Is it time to ban unions?

MrPudding

Originally posted by RainyDay
I'll try a 3rd time, Cork;

Please name just one private sector company where employees pay for stock options

I won’t name my company but employees must pay to exercise share options. My mother used to work for Woolworths, they also had to pay for share options. No company gives free share options, they are simply a type of employee share purchase plan. Some companies do actually give shares away for free, subject to tax and BIC (I think) of course. These tend to be only in exceptional circumstances.

On a brief aside. My company has an employee purchase discount plan. I can but my companies products and get a small discount. I have to pay BIC on this. That is the law. A short time ago one of the unions was up in arms because Dunnes told their staff that they would have to pay BIC on their employee discount. My question is this, is there a reason why they don’t already pay BIC? And also, if they are supposed to be paying BIC why are they not? And finally, if they should pay BIC, what gives the union the right to demand that the law of the land does not apply to their members?

MrP

bonkey

Originally posted by MrPudding
but employees must pay to exercise share options.
...
No company gives free share options,

Yes, they do. I'm willing to bet your company does.

You pay to exercise the option. You do not pay to acquire the option.

The option is given to you. You do not pay for it, surely? If you receive the option, and never cash it in, you still were given the option and you didn't pay for it.

If you do pay just to get the option in the first place, then your company is truly the exception.

jc

RainyDay

Originally posted by MrPudding
I won’t name my company but employees must pay to exercise share options. My mother used to work for Woolworths, they also had to pay for share options. No company gives free share options, they are simply a type of employee share purchase plan. Some companies do actually give shares away for free, subject to tax and BIC (I think) of course. These tend to be only in exceptional circumstances.

Hi Mr P - You need to differentiate between recieving stock options & exercising stock options. In your scenario, you pay when you exercise the options (if you want to hold the shares, that is), but you didn't pay when you received the options.

While I don't know Woolworths particular case, I know of a number of other retailers (incl Tesco) who have Revenue-approved SAYE (save as you earn) schemes for funding the exercising of stock options, but they did not have to pay out to receive the options in the first place.

MrPudding

Originally posted by RainyDay
Hi Mr P - You need to differentiate between recieving stock options & exercising stock options. In your scenario, you pay when you exercise the options (if you want to hold the shares, that is), but you didn't pay when you received the options.

While I don't know Woolworths particular case, I know of a number of other retailers (incl Tesco) who have Revenue-approved SAYE (save as you earn) schemes for funding the exercising of stock options, but they did not have to pay out to receive the options in the first place.

OK. I meant employees pay to exercise their share options. I though the fact that I mentioned that in the first line would be enough to show that is what I meant. Apologies for any confusion.

The act of giving employees an option is worth nothing unless they exercise it. If they do they have to buy the shares. Correct me if I am wrong but what we are talking about here is not that public servants want to be given a portion of the company outright. They do not want the an option to buy if they feel like it. They want it for free. This is very different from company stock options as with a company stock option you don’t actually own any stock unless you cough up the money for it.

MrP

RainyDay

Originally posted by MrPudding
The act of giving employees an option is worth nothing unless they exercise it. If they do they have to buy the shares.

Not true. When you exercise an option, you have three choices. You can;

- Exercise & sell
- Exercise & hold
- Exercise & sell to cover

If you exercise & sell, you don't need to pay anything. Your broker will temporarily provide the funding required to buy the share at the option vesting price, and will get his money straight away as he sells. You get the difference between the vesting price and the current market value.

If you exercise & hold, then you do need to pay out to buy the shares, but obviously you get to buy the shares at the option vesting price rather than the current market value.

If you exercise & sell to cover, basically you do the exercise & sell as described above, and use the proceeds to buy fresh shares in the company, so you end up with a lower number of real shares. You do NOT have to pay anything in this case.

Originally posted by MrPudding
Correct me if I am wrong but what we are talking about here is not that public servants want to be given a portion of the company outright. They do not want the an option to buy if they feel like it. They want it for free. This is very different from company stock options as with a company stock option you don’t actually own any stock unless you cough up the money for it.

There is no fundamental difference in principle from private companies who provide stock awards and/or stock options as part of their remuneration package and semi-state employees getting a chunk of the company as part of a renegotiation of their contracts during a sell-off. There may be differences in scale & quantity, but the principle remains the same.

