New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

1. Dilip's Post # 334 - 23/9/9 - That in my Post # 333 - 23/9/9 I omitted reference to your Post # 302:

Post # 334 - "By not including post#302 in your statements, you are beginning to sound insincere, I am sorry to say..."

Response

You are very quick off the mark with character assassination when someone just makes a mistake or makes a deliberate decision with which you happen to disagree.

Here is your Post # 302:

Dilip quotes my Secretarial Update of Statements passed by this group, Part II of 3 parts (Post # 295), which includes the Libertarian ones and the Democratic Marxist ones.

"Bob, if the straight-forward concepts of common-sense and fair competition sound complicated & unworkable to you and to PP, please accept my sympathies. You are headed for the misery of Democratic Marxism, where you get drowned in a myriad nonsensical 'laws' devoid of all common-sense, and fair competition is replaced with 'unfair grabbing' from a very limited common-pie all are forced to share... Are you forgetting the dark side of human beings (which you repeatedly mention), when it comes to forceful sharing with strangers (outside of the their family which they have created, and hence feel responsible for)?"

Irrelevancy of Dilip's Post # 302 to my Secretarial Post # 333

This post is totally irrelevant to my Post # 333.

Dilip's Post # 302 deals the issue of "common sense" and its role in government.

My Post # 333 states (Again a Group Secretary Post):

"Democratic CT'er Group Processing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 332 - 23/9/9

"Well, now you also have PP (Pierre P) oppose that Statement [#1 Opposition] by PP (Pargat P). So feel free to delete it..."

Secretarial Response

As a Group Secretary, I have deliberately taken the position that I am almost powerless. I merely try to carry out the wishes of the group and keep things in order and up-to-date. Decisions are group decisions. Statements are group Statements.

In this case of Libertarian Statement # 1, a Statement in Opposition was put forward as a note to be inserted into the list of Libertarian Statements. It was generally accepted as a valid Statement in opposition.

I am not free as Secretary to just delete it because some people consider it wrong, foolish, whatever.........I have no such power.

In this situation, the protocol is not to have a discussion take place between Libertarians and opponents as to who is right......that can be dealt with elsewhere........we simply want whatever Statements are generally accepted to be listed for the benefit of others, as educational material. It was up to the group to determine if it was a Statement they accepted, or not. They accepted it.......no one challenged it as untrue within the one week Challenge Period. But there is an issue of whether the Libertarians in the group should be able to Challenge it.......obviously they claim it is wrong. This would be the case in our calling for any Opposition Statements re a Partisan List of Statements. So I think it is up to those not of the partisan group to challenge it if it is false.

Any comments on this discussion?

Bob A (As Group Secretary)"


My Post # 333 deals ONLY with Group Secretarial Power and the democratic style of this CT'er group.

Can you see the difference Dilip?

There is absolutely no reason for me to refer to your Post # 302 in my Post # 333.........it is on a totally different topic.

So, no I did not make a mistake. Yes I deliberately saw that your Post # 302 was not relevant, as was almost every other post in this thread, except the one where I had previously dealt with the power of the Group Secretary.

2. Dilip's View of the Role of the Group Secretary

Dilip's Post # 337 - 23/9/9 responding to a Post of Pargat Perrer is also relevant:

"There would be no protocol violation for Bob to include #302 in the statements;..."

Response

I had already given Dilip a full explanation of the "Role of the Group Secretary" in my Post 333 as Group Secretary (above). But I'll repeat the post again since now we are dealing with a different issue:

"Democratic CT'er Group Processing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 332 - 23/9/9

"Well, now you also have PP (Pierre P) oppose that Statement [#1 Opposition] by PP (Pargat P). So feel free to delete it..."

Secretarial Response

As a Group Secretary, I have deliberately taken the position that I am almost powerless. I merely try to carry out the wishes of the group and keep things in order and up-to-date. Decisions are group decisions. Statements are group Statements.

