Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

mac wrote:quote:  "....If it does not then it may be wiser for the two parties to agree to stand down and a neutral party allowed to become President with a mandate to resolve all the issues......"

It seems to me that the individuals involved are unlikely to be concerned and will just press ahead given the complexity of the situation and the unlikelihood that anybody will take them to task over any potential wrongdoings.......

It looks to me like they hold all the aces.

Wishful Thinking on my part Mac. The fall out from this election may make the Game of Thrones look tame

It's not disallowed to run a crowdfunder within a charity but full transparency is required as payouts often go to an individuals account and can cause issues. One of the difficulties is that the president has made great store of the fact (and even stated in a YouTube interview ) that no money had been spent on the college in the past 10 years and so this fundraiser was required. This is simply not true.

Although not illegal, the SNU is already established and registered as a charity and a crowdfunder misses out on the gift aid aspect - the loss of 25% top up of donations from UK tax payers. Members would be remiss in not asking, why did you lose us and extra 25% in donations?

I agree that a neutral NEC party would be the most desirable outcome. the current President is bombarding social media with positive endorsements, whilst the other party is behaving as all previous elections have and apart from being invited on a podcast, is not fighting this like the elections in the USA.  

It is all so tawdry and at stake one cannot ignore the presidents salary, which is between 60-70K per year. There is a lot for someone to lose other than the SNU.

Meanwhile, good, dedicated and experience tutors are being ignored over their contractual concerns and other tutors being shoed into their long standing popular courses. One cannot help the cynicism surrounding the president getting the elections out the way first and securing her power and money.

Admin wrote:

mac wrote:quote:  "....If it does not then it may be wiser for the two parties to agree to stand down and a neutral party allowed to become President with a mandate to resolve all the issues......"

It seems to me that the individuals involved are unlikely to be concerned and will just press ahead given the complexity of the situation and the unlikelihood that anybody will take them to task over any potential wrongdoings.......

It looks to me like they hold all the aces.

Wishful Thinking on my part Mac. The fall out from this election may make the Game of Thrones look tame

I shall look on with interest, Jim, but I won't be voting for either candidate for president. Pity there's no option for voting against.....

notabigjump wrote:It's not disallowed to run a crowdfunder within a charity but full transparency is required as payouts often go to an individuals account and can cause issues. One of the difficulties is that the president has made great store of the fact (and even stated in a YouTube interview ) that no money had been spent on the college in the past 10 years and so this fundraiser was required. This is simply not true.

 I would need full details to understand the position about lack of spending - perhaps what was meant was not made clear.  As for transparency, provided the funding was in the name of an SNU account I wouldn't see any problem.....

Although not illegal, the SNU is already established and registered as a charity and a crowdfunder misses out on the gift aid aspect - the loss of 25% top up of donations from UK tax payers. Members would be remiss in not asking, why did you lose us and extra 25% in donations?

 Well members would also need to ask whether any potential donations would have been impacted by crowdfunding!  And do think on - a crowd-funded donation even without a tax break is far better than no donation at all. Those who would donate would likely know the benefit of the tax enhancement whereas those who donate via crowdfunding likely wouldn't have been donors in the first place.

I agree that a neutral NEC party would be the most desirable outcome. the current President is bombarding social media with positive endorsements, whilst the other party is behaving as all previous elections have and apart from being invited on a podcast, is not fighting this like the elections in the USA.  

I don't know what point you're making here.

It is all so tawdry and at stake one cannot ignore the presidents salary, which is between 60-70K per year. There is a lot for someone to lose other than the SNU.

Naturally an individual will fight to retain whatever their salary happens to be - wouldn't YOU?

Meanwhile, good, dedicated and experience tutors are being ignored over their contractual concerns and other tutors being shoed into their long standing popular courses. One cannot help the cynicism surrounding the president getting the elections out the way first and securing her power and money.

 Isn't that often the way in life?  Mebbes the constitution of the SNU needs reforming but that's like asking a turkey to vote for Christmas.  If we didn't know better we might think the pioneers would be turning in their graves!  

mac wrote:

notabigjump wrote:It's not disallowed to run a crowdfunder within a charity but full transparency is required as payouts often go to an individuals account and can cause issues. One of the difficulties is that the president has made great store of the fact (and even stated in a YouTube interview ) that no money had been spent on the college in the past 10 years and so this fundraiser was required. This is simply not true.