Sherlock

Originally posted by RainyDay
[
There is no fundamental difference in principle from private companies who provide stock awards and/or stock options as part of their remuneration package and semi-state employees getting a chunk of the company as part of a renegotiation of their contracts during a sell-off. There may be differences in scale & quantity, but the principle remains the same. [/B]

Difference is that semi-state companies are owned by the state (i.e. the Irish population) and should not be given away to employees for nothing.
The likes of Dell can do whatever they like with their own company.

MrPudding

Originally posted by RainyDay
Not true. When you exercise an option, you have three choices. You can;

- Exercise & sell
- Exercise & hold
- Exercise & sell to cover

I am aware of how they work. My point remains. You have to buy the shares. It may be the case that you can pay for them after you have sold them but you still have to pay. When you sell them you get the sell price less any commission and less the cost of the shares.

The deal the public servants want, as far as I can tell, is that they are simply given a chunk of the company. To me this is different from the option scheme a private company has.

Example, I am in a share scheme. I have sign up to a share option. Some money is taken from my salery every month. After 6 months I will have the opyion to buy shares at a discounted price. If I choose not to exercise the option I don't get the shares. If I choose to excercise the I then decide which of the options you mention above I want. The point is one way or another I pay for the shares.

MrP

RainyDay

Originally posted by MrPudding
I am aware of how they work. My point remains. You have to buy the shares.

Yes - but you don't pay to get the option. You get the option as part of your remuneration package. When you exercise the option, you can do so without handing over any cash (exercise & sell), if you so wish.

Originally posted by MrPudding
Example, I am in a share scheme. I have sign up to a share option. Some money is taken from my salery every month. After 6 months I will have the opyion to buy shares at a discounted price. If I choose not to exercise the option I don't get the shares. If I choose to excercise the I then decide which of the options you mention above I want. The point is one way or another I pay for the shares.

This sounds like a share purchase scheme, not a share option scheme. An option is a right to buy a share at a known fixed price at some time in the future. At the start of the six month period, do you know the exact price at which you will be buying the shares in six months time? [Note: I don't mean the level of the discount (e.g. 15%), I mean the specific price in euro or dollars at which you will be buying].

In my last employer, part of the annual bonus was paid over in shares. This is giving me ownership of a slice of the company without me paying over cash for this. There is no difference in principle between this and giving semi-state workers a slice of their company.

cerebus

Originally posted by MrPudding
The deal the public servants want, as far as I can tell, is that they are simply given a chunk of the company. To me this is different from the option scheme a private company has.

Example, I am in a share scheme. I have sign up to a share option. Some money is taken from my salery every month. After 6 months I will have the opyion to buy shares at a discounted price. If I choose not to exercise the option I don't get the shares. If I choose to excercise the I then decide which of the options you mention above I want. The point is one way or another I pay for the shares.

It looks like what you are describing is more commonly know as an employee share purchase scheme/plan. This is slightly different to an incentive stock option, though both schemes are referred to using the umbrella term "options".

In a typical employee share purchase scheme, an employee contributes money by payroll deduction which gets used (in your case, every 6 months) to buy shares at a discount to the fair market value on the day of purchase.

The incentive stock option (used by many tech companies as an integral part of employee remuneration) is different - here is how it works.

- The company gives the employee the 'option' to buy a certain number of shares at a fixed price. There will be some period of time before these options become exercisable (many companies allow you to exercise 25% after one year, 100% after four years or something similar), and a period of time after which the option expires (usually 10 years).

- There is no need for the employee to fund the purchase of these option shares out of their own pocket. It can be avoided by using some of the techniques outlined by RainyDay above. For example, when the employee decides to exercise these options, it will usually be when fair market value > option grant price. The employee can sell the stock using a same day exercise and sale - the broker advances the money required to purchase the option, and gets this back once the shares are sold. As a result, the employee never has to fork over any money - the stock is sold at market value, and the employee gets (market value - exercise price) * number of shares sold.

So, in this case, the employee never is out of pocket with this stock purchase. In many ways, it *is* a free chunk of the company.

Think of it like a low-risk bet. The employee is giving up certain things (better salary in a different job, whatever) for the prospect that the fair market value of the stock options they get granted will eventually be much more than the exercise price. Lots of people have got wealthy this way...