In this case of Libertarian Statement # 1, a Statement in Opposition was put forward as a note to be inserted into the list of Libertarian Statements. It was generally accepted as a valid Statement in opposition.

I am not free as Secretary to just delete it because some people consider it wrong, foolish, whatever.........I have no such power.

In this situation, the protocol is not to have a discussion take place between Libertarians and opponents as to who is right......that can be dealt with elsewhere........we simply want whatever Statements are generally accepted to be listed for the benefit of others, as educational material. It was up to the group to determine if it was a Statement they accepted, or not. They accepted it.......no one challenged it as untrue within the one week Challenge Period. But there is an issue of whether the Libertarians in the group should be able to Challenge it.......obviously they claim it is wrong. This would be the case in our calling for any Opposition Statements re a Partisan List of Statements. So I think it is up to those not of the partisan group to challenge it if it is false.

Any comments on this discussion?

Bob A (As Group Secretary)"


Issue: Dilip wants the Group Secretary to have MORE power?? This from a Libertarian who hates bureaucrats and says they have too much power and also abuse it?

Dilip wants me to over-ride our whole "The Conversation Format Protocol", which we as a CT'er group just adopted by formal vote. He wants me to insert, as a formal statement, into the list of Libertarian Statements, his comment in Post # 302 (I'll set it out again to show what he wants me to do:

"Bob, if the straight-forward concepts of common-sense and fair competition sound complicated & unworkable to you and to PP, please accept my sympathies. You are headed for the misery of Democratic Marxism, where you get drowned in a myriad nonsensical 'laws' devoid of all common-sense, and fair competition is replaced with 'unfair grabbing' from a very limited common-pie all are forced to share... Are you forgetting the dark side of human beings (which you repeatedly mention), when it comes to forceful sharing with strangers (outside of the their family which they have created, and hence feel responsible for)?"

Response

1. This is a "comment", not a formal Statement is the Executive Summary format.

2. As I have tried to explain democracy here to you, I have no power to just insert some Statement on a frolic of my own. Statements are proposed by Participants and must be generally accepted after going through due process.

3. Dilip is very free to propose a Libertarian Statement to include in the list, which must be succinct, and not a personal attack. Then it will be processed in the normal way.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Pargat Perrer]

And if he is new and democratic, why does he not join NDP, eh, troll??

Wikipedia says: Poilievre entered the 38th Canadian Parliament at the age of 25 along with Andrew Scheer as the youngest members of the Conservative caucus.^[33] Poilievre introduced himself and his young colleagues to media outlets as "libertarian-minded" members of the party.^[34][35]

Once again, as so many times before, you simple will not or cannot answer the questions put to you.

If he's a member of the Conservative party, and not the Libertarian party, then obviously he must have differences with Libertarianism. You tout him as Libertarian, but you can't answer why is not a member of the Libertarian party.

Keep digging that hole, Dilip.

[Dilip Panjwani]

If this other PP is Libertarian, why isn't he a member of the Libertarian Party of Canada?

What part(s) of Libertarianism does he disagree with?

And / or, what does he think Libertarianism leaves out that is present in the Conservative party?

And if he is new and democratic, why does he not join NDP, eh, troll??

Wikipedia says: Poilievre entered the 38th Canadian Parliament at the age of 25 along with Andrew Scheer as the youngest members of the Conservative caucus.^[33] Poilievre introduced himself and his young colleagues to media outlets as "libertarian-minded" members of the party.^[34][35]

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip's summary of my Statement In Opposition as "Common sense does not work" is pure fiction. That is NOT what the statement says. Anyone with rudimentary English skills can deduce that. Therefore, I consider Dilip to be resorting to underhanded tactics and re-interpreting statements to suit his destructive agenda with respect to what you are trying to do here, Bob. I think maybe you need to "put the hammer down" on this behavior from Dilip.

And now I see Dilip says if you don't include his post #302 in the general statements, he will consider you (Bob A.) "insincere". This comes after you explained the protocol to him, and he wants you to violate the protocol.

