Sunday, October 21, 2018

KPFK is part of Pacifica, so paying for WBAI's misdeeds.

The financial state of KPFK in LA is totally dependent on what is spent, not only locally, but for any other radio station that it TIED to each other thru the Umbrella called Pacifica Radio Foundation.

Another website in NY is still current, discussing the loans that all 5 stations are paying and dependent upon, thu their commentators there. Occasionally, we will copy, paste, and share honestly what is written in those Eastern country web pages to insure that if info is of value to anyone still donating/ paying/ supporting our Local station, that the details we never hear anything about are revealed here, as it is at WBAI related blog.

So with no plagiarism or borrowing, here are some selective & edited for readability only, [no information is changed or corrected or distorted ! ] may be reposted here, with the original source post listed to go read MORE there... 

Every station claims, pretends, denies and lies when they ask for 'donations for your radio station' by not mentioning anywhere, not on their websites, certainly not on Pacifica's sparse website [bylaws are there tho ] nor on-air is any back-room deals, audits, loans, financial shenanigans or 'other costs not related to Your Radio Station' given.

So here is the source:      

The articles are light but the commentators provide much more in details and varied shared info that is not found elsewhere ...any more... While the prior KPFA blog with info about the Pacifica National Board members that were causing problems [apparently] and a bit of the financials too, has gone relatively silent since April 2018. 
[Names are often excerpted out with "..." inserted instead, tho some may slip thru. ]

here are some selected quotes [edited for read-ability]: by   Jara Handala  Oct 19, 2018

"probably the most authoritative source on the FJC loan terms, the latest Pacifica auditor’s report, for FY2016, dated 31 May this year, produced by Regalia & Associates. This is what it says, in full:

“Loan covenants: Under the loan, the Foundation is subject to specific loan covenants, some of which are summarized as follows:

• Submission of audited financial statements within 120 days following the close of the fiscal year. 

• Submission of paperwork signed by the CFO certifying compliance with all covenants within 120 days following the close of the fiscal year.

• The Foundation shall not make capital expenditures for its stations in excess of $150,000 during any fiscal year without the prior written consent of the lender.

• The Foundation shall not, except with the prior written approval of the lender, incur any debt in excess of $25,000 in any one instance other than customary trade payables.

• A ‘Reserve Account’ in the amount of $379,000 must be created.

• The Foundation must be in compliance wit4h [sic] every material provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).”

 (note 17, page 19 – )

Relevant are the first, second, & last terms. (The other three are repeated in the spurious summary of the loan, circulated under the authority of PNB chair ......)

FY2017 audited statements may be ready for FJC either side of Christmas. The 2018 are likely to extend beyond any second six-month compliance waiver FJC may grant: 

bookkeeping disarray tends to be cumulative, becoming increasingly intractable, unearthing nastier surprises, bringing longer delays, sapping morale. The Pacifica accounting labyrinth will drop into a new dimension.... The antithesis of dizzy with success.

For 2018, will CFO-the-Third be Maxie-the-Third?  [new ED hired Maxie’s spoken at four broadcasted meetings, & he’s no money man ..... Buzzwords:   best practice (never a mention of satisficing practice); the network effect; curs’d be patchwork programming. Strangely quiet on diversity, #earsofcolor – but he knows the interests of the key people on the PNB, so he’s not going to go all identitarian when what’s needed is “the network effect”, a stress on *common identity*, not particularist identity. In any case, he doesn’t want to become embroiled in useless squabbles: for him a priority is managing his Pacifica time well so he can devote the necessary hours to his other money-making activities. So, many reasons why he won’t emulate Tommy-..... in being a party to a serious violation of the Pacifica by-laws: “neither the Secretary nor the Chief Financial Officer shall serve concurrently as the Chairperson of the Board or the Executive Director” 

(Article 9, Section 1 ).

The auditors, not surprisingly, refer to “CFO”, not ED, as the qualified Pacifica *employee* to take the responsibility, ...

something that Pacifica can’t contractually palm off to an agent, like Anita-from-NETA. This term was worded before Pacifica decided to outsource the bulk of the accounting work, so perhaps FJC will agree to a double certification by the ED & NETA, with the PNB deciding to de facto dissolve the position of CFO. As director.... knows, this is just one of those “technical things”.