[Edit]Damn you RainyDay - snap![/edit]

arcadegame2004

cdebru, you seem to be making out that there is some kind of "either/or" situation with respect to the choice of how to allocate company-profits. Some of the profits can be reinvested while simulataneously reinvested it in the company. It isn't an either/or situation. Just goes to show that you, like many others on the Left, regard profit as negative.

The consumer is the majority. Their interests should come first - yes, even before the perceived interests of the workers in an individual company. That does not mean that companies should have a green-light to treat workers as they please. We already have protection for workers enshrined in law (some of it by this government which you appear to regard as right-wing, e.g. Mary Harney introduced the minimum-wage, something Labour weren't so keen on when in Government though you wouldn't think that now). It is not in the interests of the consumer that the workers of a company providing a service are demoralised, since this can contribute to less productivity.

However, another thing that can contribute to poor productivity is a feeling among trade-union members that the bosses are soft-touches who will grant their every demand every time they go on strike. And unfortunately, workers in some monopolistic state-owned companies have demonstrated that this is their outlook (e.g. EBOA ESB officers union) with their demand for an 18% pay rise, in spite of the average wage of an ESB worker being 57,000 euro (I know this as I heard it on TV3). Now THAT is an unreasonable pay-demand if ever I heard one. The ILDA strike (11 weeks long) a few years ago that disrupted rail-travel is another example of how monopolies embolden union-members within them to make outrageous demands. The costs of granting such demands of course would come back to us, the consumer, who would be forced (as the company is a moinopoly) to pay more to the company in charges.

You only have to look at how far more reason prevails within trade-unions in private-sector companies to see evidence of how much less emboldened their members in such companies are, to back up my point. Let me choose who provides my electricity etc, thank you very much.

cdebru

cdebru, you seem to be making out that there is some kind of "either/or" situation with respect to the choice of how to allocate company-profits. Some of the profits can be reinvested while simulataneously reinvested it in the company. It isn't an either/or situation. Just goes to show that you, like many others on the Left, regard profit as negative

i never said it was either or i just pointed out the options for the use of profit
never said it had to only one or the other
nor have i said that i regard profit as a negative
i regard excess profit as a negative
and i dont think essential public services should be run on a for profit basis
but on what is best for the public

as regards to unions as far as i am aware there has not been disruption to esb service due to industrial action since 1991 hardly throwing their weight around are they

and what was the outrageous demand the ilda had do you know look it up
i know what it was and i dont think it was outrageous
can you explain what was outrageous about their demand


in fact in my opinion the reason that strikes seem to be threatened more often in the semi states is that one their services are usually more important to the general public so they gain more media attention
secondly management in these companies are so poor
that they allow situations to develope that would not develope in the private sector
bad decisions by management are not punished as they would be in the private sector
there is cronyism in the appointment on senior management
and boards of directors
i dont think that semi state companies are perfect by any means
but i dont think that privatising them is the answer
proper regulation would be a start with more accountability
and sanctions not just on the company but on individuals management and workers who fail to do their jobs properly

proper management systems
take the appointment of semi state boards away from ministers

by the way i would agree that esb workers looking for a stake in the company is outrageous
they already own it we all own it
and all they are doing is preparing to line their own pockets when it is privatised
they should fight privatisation because it is the wrong thing to do
not because their is not enough in it for them
this kind of greed is short sighted

cdebru

You only have to look at how far more reason prevails within trade-unions in private-sector companies to see evidence of how much less emboldened their members in such companies are, to back up my point. Let me choose who provides my electricity etc, thank you very much.

well two things
one if that is true then how come there has been a massive increase in industrial relations disputes in the privatised public transport network in the uk
contrary to what you say the belief is that the unions in these companies feel much more emboldened because they now have not only a public service they can withdraw but a private company tha t cannot afford to leave them out on strike for too long or they will go out of business
unlike when say british rail was a semi state
it was never going to go out of business no matter how long the strike lasted

secondly even in a privatised deregulated electricity market
you will still find your self with a monopoly as we do in the telecoms market
you can choose who you make your calls with but eircom own the lines and you still have to pay them
same will happen the electricity market you might be able to buy your electricity
from joe bloggs
but you will still have to pay the esb for the use of the line
no choice there
i would prefer a properly regulated semi state monopoly to the privately owned
telecom monopoly we have now
with no gaurantees about investment in the infrastructure
and pure profit taking that is going on now

RainyDay

Those who are believe that privatisation of the ESB would be a good thing should have a read of California Reamin': California and the Power Pirates by Greg Palast to understand how consumers in a privatised market will be ripped off by the providers.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
i regard excess profit as a negative

The problem with your thinking is that you have a very limited grasp of what profit is, in that you base production almost entirely on labour and prefer to rescind or ignore all other possible inputs. What you call excess profit can be the cost to some of those other inputs, most notably risk.