His post #302 just seems to extend sympathies to you because you don't see the world the way he does. I really think at this point Dilip just wants to torpedo this whole effort of yours.

Him calling me a troll in this thread is SO pot-calling-the-kettle-black.

The fact remains, and is exemplified by the above, that you are a nasty troll!
There would be no protocol violation for Bob to include #302 in the statements; I wonder if he is just a fascist cloaked as a democratic secretary, and only wants to tout DM and bring down all other systems, in which case I would agree with Sid's conclusions on his climate-change statements (#1749 there), with similar conclusions being applicable in this thread too...

[Pargat Perrer]

Dilip:

I did NOT make that Opposition Statement in Post # 295 - 23/9/4!

Libertarian Statements of our Group

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement in Opposition to Libertarian positions in Statements # 1 - # 6

Part 1:
There is no such thing as universal common-sense. Since a common-sense interpretation of the Natural Law ("do no harm to others, except in fair competition") is always subject to personal bias as to what exactly common-sense IS, there can be no consistent and irrefutable, indisputable interpretation of the Natural Law. Consequently, any attempt at one-size-fits-all Libertarianism will lead to alienation / protests / violence / overthrow of the system. Even the vaunted Judges and Police will be at each other's throats, because they have differing views of common-sense. This is the nature of humanity as evidenced throughout human history."

Part 2:
"There is no such thing as a universal definition of "fair competition". Therefore even where common-sense is not in dispute (if that could ever be the case, which Part 1 disputes), still disputes will inevitably arise over what constitutes exceptions under the Fair Competition clause. Lawyers will endlessly argue about possible exceptions, which current legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:

Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.

Pargat Perrer proposed this Statement. Not only did he propose it, it was not challenged by any CT'er within one week. So it is a "generally accepted" Statement in opposition to the Libertarian position.........no Statement, however, is any longer an "Individual's" Statement, once accepted by this CT'er group. All our Statements are Statements of this CT'er group.

I can understand how you got confused now..........

Poilievre's government, and it looks like he may win, will still be a disaster in my opinion (Post # 329 - 23/9/8)

Bob A (As Participant)

Dilip's summary of my Statement In Opposition as "Common sense does not work" is pure fiction. That is NOT what the statement says. Anyone with rudimentary English skills can deduce that. Therefore, I consider Dilip to be resorting to underhanded tactics and re-interpreting statements to suit his destructive agenda with respect to what you are trying to do here, Bob. I think maybe you need to "put the hammer down" on this behavior from Dilip.

And now I see Dilip says if you don't include his post #302 in the general statements, he will consider you (Bob A.) "insincere". This comes after you explained the protocol to him, and he wants you to violate the protocol.

His post #302 just seems to extend sympathies to you because you don't see the world the way he does. I really think at this point Dilip just wants to torpedo this whole effort of yours.

Him calling me a troll in this thread is SO pot-calling-the-kettle-black.

[Pargat Perrer]

Maybe this Libertarian guy can instill some wisdom into stubborn Bob's stubborn endeavor...
Pierre Poilievre's Common Sense Convention Keynote Speech:

.....

If this other PP is Libertarian, why isn't he a member of the Libertarian Party of Canada?

What part(s) of Libertarianism does he disagree with?

And / or, what does he think Libertarianism leaves out that is present in the Conservative party?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic CT'er Group Processing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 332 - 23/9/9

"Well, now you also have PP (Pierre P) oppose that Statement [#1 Opposition] by PP (Pargat P). So feel free to delete it..."

Secretarial Response

As a Group Secretary, I have deliberately taken the position that I am almost powerless. I merely try to carry out the wishes of the group and keep things in order and up-to-date. Decisions are group decisions. Statements are group Statements.

In this case of Libertarian Statement # 1, a Statement in Opposition was put forward as a note to be inserted into the list of Libertarian Statements. It was generally accepted as a valid Statement in opposition.

I am not free as Secretary to just delete it because some people consider it wrong, foolish, whatever.........I have no such power.