The last term refers to a long-established member of the Pacifica herd, the pensions elephant. Ever-present, never spoken of – until that chilly Californian spring morning, when the IRS came knocking … & the DOL … & who knows who else. Just more of those “technical things”. 

                                         AND more comments from another posting 


[google images ]               Image result for kpfk images

  1. Jara Handala Thursday, October 18, 2018       1 of 6

    ..... the main difficulty is that the FJC loan contract is not publicly available, & matters are made worse because there’s little documentation to rely on. There seem to be only two relevant written public statements that can help us:     

    departing CFO Sam Agarwal’s resignation letter, 28 March 2018; & what PNB chair N.... calls a loan summary, distributed by her Saturday, 16 June, in time for the Californian LSB’s that weekend. In addition there’s a sentence – yes, we really are down to scraps – by iED Tom an undated email (seems to be early April this year) .... I asked her for details of the two loans, FJC & SoCal. 

    (The latter usually has ‘supporters’ added, although this is disingenuous given that the last auditor’s report says they consist in “Board members and other individuals”, directors who to this day remain un-named   (FY2016, note 17, page 19) – .)

    I consider each document in turn, finishing with an addendum on who FJC are & what this can mean for Pacifica.

    1) Sam’s letter was kindly published by.... [WBAI's  on his blog:] . The relevant part is his point (e), cited here in full, & I have emphasised 4 passages, using paired asterisks:

    “Recent PNB action in approving a $3.7 million loan has put me in an impossible position. *The loan mandates extensive accounting and financial reporting requirements which cannot be met in any foreseeable period of time.* 
    We do not produce Balance Sheets monthly, so cannot track/report our liabilities on a current basis. We generate Balance Sheets only at the time of audit which is running about 500 days late. *Under any loans, it is almost mandatory to produce current audit reports in a reasonable time. We cannot comply with this requirement.* 
    *There are other documented delinquencies like non-compliance and non-payment of Retirement contributions which puts us in direct breach of loan covenants.* 

    I have repeatedly informed PNB of my serious concerns, but it has had no effect in its decision making. It is unconscionable for me to wait for a few months and then report default *when it is clear that we will not comply at the outset.* Our accounting and reporting is so deficient that, at the present rate of progress, it will take years to come close to meeting the demands. 

    This is ONLY IF, extraordinary resources are devoted for improving the situation, which I have not seen happening in last two years.” (original caps)

    It’s worth noting, especially as he speaks of “reporting requirements which cannot be met in any foreseeable period of time”, that he doesn’t draw attention to another unsatisfiable basic: the need for Pacifica to be solvent. 
    But perhaps it was so obvious it was better not to rub it in. Even so, it is a contractual requirement according to Nancy’s spurious summary, so I’ll address it there.

    The giving of the waiver by FJC is consistent with Sam’s assessment, as without it Pacifica “will not comply at the outset [of the contract]”. 
    But how patient will FJC remain? Will they keep giving waivers provided the quarterly interest carries on rolling in? As I said last month, & I repeat it below in more detail, FJC doesn’t wait for a borrower to default: they sell on the loan when it is merely “potentially impaired” (see the FJC “delinquent & impaired loans” accounting policy described in any of their auditor’s reports for at least the last 10 years – links below). 

    So whenever it suits FJC they can declare that Pacifica’s principal, $3.265m, is unlikely to be paid on time, c. 31 March 2021, & sell the debt – & there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, Pacifica can do about it. The loan is FJC’s asset, theirs to dispose of at will. 
    Yes, putting the vernacular at its most refined, Pacifica is FJC’s female dog.

  2. 2) The ‘loan summary’ some may have seen, all two-and-a-bit pages of it, seems to have been originally sent on 16 June by PNB chair Nancy ... to a KPFK listener.

    On 7 May he’d asked [her].... & the National Office for a copy of the loan agreement, but received no reply.

    (Ah, this is what “the Pacifica family” means, as spoken about by iED Tom Li... at the 6 September PNB meeting; this embarrassing, creepy phrase has now been used at two out of three public meetings by his replacement, Head Coach Maxie-the-Third, as he gets down-n-dirty...   )

    Our neglected listener, not to be deterred by the rudeness of being ignored, on 22 May asked the whole Board. Eventually, 16 June, chair Nancy sent him this document, saying,
    “[a]s it turns out there is a confidentiality clause in the loan, but we [the PNB?] are authorized [by FJC?] to release this summary of the loan agreement to you.”

