What ever one thinks of Farrakhan, I can't see how the words he spoke fit with the headline "Nygard faces the wrath of Farrakhan".

Is it possible that you view the presentation with a particular bias?

The context of the presentation is not about rulership but relationship and responsibilities. Most of the best CEOs in the world never give an order, yet they are the head of their company. It is their job to be responsible for and encourage/challenge the organization they lead to develop and succeed. Not force it to. But they are the ones who have to answer to their Boards/Shareholders. Submit is a cuss word to todays woman even though in biblical terms it simply means to respect. It has nothing to do with "value" but everything to do with "roles". You go on your job and submit to your supervisor who has been given responsibility for you but you do not think that it is proper to submit to your husband who is given responsibility for you and your family IF (big word) he is in submission to God himself. Neither of these is suppose to be unconditional submission. They are both conditional on the appointed person acting in accordance with the laws and principles of the organization they are apart of. If you don't understand the principles God expects the husband to operate under I can understand why you may reject the idea of him (or anyone else) being your leader. I don't hear anyone complaining about the role called "mother" that God appointed to women. We all accept it as appropriate. No man feels less equal because he is not apointed to the role of mother by God.

Additionally, there is nothing in God's word "that creates a foundation and justification for the abuse of women throughout the world". God is all about unconditional love (agape). He challenges us to love (agape) our neighbours (especially our wives, even to die for them). His word says that if we do that we will have fulfilled all His laws for love (agape) can not create harm.

I respectively suggest that the individual statements you highlight should be read in the context of the entire message and not as messages of the own and not from the perspective that they make women less equal.

It is unfortunate that Mr Basden can't or will not see that he is letting an existing rate structure dictate his future policy.

If the rate structure were modified to include a fixed charge for being connected to the grid (all consumers would pay the same charge to cover the cost of T&D) and a variable charge for usage (to cover actual consumption) a net metering system would work very well. It is the system used by companies like Emera (Nova Scotia).

Generation and T&D function on two different performance basis and should be treated differently. Asking a consumer to pay a variable rate for use of static T&D assets is ludicrist.

Also, rebating a consumer for fuel avoidance only when the consumer's own generation has provided capital expansion and replacement maintenance avoidance for BEC in addition to reducing the demand and thus the capacity required to be sitting idle (on standby) is unjustified.

A better understanding of BEC's cost structure may lead to a better rate structure and thus a more mutually beneficial policy for renewables that wish to tie to the grid.

Is the turnover claim audited? Are we making strategic decisions based on unsubstantiated data? If we are to provide an exemption, should we not at least provide a mechanism going forward to verify?

GBPA Ltd loses money and is subsidized by its sister companies because it is executing the responsibilities of one of its sister companies (Freeport Commercial Industrial) and because its sister companies (Port Group Ltd and its subsiduary and joint venture companies) only pay a nominal license fees. It is not losing money because of market conditions but because of management decisions. This is self inflicted.