 I would need full details to understand the position about lack of spending - perhaps what was meant was not made clear.  As for transparency, provided the funding was in the name of an SNU account I wouldn't see any problem.....

Although not illegal, the SNU is already established and registered as a charity and a crowdfunder misses out on the gift aid aspect - the loss of 25% top up of donations from UK tax payers. Members would be remiss in not asking, why did you lose us and extra 25% in donations?

 Well members would also need to ask whether any potential donations would have been impacted by crowdfunding!  And do think on - a crowd-funded donation even without a tax break is far better than no donation at all.  Those who would donate would likely know the benefit of the tax enhancement whereas those who donate via crowdfunding likely wouldn't have been donors in the first place.

I agree that a neutral NEC party would be the most desirable outcome. the current President is bombarding social media with positive endorsements, whilst the other party is behaving as all previous elections have and apart from being invited on a podcast, is not fighting this like the elections in the USA.  

I don't know what point you're making here.

It is all so tawdry and at stake one cannot ignore the presidents salary, which is between 60-70K per year. There is a lot for someone to lose other than the SNU.

Naturally an individual will fight to retain whatever their salary happens to be - wouldn't YOU?

Meanwhile, good, dedicated and experience tutors are being ignored over their contractual concerns and other tutors being shoed into their long standing popular courses. One cannot help the cynicism surrounding the president getting the elections out the way first and securing her power and money.

 Isn't that often the way in life?  Mebbes the constitution of the SNU needs reforming but that's like asking a turkey to vote for Christmas.  If we didn't know better we might think the pioneers would be turning in their graves!  

There is an interview between JW and Sandra Champlain.

youtu.be/BN6kNoyGFko?si=eE2uC_2vjfXI0XS1

During the interview JW, at around the 24min 45 sec mark says ‘in the last decade it (The AFC) has had no money spent on it so it is crumbling so that's the other thing that I'm focused on is Raising enough money to get it repaired refurbished.’

I’ve asked around about JW’s background and from speaking to several people some of which have served on the Committee that is responsible for the running of the AFC, I have found out that JW has been on the committee for around 6-7 of the last 10 years.

Being a regular student of the AFC for the last 12 years and having attended the college at least twice a year for the last 12 years I know from what I’ve witnessed that there has been A LOT of money spent on the building over the last decade.

Over the last few weeks I’ve been making a lot of enquiries, and I’ve got it from very credible sources that there has been about £2m spent on the building in the past decade. You only have to go to the college to know the work rooms have been refurbished, bedrooms have, and there’s been a lot of structural improvements too.

So why is this important?

Well during the interview JW makes the claim that the AFC is crumbling, that no money has been spent on it over the last decade, and then goes on to appeal to the public on behalf of the AFC for donations for refurbishment work via its just giving page which has raised £29k so far

Looking at the evidence and the interview you could say that JW is telling porkie pies. Best case scenario she is making misleading statements to the public to raise money for the AFC.

Being on the committee for 6-7 years she would have known, planned, authorised and debated the work that has taken place.

There really isn’t any way she didn’t know about it all.

I’ve looked at the accounts that  are published on the SNU website and there is £3m in their general reserves that could be used for any refurbishments the college needs so it seems a bit naughty to make out that they need to raise money to do this.


I’m sure those who donated because of the interview would be shocked to discover that JW wasn’t being completely truthful. How do you trust any charity if the details of their appeals aren’t accurate.

Very very sad to see what’s happened, and I just hope a resolution is made to reinstate the AFC 20.

I love Spiritualism, but at the moment I’m ashamed to call myself a member of the SNU. I think those at the top tier need to take a long look in the mirror, and members of the NEC need to step in and stop the madness that is JW.

You just have to wonder what dirt does JW have on them or are they all just morally bankrupt.

Based on what you've explained it does appear the reasons for the fund-raising appeal raise concerns but the president might argue the small amount spent thus far is far less than what's needed to get the ancient building into a satisfactory condition.

As for the rest I'm glad none of it directly affects me.

Thank you JNR for that excellent analysis.

mac wrote:Based on what you've explained it does appear the reasons for the fund-raising appeal raise concerns but the president might argue the small amount spent thus far is far less than what's needed to get the ancient building into a satisfactory condition.