    One must say it’s a curious document:
    no title; no author; no date (but it’s pre-22 March because that day the Fed prime rate went up by 0.25 percentage points from 4.5% – page 1);

    it doesn’t say it’s written on anyone’s behalf or authority; &, importantly, at no point does it say it’s a summary of the loan. The PNB, the iED, & presumably the ED, are proud of this agreement, so why is this ‘summary’ still being hidden under a bushel, its existence oblivious to nigh all & sundry?

    Why isn’t it pinned to all of Pacifica’s homepages, station & national?

     Why is the default secrecy culture so permeated & obdurate that it even hides from view the only statement from the PNB on the loan terms?

    Why are they so contemptuous of the need for management & elected officials to be transparent about their dealings to the very people who either pay their wages or put them into office? Why are they so shameless?

    Just to make three key points.

    First, as I said a month ago, “[t]he ‘loan summary’ currently doing the rounds is not a summary of the loan: it’s a summary of what may be a discarded draft of the loan.” It’s also crafted to ignore crucial matters.

    Conclusion: it’s misleading as a summary, & knowingly so; as such it’s distributed under false pretences. It can’t cope with these simple questions:

    • is the loan made, as is typical, via FJC’s Agency Loan Fund, or from another anonymised FJC conduit, such as one or more donor-advised funds of FJC’s clients?;

    • is it subject to FJC’s publicly declared ‘potentially impaired’ loans test, & sold on to “a private foundation”, or, as the [chair] ‘summary’ puts it,
     “[i]f there is an uncured event of default, all amounts owed under the loan become immediately due and payable” (page 1), meaning a fire sale of at least one of Pacifica’s station buildings, perhaps two, & other highly liquid assets?

    Which is it? In support of the latter one must recognise that the phrase ‘Agency Loan Fund’ (& this “private foundation”) has *never* been uttered in any audio in the Pacifica archive, be it a PNB or Finance Cttee meeting (nor in the Audit Cttee, although this is beyond its purview).

    Yet, in favour of the former, with reference to loans (so provided by donor-advised funds), FJC’s auditors only speak of the ‘potentially impaired’ test & selling the debt on, never “all amounts owed under the loan become immediately due and payable";

    • does the contract identify conditions that will designate the loan as ‘potentially impaired’, allowing it to be sold on, something I address below in the last section?; &

    • lastly, to ask the obvious, what happens temporarily if Pacifica breaches the contract, be it for a month or somewhat longer? For example, does the interest rate go up (the speculation is that it’s of the order of 17%, rather than the current 8.25%),

    rewarding FJC’s clients for choosing a risky investment?

  3. 3 of 7

    Second, as I pointed out a month ago, the ‘loan summary’ says “Pacifica is required to remain solvent” (page 1). 

    That means having net working capital, that is, net current assets, enough cash available to pay all liabilities falling due within 12 months.

    Thing is, it’s been nine long years ...since Pacifica achieved this at the annual audited balance-sheet date (the momentous day of 30 September 2009, c. $1.3m).

    The latest, year-end FY2016, gave net current liabilities of c. $6.7m.

    At the 2009 date, Pacifica had $1.53 for every dollar due within 12 months (current assets $3 748 913, current liabilities $2 454 180); at the 2016 date, things had flipped, every dollar of current assets was being chased by $11.55 from creditors (current assets $637 716, current liabilities $7 356 997).

    ESRT’s court submission of satisfaction of the judgment was dated 27 March, so the FJC loan had already been made, thereby making the six-month waiver expire in late September.
    Even with the loan paying some current liabilities (such as ESRT rent), has Pacifica made up this $6.7m in the last two years? Everyone knows the answer – even though Pacifica doesn’t have a computed balance sheet in real time, perhaps never has. No new waiver has been announced, so on the solvency ground alone Pacifica is currently violating the contract with FJC. 

    Not that the PNB Finance Cttee, for example, during these long six months, has ever mentioned the coming gloaming, the darkness sweeping in upon the face of the deep. The Pacifica family. Family secrets.

    Finally, the ‘summary’ says, “[i]n addition [to the real property: buildings & land], the Collateral includes accounts receivable, tangible goods, equipment, rental income, sales proceeds, contracts, intellectual property, furniture, cash and proceeds of insurance or sales – in short, virtually every real, tangible and intellectual property right in which Pacifica has an interest” (page 2).

