- 25,037
Nevermind.
.....................................
.....................................
Last edited:
Whole Life for Child ?
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- whole life
davidrichard899
New Member
- 9
In respond to your question, in the case of the young child policy that would be more beneficiary in compare to the savings account. It's cover life risk as well as getting some good amount in regular time of periods. Moreover, in life insurance we get the more interest on your principal amount in compare to the saving accounts.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 676
I wrote this last night in another section, though to post it here too.
I would do a 10 pay whole life. It is guaranteed to be pay off in 10 years by the insurance company. The scenario is 10 pay age 5 M. So if it is 2500 it will be 25,000 by the time you are done. Once you are done, you can stow and forget it. Why buy it for someone so young and for 250k? Let's go over some simple ideas....
Basic info on the policy:
1. The policy is permanent.
2. While it is being paid off and afterwards; the cash value is guaranteed to increase to eventually reach the 250k and if dividends (NOT guaranteed, so try find a company with a history of paying them) are paid by the life company, the cash values increase faster and if you use the dividends, in simple terms, to "buy more insurance", the 250k policy could be 260k in year 5, 290k in year 10, etc. As the policy face amount grows, you also get more dividend amounts too, so sort of like a compound effect on the dividends if you will.
Reasons:
1. Using your figure, for a maximum of 25,000 over 10 years (2,500x10) if your child god forbid, has an accident, you can get a min. 250k benefit for the normal funeral expense. More importantly you get time, time to grief. How long do you think you will need? Your husband? I think I can say for parents everywhere, myself included, months or even years are needed.
Can you do your job as you grief? Wouldn't you like an option of taking a complete break from your work and using the life insurance benefit to pay the bills as you pull yourself together? What does that money mean for your marriage stress wise? Having financial problems on top of losing a child can only add more stress to an already tense time in any marriage. The extra money can mean pulling it through or a divorce. Calculate it, find the ballpark amount for your job. The scenario 250k might be more or might be less than you need.
2. The second reason for the 250k amount is to build up cash value. Having a higher face amount and paying that policy off in 10 years vs. to age 100 means one can grow your cash value faster. So your son is off to college, you can choose to tap into that cash value if necessary. I personally would do it as a loan, as I still want to keep the policy not surrender it. Yes, there will be interest to be pay on the loan and one of the option is using the dividends from the company, if any, to pay that interest. So you might not even have to pay anything out of pocket. After 18 years and at 250k, it can be a nice little amount if dividends are pay.
3. Now your son is married and have children of his own. You tell him, I brought this policy a while ago, it has served me well over the years and now it is yours. This policy has been in force for a while now, and if dividends has been given by the life insurance company, it is now much more than the initial 250k policy. So you transfer the ownership of the paid up policy over and your son will list his wife and children as the beneficiaries. Now your grandchildren has something in place if your son is called before his time. Your son can choose to get additional insurance to cover his family, or not, but at the very least he has something.
So why buy a life insurance on a child? Because it can serve 3 generations. The reasons above is the basic idea for why I brought it for each of my two kids and why I would recommend new parents to get. The idea, for me is sound. It can be done at 25k or 250k. I think if possible, a bigger amount best ulitilize it.
I would do a 10 pay whole life. It is guaranteed to be pay off in 10 years by the insurance company. The scenario is 10 pay age 5 M. So if it is 2500 it will be 25,000 by the time you are done. Once you are done, you can stow and forget it. Why buy it for someone so young and for 250k? Let's go over some simple ideas....
Basic info on the policy:
1. The policy is permanent.
2. While it is being paid off and afterwards; the cash value is guaranteed to increase to eventually reach the 250k and if dividends (NOT guaranteed, so try find a company with a history of paying them) are paid by the life company, the cash values increase faster and if you use the dividends, in simple terms, to "buy more insurance", the 250k policy could be 260k in year 5, 290k in year 10, etc. As the policy face amount grows, you also get more dividend amounts too, so sort of like a compound effect on the dividends if you will.
Reasons:
1. Using your figure, for a maximum of 25,000 over 10 years (2,500x10) if your child god forbid, has an accident, you can get a min. 250k benefit for the normal funeral expense. More importantly you get time, time to grief. How long do you think you will need? Your husband? I think I can say for parents everywhere, myself included, months or even years are needed.