For example an entrepreneur is not going to be interested starting a venture, going into debt, working 16-hour days, paying him/herself a subsistence level salary, not to mention all the stress that comes with it all, just so he/she can be told that he/she cannot make ‘excess profit’. An investor is not going to bother putting a chunk of money into a venture or financial product, if he/she is ultimately going to be told that they should not receive any return over the principle because they did not contribute labour.

So if the entrepreneur and the investor are going to contribute to the economy, one has to consider that if you limit their return, because you consider it to be excessive, then they simply will not contribute and the economy will suffer greatly as a result. As such, when defining what profit and excess profit is, you cannot ignore or rescind the value of such inputs to production, as you have repeatedly done.

and i dont think essential public services should be run on a for profit basis
but on what is best for the public

Sure, let’s just print more money to cover everything :rolleyes:

cdebru

The problem with your thinking is that you have a very limited grasp of what profit is, in that you base production almost entirely on labour and prefer to rescind or ignore all other possible inputs. What you call excess profit can be the cost to some of those other inputs, most notably risk.

For example an entrepreneur is not going to be interested starting a venture, going into debt, working 16-hour days, paying him/herself a subsistence level salary, not to mention all the stress that comes with it all, just so he/she can be told that he/she cannot make ‘excess profit’. An investor is not going to bother putting a chunk of money into a venture or financial product, if he/she is ultimately going to be told that they should not receive any return over the principle because they did not contribute labour.

So if the entrepreneur and the investor are going to contribute to the economy, one has to consider that if you limit their return, because you consider it to be excessive, then they simply will not contribute and the economy will suffer greatly as a result. As such, when defining what profit and excess profit is, you cannot ignore or rescind the value of such inputs to production, as you have repeatedly done

i have never said that an entreprenuer should not make a profit on his investment
of time and capital

but i do not agree with excessive profit taking
i dont agree with overcharging and ripping people off
no matter how much risk you took
how many hours you worked
how much stress you have

now you probably believe that if someone is willing to pay a price then that is not overcharging that is not ripping someone off
that s not what i believe
i believe that price should be set with regard to
the full costs and then your profit
i dont expect anyone to provide goods or services
at cost price obviously there has to be profit

the difference in our opinions is that you rescind the value of labour you seem to be of the opinion that risk and capital are the most important inputs into profit
i disagree i think labour is the most important input
that does not mean that nothing else counts and only the cost of labour should be counted that is ridicolous
and i have never said it
i have said that there can be no profit with out labour
but that does not mean that labour is the only cost

Sure, let’s just print more money to cover everything

thats not what i said essential public services should not be run on a for profit basis
that does not mean they should not be run in a cost effective manner with the best possible return for the money spent
if you introduce profit into essential public services then the public service element
because profit becomes the number one goal
the customers of that public service that dont contribute to profit will not be looked after

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
i have never said that an entreprenuer should not make a profit on his investment
of time and capital

Actually, you said that all profit was based upon labour.

but i do not agree with excessive profit taking
i dont agree with overcharging and ripping people off
no matter how much risk you took
how many hours you worked
how much stress you have

And are you to judge what is excessive or overcharging then? The problem with capping prices or profits is that it adversely affects supply - you might think that they’re overcharging, what happens if your subjective opinion is wrong? They won’t overcharge, not because of your cap, but because it’s not viable or worthier their while to stay in that business.

now you probably believe that if someone is willing to pay a price then that is not overcharging that is not ripping someone off
that s not what i believe

That’s touching, but pretty much irrelevant to what defines price and profit.

i believe that price should be set with regard to
the full costs and then your profit
i dont expect anyone to provide goods or services
at cost price obviously there has to be profit

But if you evidently don’t even understand what profit is, how can you determine what is an appropriate level?

