT Jews wished to return to Jerusalem after the land of Judea had had its rest? And, what did the chroniclers of Alexander’s Conquest have to say of the Jews of Babylon?

One can only commend those early Jews who did assimilate – and did so exceedingly well. That’s also found in “historical studies”...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

And, being as their “roots” have been determined to lie here or there – does that, of itself negate the charge or suggestion? (Incidentally, ‘Semites’ include vast numbers of others not typically thought Semites and are diametrically opposed to the matter of lending upon interest {or usury})

Quote:Sulla

Much more than here or there. It was part of the demonizing of the jews. Of the persecution of the jews. Things that Christ never endorsed.

Sulla, all nations, kingdoms, tribes, tongues, and peoples have been offended – at one or more point(s) in time, to one degree or another (note, that ancient Greece was overrun by Cimmerians from the steppes of middle-west Asia – to the extent that their national physical attributes were eventually adulterated). Sadly, they, for the most part, have not – as did/do the Jews – commensurately given back to mankind or otherwise shared of their natural gifts... And, no,

“Christ” never endorsed base behaviour – from whichever people it derives.

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

And even tho these lies are very old does not mean they are correct. The Romans demonized jews and christians alike. Thats one of the main reasons for the switch from Sunday to Saterday and other choices by the christian to seperate themselves from the jews.

An assumptions is made in the above quote – that is that “these” are, in fact, “lies” – which, renders the assertion that “they” may not be correct – moot. Per the Romans, indeed; however, what follows is incorrect. (you’ll find that both Jeremiah and Hosea write that Gd removed the OT calendar from the accumulated wisdom of the COI – ipso facto, with a lost calendar goes a continuing and correct reckoning of the Seventh-day Sabbath) Per the “separation of Xtians from Jews” –

that is attended by many and complicated reasons...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

:: Conspiracies have, practically speaking, existed since forever; like, mebbe, even since ‘before the beginning of time’ – in Heaven. [...]

Quote:Sulla

No one ever said there are no conspiracies. But the vast majority I have researched have not held water. Where based on almost nothing. ...

That may be, however, I would encourage you to withhold precipitousness re your conclusions. Though there is much that constitutes silliness, there is also much that is astoundingly informative and might be taken, in some instances – as, at least, cautionary.

[fccool]

These theories are the alternant theories so the burden of prove is on proving them.

The "Burden of proof" is a man made fallacy that was created to validate and perpetuate the status quo. If I know that you can not prove or disprove a theory because of the lack of factual info, that's a card that I might as well use... because I know that I can't disprove it either.

[Sulla]

Quote:

Indeed, it is evident that there was sufficient support in gov’t to have given away sovereign American territory to a quasi-communist Torrijos and agitating Panamanian mobs; however, per my notation: John Q Public did not agree with such wrongheadedness. The fact that it occurred in spite of the American people’s opposition speaks to, at the least – ‘conspiracy’ in its strictest sense.

Give me a break. We forced them to sell us the land to start with. I was the correct thing to do to give it back. If you dont agree thats fine but it was not a conspiracy. Also the majority not wanting or wanting something does not make it good or bad. The majority were racist not long ago.

Quote:

Presently, China occupies both the Atlantic port of Cristobal and the Pacific port of Balboa. They also occupy former US bases in the zone. In the event of hostilities with China (high probability), China would not have to “hold the area” – but simply to render the canal impassable. The result would be a catastrophic loss to America. (A New York to San Francisco passage would be more than doubled – from 6,000 miles to 14,000 miles necessitated by a Cape Horn transit)

That would prove to be very large logistical nightmare to our military.

Yes I know all about all of these problems. And I also know China can not project its power. And we can never invade them. So what are we really talking about. We are talking about a possible sea and air war over Tawain. Thats if the president at the time would fight china over it. And if China decided to attack and cripple their own economy. The fact of the matter is that war with china is not very likely at least for the next 25 years.