Can you do your job as you grief? Wouldn't you like an option of taking a complete break from your work and using the life insurance benefit to pay the bills as you pull yourself together? What does that money mean for your marriage stress wise? Having financial problems on top of losing a child can only add more stress to an already tense time in any marriage. The extra money can mean pulling it through or a divorce. Calculate it, find the ballpark amount for your job. The scenario 250k might be more or might be less than you need.
2. The second reason for the 250k amount is to build up cash value. Having a higher face amount and paying that policy off in 10 years vs. to age 100 means one can grow your cash value faster. So your son is off to college, you can choose to tap into that cash value if necessary. I personally would do it as a loan, as I still want to keep the policy not surrender it. Yes, there will be interest to be pay on the loan and one of the option is using the dividends from the company, if any, to pay that interest. So you might not even have to pay anything out of pocket. After 18 years and at 250k, it can be a nice little amount if dividends are pay.
3. Now your son is married and have children of his own. You tell him, I brought this policy a while ago, it has served me well over the years and now it is yours. This policy has been in force for a while now, and if dividends has been given by the life insurance company, it is now much more than the initial 250k policy. So you transfer the ownership of the paid up policy over and your son will list his wife and children as the beneficiaries. Now your grandchildren has something in place if your son is called before his time. Your son can choose to get additional insurance to cover his family, or not, but at the very least he has something.
So why buy a life insurance on a child? Because it can serve 3 generations. The reasons above is the basic idea for why I brought it for each of my two kids and why I would recommend new parents to get. The idea, for me is sound. It can be done at 25k or 250k. I think if possible, a bigger amount best ulitilize it.
- 104
Good post, blue.
And here's some thoughts just off of the top of my head while reading this thread:
Heh.
So, to take your scenario, let's say the couple is pulling in the absolute median US household income of ~50k/year as a couple.... gross. Not the ludicrous 50k/mo as you point out that would need to be covered with such an inflated benefit amount (in your mind)...
Say that they net roughly 36k of that figure annually. So that's only 3k/month. Clearly, many couples earn [much] more that would need to be covered, but we are talking averages for the sake of discussion and I digress...
Well, the couple would then only need maybe a few months at 3k + burial expenses, let's say a 'generous' 30k should suffice to cover both amounts, correct?
By then (5mo or so), the couple would surely have moved on and returned to work, if not earlier. I mean, why miss any work at all in the first place, right?
30k to 100k/250k... certainly the disparity seems a bit much, no?
Well, avoiding the future insurability points that have been reiterated with good reason, what if the couple *gasp* took longer than that to return to work?
How long a couple *should* take... I'm glad I have no first-hand experience with that. Maybe, as it has been said, it is more than just a few months. Maybe a spouse (or both?) falls into a debilitating depression and cannot work - by his/her own admission or by an employer deciding enough is enough - they require an employee not a wet mop (unless the employee is a janitor)...
Those months can quickly rack up, as can the debts created by the delta in the income. Even if the spouse(s) were to eventually pull together and return to the workforce (at the same job? making the same salary?), the couple could be faced with debts + fees + interest that must be caught up on - let alone grief counseling and/or mental health expenses.
The expenses and lost income can easily start to approach or exceed 6 figures at some point. Who is to say how long it would take for a spouse to return to work? Should one, according to you, just get over it quickly (two months, tops!) and move on?
All this could/would be fallout from one, singular death event - and it is assuming the employer holds the jobs as long as need be...
Now, as you point out, they should have certainly have returned to work in a month or two.... or what? Risk losing one or both of their jobs.
Let's say the employer's hand is moved - "Two months out is just too long for our operation, we've had to hire someone else to do the job, sorry."
Now one or the other or both are out of work.
Is there a similar (local) job requiring a similar skill set paying a similar salary (with similar benefits) immediately available?
How easy is it to find a job in this environment? How bad have certain markets become? Did it take years for one to get to that former position and work their way up a ladder no longer available? Has the education or skills needed for the former job fallen out of demand in the years spent working there? Will it take months (post-grief, out of work, without income) of searching to be able to find a job that can meet the former's income level? Could a similar job that is available pay less - indefinitely? Will the benefits available at the new position be worse or none-existent? Will the new job be less flexible, and now require childcare for the other sibling(s) when formerly that was none-issue? Will it require travel? How about relocation?