Theoretically speaking all profit is bad - what we consider to be profit is in reality the value or cost of risk and capital supplied by the entrepreneur and/or Capitalist. Of course no doubt you would know what this value should be, given your knowledge of every industry in the World.

the difference in our opinions is that you rescind the value of labour you seem to be of the opinion that risk and capital are the most important inputs into profit

Actually, the difference is that you were completely ignoring all other inputs of production, other than labour, when I entered into the discussion with you – which I highlighted and you later partially backtracked on.

i disagree i think labour is the most important input

That really depends upon the product or service. Some are more labour intensive than others and some require greater skills than others. In the case of products, labour is often a minimal input after the initial development of the product.

that does not mean that nothing else counts and only the cost of labour should be counted that is ridicolous
and i have never said it
i have said that there can be no profit with out labour
but that does not mean that labour is the only cost

How many times do I have to quote when you said that “its employees labour that produces profit”? You didn’t say “its employees labour, amongst other things, that produces profit”, did you?

It was a pretty unambiguous statement which you only began to qualify on several posts later and only when you were challenged on it and finally had to concede that you were talking through your arse.

So you did say it, which I’ve had to repeatedly point out to you.

thats not what i said essential public services should not be run on a for profit basis
that does not mean they should not be run in a cost effective manner with the best possible return for the money spent

Does it really mean that? Where exactly did you say “they should not be run in a cost effective manner”? You appear very adept at sweeping generalities that you need to qualify later.

cdebru

i have explained this so many times its getting boring
with out labour
there is no profit
i never said that labour alone produced profit

you define labour as manual/ physical activity
i didn't
that was your narrow definition
labour can be manual, physical, mental or a combination
now there can be no profit without labour
labour does not have to involve a third party
an entreprenuer s 16 hour day is labour ass you put it is labour
even your job is labour

now give me an example of profit that does not involve labour of any sort
and dont say interest that s just silly

cdebru

Does it really mean that? Where exactly did you say “they should not be run in a cost effective manner”? You appear very adept at sweeping generalities that you need to qualify later

no but your rather childish reply about printing money suggested that!
just tought i would clarify for you yet again
what you call sweeping generalities is an attempt to keep answers short
also becausei dont thave the time to write a full thesis on every answer i give

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
i have explained this so many times its getting boring
with out labour
there is no profit
i never said that labour alone produced profit

And I’ve responded repeatedly that that is not what you originally said. You’ve ignored repeatedly this response and kept repeating your initial denial (which is all it is - a denial).

you define labour as manual/ physical activity

Where do I do that? Feel free to quote the passage.

an entreprenuer s 16 hour day is labour ass you put it is labour
even your job is labour

An entrepreneur, however, is not being paid for that labour. He /she may be paid if the enterprise is successful, and paid well in excess of the hours physically or mentally put in. Indded, if the business fails, he /she will most likely have earned less than zero, as it’s likely that he /she will have business debts to pay off. What the entrepreneur is getting paid for is risk, not labour.

now give me an example of profit that does not involve labour of any sort
and dont say interest that s just silly

Why is it silly, other than the fact that you don’t like the way it fails to fit into your World view?

An investor has capital and invests it. There is little or no labour - any ‘profit’ is as a result of the value of the capital and risk involved.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
no but your rather childish reply about printing money suggested that!
just tought i would clarify for you yet again

You don’t clarify though - to clarify you would have had to have said it in the first place, which you didn’t (otherwise, feel free to quote where). You qualify - a sure sign of someone backtracking.

what you call sweeping generalities is an attempt to keep answers short
also becausei dont thave the time to write a full thesis on every answer i give

You don’t seem to have a problem with the quantity you post, so having time to write a full thesis on every answer you give is hardly the issue, is it?

cdebru

little or no labour
what kind of an answer is that

give me an example where profit can be produced with out labour
interest is generally not considered profit
however if you insist on classing it as profit in order for interest to be earned there has to be labour
labour in the bank
labour in the businesses and investments the bank made with your money




Economic theorists generally make a distinction between two types of profit: normal profit, in which the entrepreneur receives the minimal necessary amount to encourage him to open or stay in a particular business; and excess profit, that which exceeds normal profit

does that explain excess profit

An entrepreneur, however, is not being paid for that labour. He /she may be paid if the enterprise is successful, and paid well in excess of the hours physically or mentally put in. Indded, if the business fails, he /she will most likely have earned less than zero, as it’s likely that he /she will have business debts to pay off. What the entrepreneur is getting paid for is risk, not labour.

but it is labour

Victor

Land, capital and labour are the three inputs.