Quote:

Nevertheless, Writ notes that it is a work belonging to the Third Angel.

Its not just spread by an angel. I am sure we dont agree but thats fine.

Quote:

Indeed, as are you free to think as you wish. Per “the fact of the anti jewish history of these theories”: the question obtaining would be – is the fact that one notes historical aspects and evolution of peoples and/or tribes – necessarily to be read in the negative; that is, “anti”?

Why do you think that so few OT Jews wished to return to Jerusalem after the land of Judea had had its rest? And, what did the chroniclers of Alexander’s Conquest have to say of the Jews of Babylon?

One can only commend those early Jews who did assimilate – and did so exceedingly well. That’s also found in “historical studies”...

I am familiar with history of the jewish and christian churches. And the real probrolems and made up propaganda against both. Thats why I believe as I do.

Quote:

Sulla, all nations, kingdoms, tribes, tongues, and peoples have been offended – at one or more point(s) in time, to one degree or another (note, that ancient Greece was overrun by Cimmerians from the steppes of middle-west Asia – to the extent that their national physical attributes were eventually adulterated). Sadly, they, for the most part, have not – as did/do the Jews – commensurately given back to mankind or otherwise shared of their natural gifts... And, no,

“Christ” never endorsed base behaviour – from whichever people it derives.

The difference is you dont have a demonizing of these races lasting from ancient times to modern times.

Quote:

An assumptions is made in the above quote – that is that “these” are, in fact, “lies” – which, renders the assertion that “they” may not be correct – moot. Per the Romans, indeed; however, what follows is incorrect. (you’ll find that both Jeremiah and Hosea write that Gd removed the OT calendar from the accumulated wisdom of the COI – ipso facto, with a lost calendar goes a continuing and correct reckoning of the Seventh-day Sabbath) Per the “separation of Xtians from Jews” –

that is attended by many and complicated reasons...

Sorry they are not assumptions.

Quote:

That may be, however, I would encourage you to withhold precipitousness re your conclusions. Though there is much that constitutes silliness, there is also much that is astoundingly informative and might be taken, in some instances – as, at least, cautionary.

Years of study I dont think is being rash. Rash is the people I have seen spreading these theories with no real information. I can not say if you ever really researched both sides of any as I do not know you. But none of the people I know spreading them really has a solid grasp of history. Oh they think they do but under closer inspection they get 90% of it handed to them from conspiracy books that are terribly unreliable. What I have found is the more I know about history and the men and women behind it the less I believe conpiracies.

[Sulla]

Quote:

The "Burden of proof" is a man made fallacy that was created to validate and perpetuate the status quo. If I know that you can not prove or disprove a theory because of the lack of factual info, that's a card that I might as well use... because I know that I can't disprove it either.

Look if you come tell me the US goverment is really run by little green men from mars is your burden to prove that. The burden of proof is not made up its basic common sense.

[fccool]

Not really, if I tell you that your house is on fire... it's up to you either to believe me and check it out... or not to believe me and think that it is not. "Burden of proof" is bogus notion when you think about it in terms of events that directly impact you, and those that you don't particularly care about to know.

[Sulla]

Quote:

Not really, if I tell you that your house is on fire... it's up to you either to believe me and check it out... or not to believe me and think that it is not. "Burden of proof" is bogus notion when you think about it in terms of events that directly impact you, and those that you don't particularly care about to know.

Well aliens are about to blow up your house.

[fccool]

Ok, I'm packing....

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

... Being a student of history. We forced them to sell us the land to start with.

Do you mind submitting particulars re the ‘forced’ nature of the ‘sale’ of land by the Panamanian State permitting the United States to construct a canal through what has since become known as the Canal Zone?

Otherwise,

I perceive the cause for our divide; that is, we collect, collate, and interpret facts differently.

It is my understanding that the United States negotiated with the newly declared Republic of Panama for the building of the canal. Said ‘Treaty’ was later approved by the then instituted Govt of the Panama State.