What if there's no way around it - the spouse must enter or return to some sort of schooling to be marketable at this point. That requires the obvious time without income to go to classes, and can take years. Will loans be required? Is college even an option? Is there a local program? Blah blah blah blah
Let's not forget the child could have also incurred medical treatment expenses prior to their passing. Maybe the child is in an ICU-type environment, after all the ER expenses of course, for an extended time, and a following step-down care center to treat their comatose state that they never recover from until they ultimately pass. Could these or similar expenses easily surpass 100k? 250k?
Could dealing with these issues cause foreclosures, bankruptcies, divorces, etc? Who will pay the legal fees and how? What will the new rates be like, if the couple/newly divorced individuals can even get a loan in the first place? How do you put an exact cost on the credit/emotional fallout/spillover that affects everything else in their lives - in real terms or otherwise?
These are ALL (easily possible) tangible expenses from a life-changing event such as a child's passing.
Oh, but the couple should just hurry up and rush a service to get the kid in the ground and return back to work before losing their jobs. All you need for that is a couple grand in coverage - anything more is merely looking to 'cash in'!
What is the the point being made here?
Of course a lifetime of child expenses will cost more than a single funeral service.
Are you implying the costs that are avoided after passing are in effect 'recovered' because they never have to be paid for as the child ages in the first place? Thusly, even after the expenses of a burial are figured in, losing a child is in actuality a net-profit event (talk about 'cashing in'!)? I'd say that's rather cynical, to say the least...
That scenario, strictly financially speaking, is completely discounting the above-mentioned expenses that are a real possibility to incur secondary to losing a child, which can meet or exceed child-rearing expenses.
Lastly, you are neither an agent nor do you understand how expansive the definition/costs of a loss (of a child - of other losses as well?) (nor do you even have children or a spouse of your own to even comprehend what you could be facing in their absence...) is/are, so what are you doing on this forum, in this thread, 'arguing' your POV - which is grossly underdeveloped, misinformed, and unqualified for the discussion at hand??
And here's some thoughts just off of the top of my head while reading this thread:
Heh.
So, to take your scenario, let's say the couple is pulling in the absolute median US household income of ~50k/year as a couple.... gross. Not the ludicrous 50k/mo as you point out that would need to be covered with such an inflated benefit amount (in your mind)...
Say that they net roughly 36k of that figure annually. So that's only 3k/month. Clearly, many couples earn [much] more that would need to be covered, but we are talking averages for the sake of discussion and I digress...
Well, the couple would then only need maybe a few months at 3k + burial expenses, let's say a 'generous' 30k should suffice to cover both amounts, correct?
By then (5mo or so), the couple would surely have moved on and returned to work, if not earlier. I mean, why miss any work at all in the first place, right?
30k to 100k/250k... certainly the disparity seems a bit much, no?
Well, avoiding the future insurability points that have been reiterated with good reason, what if the couple *gasp* took longer than that to return to work?
How long a couple *should* take... I'm glad I have no first-hand experience with that. Maybe, as it has been said, it is more than just a few months. Maybe a spouse (or both?) falls into a debilitating depression and cannot work - by his/her own admission or by an employer deciding enough is enough - they require an employee not a wet mop (unless the employee is a janitor)...
Those months can quickly rack up, as can the debts created by the delta in the income. Even if the spouse(s) were to eventually pull together and return to the workforce (at the same job
The expenses and lost income can easily start to approach or exceed 6 figures at some point. Who is to say how long it would take for a spouse to return to work? Should one, according to you, just get over it quickly (two months, tops!) and move on?
All this could/would be fallout from one, singular death event - and it is assuming the employer holds the jobs as long as need be...
Now, as you point out, they should have certainly have returned to work in a month or two.... or what? Risk losing one or both of their jobs.
Let's say the employer's hand is moved - "Two months out is just too long for our operation, we've had to hire someone else to do the job, sorry."
Now one or the other or both are out of work.
Is there a similar (local) job requiring a similar skill set paying a similar salary (with similar benefits) immediately available?
How easy is it to find a job in this environment? How bad have certain markets become? Did it take years for one to get to that former position and work their way up a ladder no longer available? Has the education or skills needed for the former job fallen out of demand in the years spent working there? Will it take months (post-grief, out of work, without income) of searching to be able to find a job that can meet the former's income level? Could a similar job that is available pay less - indefinitely? Will the benefits available at the new position be worse or none-existent? Will the new job be less flexible, and now require childcare for the other sibling(s) when formerly that was none-issue? Will it require travel? How about relocation?