As for the rest I'm glad none of it directly affects me.

From what I have gathered it’ll take £1m to do the work JW has in the pipeline.

There’s a need to raise funds but the college isn’t crumbling and substantial money has been spent on the building already, double what JW thinks needs to be spent currently. Also there’s £3m at hand if the building was in such a state of disrepair it couldn’t be used safely.

You only have to go on her Facebook page to see that the truth is being stretched and twisted at every turn. We need a president that has much higher moral standards and an NEC that has some teeth.

I will keep working away in the background and if I find anything else now I have found this forum I will keep you all posted.

From what I have gathered it’ll take £1m to do the work JW has in the pipeline.

There’s a need to raise funds but the college isn’t crumbling and substantial money has been spent on the building already, double what JW thinks needs to be spent currently. Also there’s £3m at hand if the building was in such a state of disrepair it couldn’t be used safely.

You only have to go on her Facebook page to see that the truth is being stretched and twisted at every turn. We need a president that has much higher moral standards and an NEC that has some teeth.

I will keep working away in the background and if I find anything else now I have found this forum I will keep you all posted.[/quote]

Would you happen to know, that if the President was misleading people into donating money the Charities Commission would consider this situation as a serious matter? If so, perhaps that is an 'in' for the current NEC to take matters in hand and in doing so, also resolve the current dispute with the tutors. As you say, they need the backbone.

notabigjump wrote: Would you happen to know, that if the President was misleading people into donating money the Charities Commission would consider this situation as a serious matter? If so, perhaps that is an 'in' for the current NEC to take matters in hand and in doing so, also resolve the current dispute with the tutors. As you say, they need the backbone.

Well I would have thought misleading the public to raise funds would undermine the trust in the Not For Profit sector as a whole. So yes I think it would be of grave concern to the Charity Commission

I think the NEC has more than enough ammunition to act, losing 20 tutors at the college should be enough. My gut tells me that unless this gets out to the membership and unless they really shout about it nothing will be done.

JW has all the right people around her protecting her. It’s a dictatorship, but if we aren’t careful it’ll implode soon as it’s a house of cards that has been erected.

I’ve never seen anything like it in all the years I have been involved.

Would you happen to know, that if the President was misleading people into donating money the Charities Commission (CC) would consider this situation as a serious matter? If so, perhaps that is an 'in' for the current NEC to take matters in hand and in doing so, also resolve the current dispute with the tutors. As you say, they need the backbone.

Would the president admit it if she WERE doing what's suggested?  Nothing short of evidence would persuade me and I wouldn't expect anything less from those representing The Charities Commission......

Clearly there are deep and significant trust issues but trying to get CC involved needs more than complaints about bad leadership.

It's all very undignified.

notabigjump wrote:From what I have gathered it’ll take £1m to do the work JW has in the pipeline.

There’s a need to raise funds but the college isn’t crumbling and substantial money has been spent on the building already, double what JW thinks needs to be spent currently. Also there’s £3m at hand if the building was in such a state of disrepair it couldn’t be used safely.

I'm assuming monies can't be spent without approval and the 3 million mentioned may be ring-fenced.  I'm not able to know this stuff - do you have all the details?  As I have read things here it's not been suggested that AFC is "....in such a state of disrepair it couldn’t be used safely."  Have I missed something or is it misrepresenting what had been said?

 You only have to go on her Facebook page to see that the truth is being stretched and twisted at every turn. We need a president that has much higher moral standards and an NEC that has some teeth.

 Are you meaning she has lied or misrepresented a situation?

 I will keep working away in the background and if I find anything else now I have found this forum I will keep you all posted.

 towards what end?

mac wrote:

Would you happen to know, that if the President was misleading people into donating money the Charities Commission (CC) would consider this situation as a serious matter? If so, perhaps that is an 'in' for the current NEC to take matters in hand and in doing so, also resolve the current dispute with the tutors. As you say, they need the backbone.

Would the president admit it if she WERE doing what's suggested?  Nothing short of evidence would persuade me and I wouldn't expect anything less from those representing The Charities Commission......

Clearly there are deep and significant trust issues but trying to get CC involved needs more than complaints about bad leadership.

It's all very undignified.

It’s on film, and leaders are or at least should be held to account based on what they say.