In this situation, the protocol is not to have a discussion take place between Libertarians and opponents as to who is right......that can be dealt with elsewhere........we simply want whatever Statements are generally accepted to be listed for the benefit of others, as educational material. It was up to the group to determine if it was a Statement they accepted, or not. They accepted it.......no one challenged it as untrue within the one week Challenge Period. But there is an issue of whether the Libertarians in the group should be able to Challenge it.......obviously they claim it is wrong. This would be the case in our calling for any Opposition Statements re a Partisan List of Statements. So I think it is up to those not of the partisan group to challenge it if it is false.

Any comments on this discussion?

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

By not including post#302 in your statements, you are beginning to sound insincere, I am sorry to say...

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic CT'er Group Processing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 332 - 23/9/9

"Well, now you also have PP (Pierre P) oppose that Statement [#1 Opposition] by PP (Pargat P). So feel free to delete it..."

Secretarial Response

As a Group Secretary, I have deliberately taken the position that I am almost powerless. I merely try to carry out the wishes of the group and keep things in order and up-to-date. Decisions are group decisions. Statements are group Statements.

In this case of Libertarian Statement # 1, a Statement in Opposition was put forward as a note to be inserted into the list of Libertarian Statements. It was generally accepted as a valid Statement in opposition.

I am not free as Secretary to just delete it because some people consider it wrong, foolish, whatever.........I have no such power.

In this situation, the protocol is not to have a discussion take place between Libertarians and opponents as to who is right......that can be dealt with elsewhere........we simply want whatever Statements are generally accepted to be listed for the benefit of others, as educational material. It was up to the group to determine if it was a Statement they accepted, or not. They accepted it.......no one challenged it as untrue within the one week Challenge Period. But there is an issue of whether the Libertarians in the group should be able to Challenge it.......obviously they claim it is wrong. This would be the case in our calling for any Opposition Statements re a Partisan List of Statements. So I think it is up to those not of the partisan group to challenge it if it is false.

Any comments on this discussion?

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip:

I did NOT make that Opposition Statement in Post # 295 - 23/9/4!

Libertarian Statements of our Group

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement in Opposition to Libertarian positions in Statements # 1 - # 6

Part 1:
There is no such thing as universal common-sense. Since a common-sense interpretation of the Natural Law ("do no harm to others, except in fair competition") is always subject to personal bias as to what exactly common-sense IS, there can be no consistent and irrefutable, indisputable interpretation of the Natural Law. Consequently, any attempt at one-size-fits-all Libertarianism will lead to alienation / protests / violence / overthrow of the system. Even the vaunted Judges and Police will be at each other's throats, because they have differing views of common-sense. This is the nature of humanity as evidenced throughout human history."

Part 2:
"There is no such thing as a universal definition of "fair competition". Therefore even where common-sense is not in dispute (if that could ever be the case, which Part 1 disputes), still disputes will inevitably arise over what constitutes exceptions under the Fair Competition clause. Lawyers will endlessly argue about possible exceptions, which current legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:

Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.

Pargat Perrer proposed this Statement. Not only did he propose it, it was not challenged by any CT'er within one week. So it is a "generally accepted" Statement in opposition to the Libertarian position.........no Statement, however, is any longer an "Individual's" Statement, once accepted by this CT'er group. All our Statements are Statements of this CT'er group.

I can understand how you got confused now..........

Poilievre's government, and it looks like he may win, will still be a disaster in my opinion (Post # 329 - 23/9/8)

Bob A (As Participant)

Well, now you also have PP (Pierre P) oppose that statement by PP (Pargat P). So feel free to delete it, especially as you thought (in your previous post #329) it made you sound idiotic. So you (post #329), me (in post #302, which was just a few days after the proposed statement) and Pierre (in his address to all Canadians), all seem to oppose it…

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip:

I did NOT make that Opposition Statement in Post # 295 - 23/9/4!