What if there's no way around it - the spouse must enter or return to some sort of schooling to be marketable at this point. That requires the obvious time without income to go to classes, and can take years. Will loans be required? Is college even an option? Is there a local program? Blah blah blah blah
Let's not forget the child could have also incurred medical treatment expenses prior to their passing. Maybe the child is in an ICU-type environment, after all the ER expenses of course, for an extended time, and a following step-down care center to treat their comatose state that they never recover from until they ultimately pass. Could these or similar expenses easily surpass 100k? 250k?
Could dealing with these issues cause foreclosures, bankruptcies, divorces, etc? Who will pay the legal fees and how? What will the new rates be like, if the couple/newly divorced individuals can even get a loan in the first place? How do you put an exact cost on the credit/emotional fallout/spillover that affects everything else in their lives - in real terms or otherwise?
These are ALL (easily possible) tangible expenses from a life-changing event such as a child's passing.
Oh, but the couple should just hurry up and rush a service to get the kid in the ground and return back to work before losing their jobs. All you need for that is a couple grand in coverage - anything more is merely looking to 'cash in'!
What is the the point being made here?
Of course a lifetime of child expenses will cost more than a single funeral service.
Are you implying the costs that are avoided after passing are in effect 'recovered' because they never have to be paid for as the child ages in the first place? Thusly, even after the expenses of a burial are figured in, losing a child is in actuality a net-profit event (talk about 'cashing in'!)? I'd say that's rather cynical, to say the least...
That scenario, strictly financially speaking, is completely discounting the above-mentioned expenses that are a real possibility to incur secondary to losing a child, which can meet or exceed child-rearing expenses.
Lastly, you are neither an agent nor do you understand how expansive the definition/costs of a loss (of a child - of other losses as well?) (nor do you even have children or a spouse of your own to even comprehend what you could be facing in their absence...) is/are, so what are you doing on this forum, in this thread, 'arguing' your POV - which is grossly underdeveloped, misinformed, and unqualified for the discussion at hand??
Last edited:
You're not an agent, so why are you here? So far, your sole contribution to this thread is to cram your opinion down everyone's throat, and you seem to be generally pissed off that not everyone thinks like you do.
So when you get married and have children, feel free to exercise your right to not insure your children.
Last time I checked, signing up for the site didn't require insurance licensure. I came on here to see what that Gerber grow up scam was all about, and learned there is other companies that may be more reputable. I can voice whatever my opinions are, and I just felt that it's throwing good money after bad for the very low chance a young child will die or be unable to acquire insurance when he is twenty something. You all have valid points and yes maybe 250 thousand dollars would cover expenses for some, but realistically if a family member dies taking months and months off work isn't reasonable. that's all. And the amount of money these companies are making off the emotional appeal is astounding.
On a lighter note, What a e your thoughts on health insurance? Shouldnt that trump life insurance? The odds of child getting sick is quite higher than death. Do you all agree that you must insure yourselves before insuring a child? If not, what would be of the child with out parents? how are we protecting them in the event of a catastrophe ?
On a lighter note, What a e your thoughts on health insurance? Shouldnt that trump life insurance? The odds of child getting sick is quite higher than death. Do you all agree that you must insure yourselves before insuring a child? If not, what would be of the child with out parents? how are we protecting them in the event of a catastrophe ?
- 25,037
"Last time I checked... Gerber scam... licensure..."
Your wit and intelligence obviously exceeds mine, and I probably should stop while you're behind.
Your use of embiggening terms provides cromulent insight to your unshifted paradigm.
The next time a client wants to insure their children I'll be sure to tell them that someone on the internet said they were stupid. Should stop them dead in their tracks and snap them back to reality.
The fact that you supposedly came here looking for intell on the "Gerber scam" says that you had already made up your mind, so your time here has been a futile waste of your chronological resources, but on the bright side it has provided a wee bit of comic relief for me.
Don't be mad. Nothing personal.
Your wit and intelligence obviously exceeds mine, and I probably should stop while you're behind.
Your use of embiggening terms provides cromulent insight to your unshifted paradigm.
The next time a client wants to insure their children I'll be sure to tell them that someone on the internet said they were stupid. Should stop them dead in their tracks and snap them back to reality.