She’s made misleading statements it’s in the public domain on record. I’ve posted the link to the video and given a time stamp as to when it was said. Not sure what more evidence you’d need of her making the statements?

You only have to go to the college to see it isn’t crumbling. You only have had to have attended within the last 10 years to know the rooms were renovated.

She has been a member of the collegiate committee for the last 6 or 7 years. No evidence needed, it’s happened and her name is all over the minutes.

There will be minutes of the committee meetings they show the discussions, approval etc.

Just look at the accounts and you’ll see the £3m of general reserves there.

There’s nothing to admit, it’s all there.

The CC needs grounds to investigate they don’t need exacting evidence that is what the investigation is for.

JNR wrote:

mac wrote:

Would you happen to know, that if the President was misleading people into donating money the Charities Commission (CC) would consider this situation as a serious matter? If so, perhaps that is an 'in' for the current NEC to take matters in hand and in doing so, also resolve the current dispute with the tutors. As you say, they need the backbone.

Would the president admit it if she WERE doing what's suggested?  Nothing short of evidence would persuade me and I wouldn't expect anything less from those representing The Charities Commission......

Clearly there are deep and significant trust issues but trying to get CC involved needs more than complaints about bad leadership.

It's all very undignified.

It’s on film, and leaders are or at least should be held to account based on what they say.

She’s made misleading statements it’s in the public domain on record. I’ve posted the link to the video and given a time stamp as to when it was said. Not sure what more evidence you’d need of her making the statements?

She has been a member of the collegiate committee for the last 6 or 7 years. No evidence needed, it’s happened and her name is all over the minutes.

There will be minutes of the committee meetings they show the discussions, approval etc.

Just look at the accounts and you’ll see the £3m of general reserves there.

There’s nothing to admit, it’s all there.

The CC needs grounds to investigate they don’t need exacting evidence that is what the investigation is for.

Then what's stopping you presenting the details?

mac wrote:

JNR wrote:

mac wrote:

Would you happen to know, that if the President was misleading people into donating money the Charities Commission (CC) would consider this situation as a serious matter? If so, perhaps that is an 'in' for the current NEC to take matters in hand and in doing so, also resolve the current dispute with the tutors. As you say, they need the backbone.

Would the president admit it if she WERE doing what's suggested?  Nothing short of evidence would persuade me and I wouldn't expect anything less from those representing The Charities Commission......

Clearly there are deep and significant trust issues but trying to get CC involved needs more than complaints about bad leadership.

It's all very undignified.

It’s on film, and leaders are or at least should be held to account based on what they say.

She’s made misleading statements it’s in the public domain on record. I’ve posted the link to the video and given a time stamp as to when it was said. Not sure what more evidence you’d need of her making the statements?

She has been a member of the collegiate committee for the last 6 or 7 years. No evidence needed, it’s happened and her name is all over the minutes.

There will be minutes of the committee meetings they show the discussions, approval etc.

Just look at the accounts and you’ll see the £3m of general reserves there.

There’s nothing to admit, it’s all there.

The CC needs grounds to investigate they don’t need exacting evidence that is what the investigation is for.

 Then what's stopping you presenting the details?

Presenting the details to who?

I have presented the details to you all here, and I have reported my findings to the charity commission.

Not sure what else I can do? I see you comment on here all the time so my question to you is, what are you doing as a member of the SNU? Other than making anonymous observations from the sidelines? Not voting at all isn’t helping anyone is it

Presenting the details to who?

I have presented the details to you all here, and I have reported my findings to the charity commission.

Then you have done all you can....

Not sure what else I can do? I see you comment on here all the time so my question to you is, what are you doing as a member of the SNU?

Other than making anonymous observations from the sidelines?

 I'm known to other regular members here and have been known since Lord knows when.  Look back and I have predominantly written about Spiritualism. You, by contrast, have just arrived and have written solely about the SNU and its officers.  As an Independent Member of the SNU I am doing nothing other than to follow what's being claimed recently.  I do not have any evidence about anything but I can challenge to try to establish what actually is evidence rather than hearsay.

Not voting at all isn’t helping anyone is it

 And neither will voting for someone you're not persuaded would be the right individual - how will YOU vote?

mac wrote:

Presenting the details to who?

I have presented the details to you all here, and I have reported my findings to the charity commission.

Then you have done all you can....

