Many heretical texts were not preserved though it's more likely they were simply copied less due to being less popular. What's known of them is preserved in the church fathers discussing them and arguing against them. But aside from the fact there's no positive evidence that heretical texts were deliberately destroyed, the fact that the church fathers quote them and make arguments against them in surviving documents shows there's was no campaign to eradicate discussion of them nor hide the fact that they ever existed.
Which is what makes it even less likely that there was some great debate over what the text of, say, Matthews gospel was that was then settled and somehow covered up. There's no evidence that this took place at all.
The original author of (for example) Mathew was not the apostle Matthew, it was written somewhere around 80-100. But the fact that a single version was widespread in the second century and even churches far apart are quoting the same version and evidence for any debate of its content is lacking that shows the text is most likely stable from very shortly after it was written. The same goes for the other gospels, Paul's undisputed letters and most other NT texts.
"Heresies" were entire other books, not different versions of the canonical texts. There were examples of short forms of gospels being used (Marcion's Luke) but not entire alternate versions.
The simplest explanation for this is that gospels were produced by a sponsoring church (in Matthews case, Antioch) and then accepted by other churches and rapidly copied widely. There is no evidence later churches substantially rewrote it and some sort of battle ensued.
We know from how church fathers talked about other disagreements that there would have been no issue preserving such a dispute had it happened.
Bit of an urban legend apparently. Despite the gulf stream transporting warm water it is nowhere near enough to explain the difference. Richard Seager et al quantitatively put its contribution at around 30% of the difference. The bulk cause is actually air currents and the different topography between Europe and N America. In other words, if there were no gulf stream the 'warm Europe' phenomena would still be very much noticeable.
Because no matter what proportion of the population they are, many many businesses are kept afloat by discretionary spending. Be that TVs, laptops, clothing, grooming, beauty products, heath+fitness, cars, holidays, tourism, travel, even house moves.
These are all things that can be 'put off a little while' if there's serious prospect of your money going further. Which, as OP says, slows the economy and makes deflation worse.. The thing that suffers in the meantime is cash flow in these businesses (and dependent businesses) and an extended period of slow trade with no prospect of it ending would see many of them go to the wall. See: covid. Had governments not acted it would have naturally led to deflation. That's not the reason they acted though, they pumped money into the economy because long before deflation/inflation would have been a worry bankruptcy would have cut deep into thousands of regular 'good' businesses. (So they over inflated and then we had globally crap price inflation but still the risk of an economy wide shut down was that bad..)
Your use of punctuation reminds people of when they've seen posts by 11-14 year olds. Do you not notice that adults in general don't do that?
I expect if you're unaware of something like that so immediately apparent to everyone in this thread that you may have other quirks and behaviours that strike people as childish.
If you sincerely want to change that you're going to need to ask the frank opinion of someone who knows you in person..
DOSgames/