    That’s worth re-reading, don’t you think? *All Pacifica’s property has been collateralised to FJC*, not just the three station buildings, Berkeley, LA, & Houston. Even the petty cash.
    Even that cherished Paul Robeson recital. And even the broken abacus used by He-of-the-Augsburger to make his daily entries into QuickBooks – quick in, quick out, shake it all about. All property.

    Can this really be true? Were Pacifica ground down *that far* by the end of the negotiation? ... Welcome to RealWorld, PacificaWorld. Bit different to stymied PNB meetings, bit different to jumping about in the PacificaPlayPen. Head Coach Maxie-the-Third really has his work cut out, trying to make... .

    The earlier piece I’ve referred to, Chris kindly put on his blog: .

    3) The last evidence is Tommy-C R...’s single sentence. Director Grace ...kindly forwarded to me an email exchange, starting 4 April, about Pacifica’s loans. During this, iED Tom L... was asked by a Pacifica member,
     “[w]hat are the ramifications of signing the FJC loan that is immediately in default since the financial requirements cannot be met?”

    His response: “[t]he Board has been told it has a 6 month waiver of the loan covenants.” That was it. No content given. Not even the expiry date. And no indication of its possible extension, nor how amenable FJC would be to granting this favour – nor, crucially, what FJC may ask for, even insist on, in return.

  4. 4 of 7

    The matter of there being another party with its own perceived self-interest is *always* missing whenever the FJC loan is spoken of. It’s as if FJC is Father Jimmy Christmas, the proverbial good Samaritan, just waiting to give the helpless a helping hand.

    FJC, the people’s friend, embodied pecuniary altruism. By contrast, what are FJC decision-makers hoping to get from saddling Pacifica with the largest loan in its over-70-year history?

    Obviously the loan generates income for FJC’s clients, but, let’s be honest, what expectation could FJC ever have that Pacifica could raise the $3.265m to pay off the principal by c. 31 March 2021?

    So for FJC, what’s the end-game? The PNB has never publicly acknowledged any of this, let alone publicly discussed it.
    And no PNB director, or LSB delegate, has publicly declared that they are aware that these questions exist, let alone recognised how significant they are.

    4) My final point, Ed, takes advantage of a choice in your vocabulary. You described the contract as a “covenant”, & with this you captured something about FJC, perhaps without realising it.

    A puff piece about them, by a woman called Julie, tells us something no-one else seems to mention. She’s quite open about it, speaking plainly when explaining how FJC started out:

    “[i]n light of UJA’s reluctance to use donor-advised fund capital for mission-related investments, [ excised out ] decided to pursue the idea on his own.

     A new community foundation was created to pool donors’ funds and permit investments for social good before the funds were eventually used for charitable donations. [L...]’s family and others officially launched FJC (Foundation for the Jewish Community) in 1995.” (UJA is United Jewish Appeal)

    So, *FJC = Foundation for the Jewish Community*. Of course, one shouldn’t confuse FJC with JCF, the Jewish Communal Fund.

     (Yes, I know this is getting rather like ‘..., what with the JPF & the PFJ,... but these are the facts.) No doubt like others, I’d assumed ‘FJC’ was an abbreviation, & wondered what it stood for.

    But there was nothing obvious on their own website, nothing at all. Indeed, the masthead reinforces the alternative idea that it’s just letters, saying “FJC [–] A Foundation of Philanthropic Funds”.

    But if one perseveres, exercising the patience of Job, one finds in the ‘News’ section two press releases, both undated, mentioning the just cited article by Julie Hammerman

    ($250%20million%20press%20release.pdf & ;

     the article itself is at (bottom of homepage, in ‘Case Studies’), her SF Bay Area operation, but although they’re tweeting, their website is down at the mo, so the article’s here: ).

    (On the liberation movements..., the JPF & the PFJ, not to forget the JPPF, the Judean Popular People’s Front, please enjoy .)

    Conventionally, there’s a threefold categorisation of businesses managing donor-advised funds:
    single-issue; community; national. FJC seems to have started off projecting themselves solely as a community fund:

     hence their choice of name, Foundation for the Jewish Community. But as they grew they looked to a wider market, but leaving enough markers of what they see as their communal purpose, not least in volunteering where some of their directors used to work: .