Not sure what else I can do? I see you comment on here all the time so my question to you is, what are you doing as a member of the SNU?

Other than making anonymous observations from the sidelines?

 I'm known to other regular members here and have been known since Lord knows when.  Look back and I have predominantly written about Spiritualism. You, by contrast, have just arrived and have written solely about the SNU and its officers.  As an Independent Member of the SNU I am doing nothing other than to follow what's being claimed recently.  I do not have any evidence about anything but I can challenge to try to establish what actually is evidence rather than hearsay.

Not voting at all isn’t helping anyone is it

 And neither will voting for someone you're not persuaded would be the right individual - how will YOU vote?

For the best of a bad bunch

No, I’m a regular contributor to this forum, I’ve just changed my handle as this is something very different from what I usually comment on and I don’t want this following me around like a bad smell.

Not voting at all isn’t helping anyone is it

 

And neither will voting for someone you're not persuaded would be the right individual - how will YOU vote?

For the best of a bad bunch

 So David Bruton then? I guess you see him as the lesser-bad of two candidates?  I'm not yet persuaded that protest voting in this election is any better than not voting! Persuade me.....

No, I’m a regular contributor to this forum, I’ve just changed my handle as this is something very different from what I usually comment on and I don’t want this following me around like a bad smell.

a regular? how so?

If you are confident about what you're saying then why not stand up and be counted?

mac wrote:

No, I’m a regular contributor to this forum, I’ve just changed my handle as this is something very different from what I usually comment on and I don’t want this following me around like a bad smell.

a regular?  how so?

If you are confident about what you're saying then why not stand up and be counted?

I’m well connected within the SNU community and I’m using all my contacts to get information so I can be helpful in uncovering what’s happening.
I don’t want to put that in jeopardy.

You have to vote with your conscious, I don’t see DB as a long term president but a safe pair of hands that can bring some stability back until a suitable successor can be found.

We never saw anything like this while DB was president. Yes there was the PN issue but that wasn’t blue on blue fighting like at the moment.

Someone has to lead. You’ve got two options: more of the same, more dissension, more conflict, more division, or some stability.

JW is miles ahead, DB has little chance of winning this election. So if you don’t vote, you’re making it easier for JW.

That’s the choice

I’m well connected within the SNU community and I’m using all my contacts to get information so I can be helpful in uncovering what’s happening.
I don’t want to put that in jeopardy.

 I don't get why that would happen if you're so well connected but never mind.  We'll have to accept that clarity on this matter remains elusive.  

You have to vote with your conscious, I don’t see DB as a long term president but a safe pair of hands that can bring some stability back until a suitable successor can be found.

 My conscience is clear but I doubt you could persuade Dave Bruton to act as caretaker while someone - who? - would arrange for a new vote for a different president.  It's a turkey voting for Christmas situation again.

We never saw anything like this while DB was president. Yes there was the PN issue but that wasn’t blue on blue fighting like at the moment.

Bruton's role in the PN debacle was certainly far from elevating so would one choose him now?  Some would, I feel sure but enough of them who are also reading this?

Someone has to lead. You’ve got two options: more of the same, more dissension, more conflict, more division, or some stability.

Are you that confident Bruton would bring stability and a reversal of the tutors' situation etc?  Remember - you're trying to persuade me and perhaps others following this conversation....

JW is miles ahead, DB has little chance of winning this election. So if you don’t vote, you’re making it easier for JW.

Using that argument there's no logic for voting - as I said I wouldn't.  Is this all you have to persuade me?  

That’s the choice

 If you feel that's a choice then it's not one I recognise.  Voting seems pointless based on your argument unless somehow our conversation is reaching all/most/many undecided members out there.  I love Spiritualism Link but I'm a realist - scarcely a handful even know this website exists let alone ever visit it to read this conversation and be persuaded by it.

Sorry - I'm a realist.

mac wrote:

I’m well connected within the SNU community and I’m using all my contacts to get information so I can be helpful in uncovering what’s happening.
I don’t want to put that in jeopardy.

 I don't get why that would happen if you're so well connected but never mind.  We'll have to accept that clarity on this matter remains elusive.  

You have to vote with your conscious, I don’t see DB as a long term president but a safe pair of hands that can bring some stability back until a suitable successor can be found.