Libertarian Statements of our Group

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement in Opposition to Libertarian positions in Statements # 1 - # 6

Part 1:
There is no such thing as universal common-sense. Since a common-sense interpretation of the Natural Law ("do no harm to others, except in fair competition") is always subject to personal bias as to what exactly common-sense IS, there can be no consistent and irrefutable, indisputable interpretation of the Natural Law. Consequently, any attempt at one-size-fits-all Libertarianism will lead to alienation / protests / violence / overthrow of the system. Even the vaunted Judges and Police will be at each other's throats, because they have differing views of common-sense. This is the nature of humanity as evidenced throughout human history."

Part 2:
"There is no such thing as a universal definition of "fair competition". Therefore even where common-sense is not in dispute (if that could ever be the case, which Part 1 disputes), still disputes will inevitably arise over what constitutes exceptions under the Fair Competition clause. Lawyers will endlessly argue about possible exceptions, which current legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:

Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.

Pargat Perrer proposed this Statement. Not only did he propose it, it was not challenged by any CT'er within one week. So it is a "generally accepted" Statement in opposition to the Libertarian position.........no Statement, however, is any longer an "Individual's" Statement, once accepted by this CT'er group. All our Statements are Statements of this CT'er group.

I can understand how you got confused now..........

Poilievre's government, and it looks like he may win, will still be a disaster in my opinion (Post # 329 - 23/9/8)

Bob A (As Participant)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

Poilievre's coming government will be a disaster - lower corporate taxes and cuts to both pay for it; shrink the government (Less services, and lowering support program benefits); it is not the elite that will be pained - it will be the ordinary elector.

I hope none of my Statements says: "Common Sense does not work." Please post your source, or withdraw the statement.....makes me look like an idiot generally.........but it is the case, SOMETIMES, that the answer provided by common sense is the wrong answer.

Thanks.

Bob A (As Participant)

Source: Your post # 295. If something needs to be withdrawn, it is your criticism that common-sense does not work well in the interpretation of Natural Law... In a way, Pierre disagrees with you on that! Does not matter if SOMETIMES, as you say, stuff can go wrong... nothing in life is perfect....

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Poilievre's coming government will be a disaster - lower corporate taxes and cuts to both pay for it; shrink the government (Less services, and lowering support program benefits); it is not the elite that will be pained - it will be the ordinary elector.

I hope none of my Statements says: "Common Sense does not work." Please post your source, or withdraw the statement.....makes me look like an idiot generally.........but it is the case, SOMETIMES, that the answer provided by common sense is the wrong answer.

Thanks.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Maybe this Libertarian guy can instill some wisdom into stubborn Bob's stubborn endeavor...
Pierre Poilievre's Common Sense Convention Keynote Speech:
We don’t know when that election will be, but when it comes, Canadians will have only two options:
A common-sense Conservative government that frees hardworking people to earn powerful paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and homes — in safe communities.
Or:
A reckless coalition – of Trudeau and the NDP – that punishes your work, takes your money, taxes your food, doubles your housing bill. And unleashes crime and chaos in your neighbourhood.

(I think Bob has mentioned in one of his 'statements' the view that common-sense does not work...what DM will have instead is a slew of Marxist laws)

Some interesting facts highlighted by Pierre:
What do you think is the most expensive thing that goes into a new house in, say, Vancouver?

Labour?

Land?

Lumber?



Nope!



Government!



Ça me rappelle l’histoire du garçon qui demande à son père, Papa, c’est quoi une déclaration d’impôt? Papa répond, c’est l’inverse de ton bulletin scolaire. Quand tu as bien travaillé, t’es puni.

[Bob Armstrong]

Societal Structure/Governance – A Fundamental Shift

Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 1

Original: 20/4/14; Recent Revision: 21/6/27

Note: cyclically re-posted for the benefit of new DMGI members.



Basic PremiseS

Democratic Marxism, in the view of the DM Global Institute (DMGI), has 3 basic premises

1. Democracy: An open multi-party system, with one resident having one vote.
2. The Principle of Subsidiarity – A Local Political Unit (LPU) has the right and jurisdiction to do anything for itself of which it is capable. Two or more LPU's may form a separate coalition body at a higher level, when something is required which an LPU is unable to do, or do efficiently, on its own.
3. Economic Priority: Labour is to be predominant over Capital.