Indeed, the monies of note paid - were to the Govt of Columbia for

our culpability in providing two war ships and troops, which aided in the separation of the isthmus or province Panama from Gran Columbia – in fact, partnering in the creation of the Panamanian State.

It is unfortunate that the Panamanians, as well others, hadn’t the innate quality to forbear reneging on a reciprocal quid pro quo for our having provided Panama it’s independence. It is forgotten that

those who later truly became Panamanians, desired so much to have the United States build its canal through the isthmus of Panama that they rebelled against Gran Columbia – fearing we would build the canal through Nicaragua instead. It is, as noted above, that we, enabled and literally, provided the independence of the [now] Panamanians.

In summation: although the Panamanians were ‘forced’ to accept United States possession of rights re the canal zone as fait accompli, they were never forced to sell the land to us. Disabuse me should I err. We received the canal zone and they received guaranteed independence from Gran Columbia and Statehood. Fair enough – by any measure.

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

I was the correct thing to do to give it back. If you dont agree thats fine but it was not a conspiracy.

It was not. Exactly, fine. It was.

Quote:

Quote:Sulla

Also the majority not wanting or wanting something does not make it good or bad. The majority were racist not long ago.

I wonder about your seeming preoccupation with 'theories' of racism. Is that ‘conspiracy-driven’?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Presently, China occupies both the Atlantic port of Cristobal and the Pacific port of Balboa. They also occupy former US bases in the zone. In the event of hostilities with China (high probability), China would not have to “hold the area” – but simply to render the canal impassable. The result would be a catastrophic loss to America. (A New York to San Francisco passage would be more than doubled – from 6,000 miles to 14,000 miles necessitated by a Cape Horn transit)

That would prove to be very large logistical nightmare to our military.

>>Yes I know all about all of these problems. And I also know China can not project its power. And we can never invade them. So what are we really talking about. We are talking about a possible sea and air war over Tawain. Thats if the president at the time would fight china over it. And if China decided to attack and cripple their own economy. The fact of the matter is that war with china is not very likely at least for the next 25 years. <<

I cannot decide whether the above is simply a happy face or wishful thinking. During the last few days, China "projected" actual power to the Arabian Sea. Granted, that is not yet a frightening act of itself; however, consider: it is not the place of residence but the places in the heart of the International Chinese which causes them ever to look homeward. Given that,

China has already “projected” over a million men just north of our border with Canada – as did they “project” numbers equally large southward of our border with Mexico. That is without mention of those already “projected” into the Canal Zone. Armed, they outnumber our own troops. Possibilities and probabilities... Anyway, remember Mao’s long march to the ‘Golden Mountain’? We have always been that Golden Mountain.

Taiwan? It may be that the last generation of Americans would have gone to war to honor Treaties with Taiwan. That is no longer the case. Americans, by and large, no longer have the testaments for such a challenge; we would appease the beast.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Nevertheless, Writ notes that it is a work belonging to the Third Angel.Its not just spread by an angel.

>>I am sure we dont agree but thats fine.<<

Indeed.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Indeed, as are you free to think as you wish. Per “the fact of the anti jewish history of these theories”: the question obtaining would be – is the fact that one notes historical aspects and evolution of peoples and/or tribes – necessarily to be read in the negative; that is, “anti”?

Why do you think that so few OT Jews wished to return to Jerusalem after the land of Judea had had its rest? And, what did the chroniclers of Alexander’s Conquest have to say of the Jews of Babylon?