    So it tries to ride two horses, neatly captured in these words by their recently replaced CEO, Leonard G...: “FJC has deep roots in the Jewish community. We describe ourselves as a national organization that has no specific ties” (11 November 2015 ).

  5. 5 of 6

    And there’s another FJC, the Foundation for Jewish Camp. But that FJC only operates in North America. ‘Our’ FJC works the world, & they channel a fair proportion of their clients’ money to Palestine, including some that no doubt helps Jewish ‘camps’ on the land seized by aggressive war, & so illegally, in June 1967.

    By contrast, the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation (MDSF), about which more anon, send very little to Palestine. The annual grant lists of both foundations are in their IRS Form 990 (for FJC, Schedules F & I;
    for MDSF, Part XV schedule, end of PDF) – search the Registry of the Charities Bureau, NY State Attorney General’s Office,
     (oddly, the full name of MDSF draws a blank, so use its EIN, the IRS’ Employer Identification Number, 22-2777449).

    MDSF is a big part of Pacifica’s picture because that fund guarantees FJC loans by buying them, without discount, if things aren’t going according to plan; that way there’s no loss for FJC’s clients.

    To help their assessment, FJC differentiates “delinquent loans” from “impaired loans”:
    the former are “loans that are 30 days or more past due in payment of principal and/or interest”; the latter, “120 days”.

     (Perhaps Pacifica’s reporting requirements, as a borrower, are subject to the same.)
    Crucially for Pacifica, *FJC’s policy is not to wait for a loan to become impaired*: they get MDSF to buy it when it’s simply “potentially impaired”
    latest FJC auditor’s report, year-end 31 March 2018, dated 22 August 2018, note 2, pages 10-11 ).

    *So, importantly, FJC don’t call in loans, they farm them out to the foundation.*

    *Indeed, FJC sold to MDSF more than nine loans, totalling at least $6.712m, in the four years FY2013 through 2016.
    Two were comparable to Pacifica’s $3.265m: one of $2.676m in 2013; the other, $2.1m in 2016.*
    These large sales were only disclosed by reference to post-balance sheet events described in the corresponding prior auditor’s report (FY2012, page 10; FY2015, page 15).

    So FJC have had their fingers burnt in recent years, twice – yet they’ve taken on Pacifica. Why?
    What’s to gain? (
    FJC’s auditor’s reports,{6F88AFBC-CE80-46CB-B364-FBB4333B345D} ).

    Somewhat troublingly, these facts have *never* been mentioned in any publicly available Pacifica audio or written statement.

    No PNB director or LSB delegate has publicly demonstrated any awareness either of FJC’s policy in this area, or of this third party, the Marty & Dorothy Silverman Foundation.

    Also none has acknowledged that two “impaired” loans, comparable in size to Pacifica’s, were sold on in recent years by FJC.

    To the contrary, director Carole T...went to great lengths at the 16 June KPFA LSB to reassure fellow delegates, Pacifica members, & listeners, in replying to a question:

    "FJC […] has not, er, called in default on any loan that they have given, ever [...] They had a station in Idaho, that for three years did not pay any, any of the payments on anything, and they did not call them into default.
    So there may be some technical things in, in the documents that allow for a default, but FJC did not give Pacifica a loan because it was goin' make a lot of money or because, er, it's a fun group to deal with, but because they're in favour of public radio, and they think that Pacifica's a valuable place to have survive, and so it is John C...'s assessment [...],
    he has said, that FJC has not once called a loan in on default. So, yes, that may be correct, & I, you know – [at which the Carolebot abruptly stopped functioning]" – 1:32:46 .

    Contract commitments? Just technical. Just facts. What’s important is will, wishful thinking. Ask Donny Drumpf.

  6. 6 of 7

    One would think, if only out of self-protection, when a Pacifica prominent decides to publicly give reassuring words to the faithful, not least when they also sit on the PNB Audit Cttee, & when more than 10 weeks have passed since the signing of the largest loan in Pacifica’s history, the director would have a command of the relevant publicly available information.

    The members & listeners deserve no less, especially when asking direct questions to the director.

    And with that thought, turn now to more sedate matters. Sometimes, when a coloniser feels safe & secure, comfortable, amongst friends, they spill the beans. This happened at a recent event organised by our J...:
     the Jewish Impact Investing Summit, at Fordham University, NYC, 5 December last year. She seems to be connected with very senior operators, including government officials in Israel.