 My conscience is clear but I doubt you could persuade Dave Bruton to act as caretaker while someone - who? - would arrange for a new vote for a different president.  It's a turkey voting for Christmas situation again.


We never saw anything like this while DB was president. Yes there was the PN issue but that wasn’t blue on blue fighting like at the moment.

Bruton's role in the PN debacle was certainly far from elevating so would one choose him now?  Some would, I feel sure but enough of them who are also reading this?

Someone has to lead. You’ve got two options: more of the same, more dissension, more conflict, more division, or some stability.

Are you that confident Bruton would bring stability and a reversal of the tutors' situation etc?  Remember - you're trying to persuade me and perhaps others following this conversation....

JW is miles ahead, DB has little chance of winning this election. So if you don’t vote, you’re making it easier for JW.

Using that argument there's no logic for voting - as I said I wouldn't.  Is this all you have to persuade me?  

That’s the choice

 If you feel that's a choice then it's not one I recognise.  Voting seems pointless based on your argument unless somehow our conversation is reaching all/most/many undecided members out there.  I love Spiritualism Link but I'm a realist - scarcely a handful even know this website exists let alone ever visit it to read this conversation and be persuaded by it.

Sorry - I'm a realist.[/quote]


I’m not here to persuade anyone, and I don’t need to win an argument with you.

If you were a realist you would recognise that not voting at all is supporting JW as she has the churches sown up and is miles ahead.

The choice you have to make is do you want JW in or not. If you don’t then the only option you have is DB. If you don’t vote at all then you’re voting for JW.

I’m not saying it’s an ideal choice, far from it, but it’s the only choice available that has the possibility of changing the outcome of a JW win.

Here’s the logic: No vote has no effect. A
Vote has a chance of changing the outcome and if you want JW out you have to vote DB in that’s the only option you have. If you don’t vote you’re just part of the problem as a no vote is just helping JW secure a win.


I personally don’t think much of either so I’m not going to try and blow smoke and say how wonderful this is or that is.

If JW wins, I’ll be handing back everything and going on my merry way after 24 years of membership. That’s how bad it has become.

[quote="mac"]

 

I'm sad for you and for all others for whom the SNU is an important part of their lives.  It's not for me though but Spiritualism IS and that's why I have been coming here to write on Spiritualism Link (and many other websites) for quite a few years.

I understand that position, but if you are a member of the SNU exercise your democratic right to vote and do what you feel is best for Spiritualism. As a member of the SNU the SNU is representing Spiritualism in your name.

So if spiritualism means a lot to you, you can’t turn your back on the election because to do so will mean you’re allowing spiritualism to be represented in a way you don’t agree with. The alternative may be as bad, but if it’s not as bad that’s surely better than the current state of things.

I understand that position, but if you are a member of the SNU exercise your democratic right to vote and do what you feel is best for Spiritualism. As a member of the SNU the SNU is representing Spiritualism in your name.

Now you are plain wrong. Democracy means I can choose - nobody can dictate what I must do with my vote. Add to that the SNU does not represent Spiritualism in my name any more than you do. I have walked my own path for four decades and I DID NOT become a member by choice because of what membership entailed. Only later, much later, did I learn that Independent Member status was possible so I joined. But even then a certain president made the mistake of trying to tell me I couldn't be a Spiritualist unless I had affiliation to a Spiritualist church - that's after I'd been promoting and representing Modern Spiritualism for well over 30 years. Not the SNU..... I defended myself somewhat vigourously over that - NOBODY tells me I'm not a Spiritualist or what I should or must be or do.

So if spiritualism means a lot to you, you can’t turn your back on the election because to do so will mean you’re allowing spiritualism to be represented in a way you don’t agree with.

I think I made my position absolutely clear in the paragraph above. You don't get to tell me what I can or can't do any more than a certain president did a few years back. I will continue to serve the spirit in the way I've been doing for 40 years. I didn't need, and wouldn't allow, the SNU to represent me then and it doesn't do now.

The alternative may be as bad, but if it’s not as bad that’s surely better than the current state of things.

You should do what you feel is right for you and we'll see what happens. To repeat myself you need to persuade many others and I'm not seeing many others here on Spiritualism Link.

That will be my final contribution to this conversation.  What I write about next will be about the spirit and how we incarnates are affected by spiritual issues.  

There has been precious little in this conversation that was spiritual.