The fact that you supposedly came here looking for intell on the "Gerber scam" says that you had already made up your mind, so your time here has been a futile waste of your chronological resources, but on the bright side it has provided a wee bit of comic relief for me.
Don't be mad. Nothing personal.
Last edited:
- 4,132
Sunny?
The basis for any insurance purchase is to have it before you need it. Otherwise, it simply doesn't work. The choice to purchase a child's policy is simply one person's plan over anothers. I did purchase policies for my kids, with several thoughts in mind.
First was if they died what would I do. Second a chance to buy coverage at a low price that can stay with them for their entire lives. With the purchase of GIO, I took away the ability of the insurance company to say "no" if they want to increase their coverage (more important than you realize, or maybe you do from your mom's experience. No s ucks.)
I also look at this purchase as raw land. Getting it for a low purchase price and holding onto it with a chance to develop later.
At first the feedback against you was because everybody thought you were an agent and should actually have a better knowledge base than what you've shown.
Your opinion is fine as you can only have formed your opinion on what you've experienced. Most of us have a great deal of experience and that's why we disagree with you.
good luck and maybe time will change your opinion maybe it won't.
The basis for any insurance purchase is to have it before you need it. Otherwise, it simply doesn't work. The choice to purchase a child's policy is simply one person's plan over anothers. I did purchase policies for my kids, with several thoughts in mind.
First was if they died what would I do. Second a chance to buy coverage at a low price that can stay with them for their entire lives. With the purchase of GIO, I took away the ability of the insurance company to say "no" if they want to increase their coverage (more important than you realize, or maybe you do from your mom's experience. No s ucks.)
I also look at this purchase as raw land. Getting it for a low purchase price and holding onto it with a chance to develop later.
At first the feedback against you was because everybody thought you were an agent and should actually have a better knowledge base than what you've shown.
Your opinion is fine as you can only have formed your opinion on what you've experienced. Most of us have a great deal of experience and that's why we disagree with you.
good luck and maybe time will change your opinion maybe it won't.
- 104
You are correct - there is no blank space requiring a license # to join, and other insurance-related non-licensed members come here, as does the general public for insurance advice (much like yourself, in theory).
Good thing you got the information you came for, only...
Up to the point you become disruptive. After that...
Feel free to exercise your right(?) to participate; I could care less if you hang around (others, mods included, may ultimately develop a differing opinion - maybe not). However, I'm not sure why you would stay on an industry-specific (that you are not party to) forum to argue against trained and experienced professionals - also spouses and parents that have not only been educated on matters beyond what most laymen would even think to consider, but have seen first-hand the results of families both being protected/unprotected in such/similar events - in the first place?
I would think if you truly wished to participate, you would ask many questions (or just read a lot) to fully develop a grasp before forming - and stating (and doubling down on) - an opinion. But, that's just me.
Without consideration/education... or fur?
This (still) just shows a profit vs loss mentality. LI isn't supposed to be an investment per se (well, at least the aspect of a death benefit - LI as an investment [which it can be] is another animal entirely), and no one is out looking for gain (hopefully!) from a child's death. 'Good' and 'bad money' have implications of financial gain and risk of capital loss. Life insurance benefit proceeds aren't considered a gain any more than the premiums paid are considered a loss in the event of a death. They exist simply to cover a defined (financial) loss other than the costs involved with which to do so in the first place. Death benefits do not exist to enrich the parents, nor to replace the imagined monetary value of the child (LI on an employees that provide value is another consideration).
Your perspective is narrow and off-base entirely.
And, most (all decent) parents would MUCH rather 'lose' the premiums paid on a child policy rather than see an ROI.
Costs are commensurate with risk and the value of protection.
Again, that (statistical odds either way) is built into the costs for both parties. IF there is a future insurability issue - again NOT ideal under any circumstance regardless of coverage (what parent wants a sick child, even if they had the Forethought[tm] to get them covered beforehand?) - then one is covered. It is a very real issue for some, albeit relatively uncommon for most.
Also, in the case of cash-accumulating policies, there are financial/tax upsides to all (well, most, given enough time) those 'wasteful' premium dollars that have worked to build a very useful/often hefty cash value with interest. This has been illustrated already in this thread. The value and coverage can even be borrowed against or transferred to another generation. Obviously, this is ideal in every way imaginable rather than 'cashing in' a death claim.