     So up popped the Director for Economic Affairs at the Ministry for Strategic Affairs & Public Diplomacy, no less. This ministry, attached to the Prime Minister’s office, was set up to combat BDS, the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions campaign, that is trying to get Israel to obey international law, rather than allow collusion with its recidivism.

     The post-1967 occupation needs to be called what it is: a criminal enterprise.
    That it is pervasive throughout Jewish-Israeli society was candidly & succinctly put by Director Itai Nixon: “the term ‘profiting from the Occupation’ […] I don’t think there’s a company that operates in Israel that in some way doesn’t – isn’t involved in some way in the Occupation.” Your words, Itai, not mine
    (38:51, also 12:54 & 29:05 ; the event’s programme & bios (Itai Nixon, page 5) ).

    You may well ask why Julie is so well connected. Her bio from another conference calls a spade a spade:

    “JLens represents the Jewish community in two influential global movements – Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In 2015, with seed investments from Jewish institutions, JLens launched the $50M Jewish Advocacy Strategy to invest in the 300 most powerful companies in the US to advocate as shareholders on Jewish communal concerns – religious tolerance, Jewish social and environmental issues, and support for Israel (including combating BDS efforts to cut investor and corporate ties to Israel).”
    OK. Makes sense.

    Finally, this summer, 8 August, KPFA rammed down the barrel a mix of concrete & rancid dairy product, summarily silencing ‘Guns & Butter’.
    Not only that, they deleted, without warning, its 16-year archive from the station website.
    One reason given by Q... (General Manager) & Kevin ... (Program Director) was “your uncritically airing of views by a holocaust denier” (not ‘Holocaust’). I

    t must be said, it’s highly unlikely that the boss of FJC lobbied for action to be taken, or that anyone at any Pacifica station knew, or indeed knows today, the communal focus (& activities in Palestine) of FJC & MDSF.

  7. 7 of 7

    Thing is, because of the default secrecy culture of Pacifica management, directors, & delegates, combined with the ‘conspiracy’ bias of quite a few ‘Guns & Butter’ peeps, what seems to be a coincidence may not be understood as such.

    Instead they may think FJC is a ‘deep’ actor, trying to make Pacifica more ‘friendly’ to Jewish-Israeli supremacism, or trying to make it carry adverts (see the last section of PNB chair Nancy Sorden’s spurious summary of the FJC loan, page 3).

    They may even think that because neither Pacifica nor FJC have said that the loan comes from the Agency Loan Fund, that it comes via another anonymised FJC conduit (see J...’s piece, page 2), namely from particular clients; or maybe from just one client . . . maybe, just maybe, this is the Machiavellian way our Amy, Amy Goodman, is wreaking revenge on Pacifica. Now there’s a thought . . .

    There is MORE info at main WBAI site. Remember that each post person has their own opinions, research, contacts, and viewpoints there are NO FACTS that are uncontested or confirmable for sure anywhere to be found...

    but  more info - if of any interst to anyone near LA - KPFK - is what is needed.

    We believe in EXPOSURE, IN OPENNESS, IN TRANSPARENCY AND HOPEFULLY, IN SOME ACCOUNTABILITY, HONESTY AND RELIABLE INFO FROM SOURCES THAT HAVE even a bit of power and control over what happens to KPFK, and Pacifica, Wbai, et al too

    the author has the copywrite and responsibility for their quoted above words, not us replicating info to provide a wider readership of what is otherwise so cleverly, regularly hidden, denied, secreted and faked by those who are LSB's, PNB boards, as are general managers, program directors,  Exe Directors [shift in  & out regularly, frequently  now] and colluding paid staff at each/every radio station within P.

    shared here to further TRANSPARENCY and promote INTEGRITY protect and inform all donors, pledged payors to their local radio station for expenses not explained to them, and for listeners who trust the organizations that do not play fairly with them. 

    (c) for our comments, opinions, words only, not the quoted materials. Bbt 2018


    "comments spaces" are used as hacked ways to sell whatever = people, services, products.

    These are NOT EVER ALLOWED nor solicited.

    When caught and read, these are immediately deleted !

    Spammers, hackers, fakers are not welcome here. That is space-stealing for their advantages only. Horrible people do things like that, even located from outside of USA too.