The Local Political Unit (LPU)

1. LPU Description

Primarily this will be a group of residents within a geographic area (Though it may be that an “Interest” Group may qualify). An LPU may be quite small, but should be large enough to be capable of providing for the basic needs of its “members”. This was once the case in earlier Canada when there were quite small, legally-incorporated villages and townships.....they had their own governance and tried to provide for the daily life of the community. Many had their own “community centres”. DM prefers a return to these types of smaller geographic LPU's, over the megalopolis city and regional government structures now so prevalent. The decentralization of society will be controversial and many devils will be in the details......but it can be done democratically by vote of the whole society on the final positioning....all must be satisfied that the new model of governance is implemented as intended.

2. The Locus of Control

The issue here is local control. We know that the larger the community, the less strong the link between elected representatives and the individual elector. The goal here is to keep control within the elector.....might some smaller units look at direct democracy over governing by “representation”?

3. Application to a Canadian Setting

Could there be a variety of types of LPU's? Let's look at Canada - Could a first nation be an LPU? What will be the case when in Northern Ontario, an LPU has a predominance of French-speakers and intends to develop a French culture in their community, as opposed to an Anglo one? What if in the Markham Ontario area, an LPU has a predominance of Chinese languages and intends to develop a Chinese culture in their community, as opposed to either an Anglo or French one? In the past Canada has seen these desires – The Quebec Independence Referenda; the First Nations aspiration for some type of “Intra-Canada Sovereignty”, embedded within the Canadian Constitution. In both cases, the smaller faction wished to have as much power as possible over the life of their membership.

The City of Toronto is Canada's largest city (2 3/4 million [2020] ) and capital city of the Province of Ontario. It is interesting to review its most recent evolution. It was a magnet and just kept growing. And the prevailing philosophy of urban planning was that bigger was better. So prior to its current structure (One large city), it was composed of six separate cheek-to-jowl cities: the smaller Toronto, North York, East York, York, Scarborough and Etobicoke. It is the DM observation of history that the residents of these smaller LPU's were satisfied, more or less, with the governing status quo. The change came because in the structure of the time, a higher level body (The Province of Ontario) had the power of decision re municipal structure within the province – amalgamation of the six municipalities into the current Toronto metropolis became a fact, despite opposition from lower down. The LPU's had no decision-making authority on this. In Ontario, municipalities of any size are “creatures of the province”.

A Power Shift

This is the problem DM is rectifying – that some higher body does not have the power itself, on its own, to make top-down decisions affecting the members of LPU's. Decisions will NOT be top down.

Decision-making power will flow from the bottom up. The higher level coordinating body formed by a number of LPU's will only have the jurisdiction which the lower LPU's forming it, give to it. The existence and funding of the higher body will most likely be time limited. It is a reflection of the Marxian principle that the worker should own the means of production, or , at least, manage it.......the power/decision-making is to be “at the bottom”.

A Global Perspective

In some ways, DM is fighting against globalization, against “The New World Order”. Is it possible that a global embracing of DM might lead to the “withering” of current Nation States? Could the world possibly function as a planet of villages (With only LPU borders)?

Democratic Marxist Global Institute

Author: Bob Armstrong, Interim Coordinator, DM Vetting Committee Chair

Recent Revisions
23/9/7 - DMGI - Reviser: Bob Armstrong

Most Recent Postings
22/11/2 - DMGF
23/9/8 - CT/HSG

Copyright – Democratic Marxist Global Institute - 2020

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

If you noticed, I have made the Statement partisan neutral. It is referring to all political systems..........all are subject to the general limitations of human institutions.

So have I done justice to your view in my Statement and Reasons for you?........if not, advise me what changes you prefer.

I (As Participant) think we have to agree to disagree on baking pies.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)