Where do ideas, intellectual property, etc. fit into this?

Risk is not an input.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
little or no labour
what kind of an answer is that

A rational one, as if you wanted to be pedantic one could consider signing a lodgment slip to be labour. You should try reason from time to time.

give me an example where profit can be produced with out labour

The renting of land or property. What would you call what the owner makes?

interest is generally not considered profit

By who?
however if you insist on classing it as profit in order for interest to be earned there has to be labour
labour in the bank
labour in the businesses and investments the bank made with your money[/B][/QUOTE]
And the owner of the capital receiving this interest - I suppose that his/her walking to the bank and back is labour then? :rolleyes:

Economic theorists generally make a distinction between two types of profit: normal profit, in which the entrepreneur receives the minimal necessary amount to encourage him to open or stay in a particular business; and excess profit, that which exceeds normal profit

does that explain excess profit

That looks suspiciously similar to what I said in this post - so what’s your point? Still doesn’t answer my challenge to you that you’re in no position to judge what is excessive profit or not.

but it is labour

Risk is not labour.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Victor
Land, capital and labour are the three inputs.

Actually land is a form of capital.

Where do ideas, intellectual property, etc. fit into this?

This is a grey area, but generally as capital as it is generally an asset rather than a process.

Risk is not an input.

Only in the most basic models. It’s generally accepted to be an input of production in most modern microeconomic models.

bonkey

Any chance the bickering could end and people get back on topic, or should we just call it a day and lock the thread?

jc

cdebru

The renting of land or property. What would you call what the owner makes?

so your suggesting that there is no labour at all involved in being a landlord either by the landlord or his/her agent
either in the orignal investment of property ie selecting the property
in finding a tenant
or in maintaining the property

thats an interesting theory you developed there but you will have to try harder

That looks suspiciously similar to what I said in this post - so what’s your point? Still doesn’t answer my challenge to you that you’re in no position to judge what is excessive profit or not.

no it doesn't i gave you a definition of exactly what excess profit is but you skip over that and say i cant determine
an exact figure for what it is obviously

Risk is not labour

. risk is not a input in production
profit is a return for risk
but that does not make risk an input
how do you measure risk to determine if you have made a profit

labour is one of three factors of production

Land - naturally occurring goods such as soil and minerals.
Labor - human effort used in production.
Capital - goods which are used in the production of other goods, such as machinery, tools and buildings.

someone working 16 hours a day is labour

profit would be after the cost of that labour had been accounted for
profit would be the return on the risk

Only in the most basic models. It’s generally accepted to be an input of production in most modern microeconomic models

what models

cdebru

i'm willing to get back to the topic
but i notice arcadegame hasn't got back to me yet about the ILDA
must be still looking it up
or could he be avoiding the answer

The Corinthian

Originally posted by cdebru
so your suggesting that there is no labour at all involved in being a landlord either by the landlord or his/her agent

Actually a landlord may delegate all such management to an agent, who will get a share of the revenue for his/her labour, and the landlord will as a result earn revenue without any labour.

no it doesn't i gave you a definition of exactly what excess profit is but you skip over that and say i cant determine
an exact figure for what it is obviously

Actually I gave the definition, you repeated it. Additionally you gave a sweeping statement arguing that such excess profit curtailed - by what means you don’t discuss, but it is fair to assume that you meant by government intervention (most likely by people who’ve done leaving cert economics like yourself).

. risk is not a input in production
profit is a return for risk
but that does not make risk an input
how do you measure risk to determine if you have made a profit

Back that up or stop spouting.

Land - naturally occurring goods such as soil and minerals.

Actually that’s an old model - land is considered to be Capital in more modern production models. I suggest you Google for a more up to date page.

or could he be avoiding the answer

Pot. Kettle. Black.

bonkey

Originally posted by cdebru
i'm willing to get back to the topic

...He says after a large post continuing the bickering debate.

So I'll take that, and The Corinthian's reply as a no then.

Thread locked.

jc