One can only commend those early Jews who did assimilate – and did so exceedingly well. That’s also found in “historical studies”

>>...I am familiar with history of the jewish and christian churches. And the real probrolems and made up propaganda against both. Thats why I believe as I do.<<

Ah so, might one read ‘conspiracy’ into such as "real problems and made up propaganda"? Prolly, just simple prejudices, yes?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Sulla, all nations, kingdoms, tribes, tongues, and peoples have been offended – at one or more point(s) in time, to one degree or another (note, that ancient Greece was overrun by Cimmerians from the steppes of middle-west Asia – to the extent that their national physical attributes were eventually adulterated). Sadly, they, for the most part, have not – as did/do the Jews – commensurately given back to mankind or otherwise shared of their natural gifts... And, no,

“Christ” never endorsed base behaviour – from whichever people it derives.

>>The difference is you dont have a demonizing of these races lasting from ancient times to modern times.<<

Of whom did Churchill speak when he stated, “And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire”?

And, in having stolen that Empire, some years later killed upwards of 10-13 million Ukrainians by starvation... and, created the Gulag Archipelago... and, [...]. It has never been a

one-way street upon which both evil-doers and saints travel. That street always runs both directions – as do those who are upon it.

Have you read the Talmud? Belief in some of the things contained therein might explain much of that which has subsequently occurred vis-à-vis 'Jews'. It may be karmic (to take a page from heathens) that certain ‘Jews’ have, historically, encountered antipathy. In other words, what goes around comes around; it is the Karma-Mandala pertaining to, among other things, the activities of peoples.

One simply cannot embrace a book that advocates a ‘Gd-chosen’ v ‘goyim-dogs’ position without it becoming broadcast to the detriment of its adherents. That said, conversely,

we have seen the emergence of Jews who have risen to the heights of world-finance/banking, Jews who also dominate much that is science, medicine, literature, the arts, etc... One must appreciate both the resiliency-of and the opportunities-afforded Jews. Also, let Writ speak, that

Jews have been and always will be associated with the Thrones of our Kingdoms. There is no other way to say it, but – that is the cream of our societies, its crème de la crème. Little there to be feeling all “demonized” about...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

An assumptions is made in the above quote – that is that “these” are, in fact, “lies” – which, renders the assertion that “they” may not be correct – moot. Per the Romans, indeed; however, what follows is incorrect. (you’ll find that both Jeremiah and Hosea write that Gd removed the OT calendar from the accumulated wisdom of the COI – ipso facto, with a lost calendar goes a continuing and correct reckoning of the Seventh-day Sabbath) Per the “separation of Xtians from Jews” –

that is attended by many and complicated reasons...

>>Sorry they are not assumptions.<<

Ah, but indeed, they are:

Lam 2:6 And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.

KJV Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

Re the above two texts: has “forgotten” ceased to mean “forgotten and “cease” ceased to mean “cease”?

These are not the words of soothsayers or those seeking to tickle ears; these are the very words of Gd. Ipso facto, Gd caused that the Sabbaths were “forgotten” within the Kingdom of Judah and “ceased” within the Kingdom of Ephraim/Israel. Moreover,

its reinstitution per text or passage is absent in Writ – this side of the Millenium.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That may be, however, I would encourage you to withhold precipitousness re your conclusions. Though there is much that constitutes silliness, there is also much that is astoundingly informative and might be taken, in some instances – as, at least, cautionary.

>>Years of study I dont think is being rash. Rash is the people I have seen spreading these theories with no real information. I can not say if you ever really researched both sides of any as I do not know you. But none of the people I know spreading them really has a solid grasp of history. Oh they think they do but under closer inspection they get 90% of it handed to them from conspiracy books that are terribly unreliable. What I have found is the more I know about history and the men and women behind it the less I believe conpiracies.<<

Study is good. Continue your studies of history. Also, consider, it may be that your reading material re “conspiracies” may be either too selective or too parochial.

[Amelia]

*GP

Folks, please remember; the longer the post the less inclined someone is to read it. Break up a lengthy post into two or more shorter posts.

Amelia

[Liz]

*GP

Folks, please remember; the longer the post the less inclined someone is to read it. Break up a lengthy post into two or more shorter posts.

Amelia

Hear Hear!!! Could this be one of the rules?