You probably should have limited your post to this.
And maybe not all. And maybe it's too much coverage for others. That is one reason why a holistic picture must be considered before a coverage amount is determined/best-guessed. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, and all any reasonable agent can do is work to get the (approximately) 'correct' amount of affordable coverage. Any coverage is better than none, and it's almost impossible to have (or even attain) too much coverage if one can reasonably afford to do so. No one knows the 'correct' amount required until after the fact, and seeing as agents posses no crystal ball their best guess - conservatively higher than lower, given estimated needs - is the best that can be offered. 'Better safe than sorry' or so they say, so the worst-case scenario would optimally be covered rather than aiming too low and not covering enough. If that leaves a surplus of cash after expenses then it is unintentional (but with the expectation of at least meeting any and all expenses should they arise), and maybe the parents would feel proper to donate the difference or use it to raise siblings - or even raise another 'replacement' child (complete with its own cost to get to the previous model's age)...
According to whom? Someone with no children and no experience/understanding of said children's loss (and subsequent expenses)? Granted, it hasn't happened to many/most/all(?) here that I know of, but the mere thought of loss is absolutely easier to visualize/understand once you actually have something to lose. I personally (as a parent/spouse... crazy thought!) could understand how someone could break, for many months even, as that could conceivably happen to me if I were ever to face such circumstances. I wouldn't know how I would react, and, God-forbid, I won't have to.
Do you honestly think that hardships such as financial ruin, job loss (specifically cited in this debate), divorce, foreclosure, forced moving, disability from depression/inability to cope, irresolvable medical (or other) debt, the resulting credit ruination, and at a minimum much-extended time off aren't very real outcomes (amongst others) that parents experience after losing a child? Or is this you talking out of your arse some more? You have already admitted they are issues that may potentially arise (however rare), but the simple fact that they do happen is enough to justify such 'high' coverage amounts - for some parents/couples at least.
(this isn't even pertinent to an objective discussion of expenses and coverage, and is admittedly warping your opinion on the matter, but here goes...)
Please provide an example of another company that doesn't (hopefully for that company) make a profit? Which of these companies, for-profit, if any, are in the business of free charity? Which companies specifically do not play at some emotional fulfillment (typically materialism) to drive product? What company/industry do you work for? What products do you purchase? Do you work for your own benefit as well?
Moreover, how many of these other companies can actually provide financial support to be able to pull through the loss of a child or loved one? Do shoes or cars help? Does your for-profit yoga-instructor pitch in for funeral costs and buy your groceries? Do you feel you are owed anything by anyone free of charge for your hardships? If not, are such companies then not allowed to make a profit on the business of covering your losses when needed the most?
Most importantly, if you feel the expenses for coverage provided are too high, you can opt out entirely. You can rate shop. You can choose a lower coverage amount. You can save up your own money just in case (if you are able to do so at all, if you are able to do so soon enough, if you are able to save enough to cover everything.....). You can bury your head in the sand. You can march or picket or join (start?) a lobby to end the evil life-insurance companies' profits. You can give your kid a low-cost viking funeral on your lunch break. You can decide not to have any kids to have to cover in the first place.
Whatever you feel you need to do, it won't affect the rates.
Rates than many educated nerds have spent considerable time and research at determining a best fit for all involved. If the rates are too high, the market will win out and another product or company will get the business - or the market will just fail across the board. Curiously, many value-minded customers have determined they have an ongoing need for life insurance and have made the appropriate purchase. Perhaps a few feel cheated, but most that continue payments see the need and feel it continues to exist. Their assets (often in the form of producing incomes) and unwanted expenses are covered. And in return, the carrier bearing the burden or risk is likewise compensated and is able to invest and see revenue. Supposedly, that's a win-win-win.
Of course you should cover you and your child's health. Of course (when asked of insurance salespeople) you should cover your own life to be able to better provide from the grave to your progeny.
Fortunately, it's not a an either-or proposition (full independent coverage for each or riders for the children). It's merely a matter of need and affordability - and making the decision to do so.
Clearly, the length of this post has gotten the best of me; more of my time spent than deserved. However, you have softened your stance a bit and are asking more questions. While you're not 'there' yet, it is not my place to convince you. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you chose to take a (slightly) different tone...
Last edited:
Similar threads
