[Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
Starchild
sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Sat Feb 18 22:42:28 EST 2017
I don't think alternates can formally make motions Ken, but the distinction is minimal; you or anyone with access to this list can post proposed language for a motion, and any libertarian reading this and not able to post to the LNC list who has ideas for a motion can send them to me, and I will post them here.
But what do you all think of Arvin's suggestion? I think he makes a good point about links to our personal websites not doing much to draw traffic to LP.org, which imho ought to be one of the goals here. Not that I have a problem with links to outside sites – I continue to feel that we should link more movement sites like Libertarian Republic on the liberty links page (https://www.lp.org/liberty-links/), and don't see anything wrong with Ken's proposal, as far as it goes, though I agree that an LNC member having a personal link on LP.org to a site in which they had a financial interest would be questionable. However it does little to address the bullet points I raised in my previous message below.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
(415) 625-FREE
@StarchildSF
On Feb 18, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Ken Moellman wrote:
> Yes. Dr. Ruwart did post blogs in the past. As did Wayne Root, and others. The problem, of course, is that when a member posts a blog entry on LP.org, they're creating confusion for the public as to who that person is speaking for -- the individual or the party? Will APRC really say no to a fellow LNC member?
>
> Anyway, my compromise idea was come upon to meet several goals, including keeping the site cleaner and on-point while also allowing LNC members to have a way to have their personal opinion easily found.
>
> If I remember correctly, I can make a motion, but it doesn't count toward the number of sponsors. Also, it doesn't look like many people support the idea. So to keep things clean, I'm not going to make such a motion unless more members want the compromise proposal.
>
> ken
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> So much this.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 9:52 AM Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Having LNC blogging on LP.org, subject to APRC review, is a good idea.
>
> First, we already have people producing content on facebook, personal blogs, etc. While what goes out on facebook sometimes tends to be more incendiary, there is also plenty of content that is toned down and entirely appropriate for the website.
>
> More importantly, it draws people to LP.org, where they can then learn how to volunteer, run for office, donate, etc. That part is the more important part. LP.org should be exciting, not tedious. People should want to go there to see what's new.
>
> I would generally oppose personal website linkage from LP.org. That doesn't bring people to LP.org site, but rather just advertises our own personal web pages. I don't think it is at all appropriate for LP.org to be used in that way. As a simple example, if Austin Petersen were on the LNC, would it be considered above board to link to The Libertarian Republic, his ad-supported news page?
>
> It also robs Lp.org of all viral marketing. Under this suggestion, if a post goes viral, it will just send people to the LNC member's personal webpage. If content is hosted at LP.org, viral posts will bring people back to Lp.org.
>
> In terms of staff response: I believe this may be underestimating our staff. Staff in the past has been very quick to oppose phrasing that they consider problematic, or facebook memes they consider problematic, etc. Staff members have been perfectly open with suggested rewrites of my materials, or of the writing put out by the Chair.
>
> I recommend we take steps roughly like this:
>
> 1. Do a 2 month test run with a few LNC volunteers, ideally those who have some kind of measurable track record.
>
> 2. Maintain APRC oversight on blog content, as is done now with blog content.
>
> 3. At the end of the trial period, revisit the issue.
>
> Note that similar things have been done successfully in the past. Dr. Ruwart and others posted things at lp.org, and the long term virality of those posts kept bringing people back to lp.org.
>
> Let's make LP.org an exciting destination. The potential gains are huge, and the risk is minor.
>
> -Arvin
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:35 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
> Ken, if you offer your compromise in a motion, I will co-sponsor.
>
>
>
> I am excited about this opportunity!
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention
>
>
>
> Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
>
>
> From: David Demarest [mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:31 AM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Cc: 'Ken Moellman' <ken.moellman at lpky.org>; 'David Demarest' <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>; dprattdemarest at gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>
>
>
> I like Ken’s suggestion for a "Personal Website link under the image of each LNC member who wishes it”. His proposal is an excellent compromise and very practical starting point.
>
>
>
> Ken’s approach would not only simplify the APRC task of keeping the LNC collaborative message on point. It would also achieve Starchild’s purpose of encouraging individual LNC members to speak their mind in a setting that that gives them the freedom to express their individual Libertarian perspective without the imperative to regurgitate the necessarily cleansed official collaborative LNC message.
>
> The text of our individual links under our LNC page images could say “Dear Starchild”, “Dear Ken”, “Dear Caryn Ann”, “Dear Joshua”, “Dear Daniel”, “Dear David”, et cetera. LOL – that would likely draw some traffic and enhance the official collaborative LNC message while maintaining the Libertarian spirit of individual voices of freedom!
>
>
>
> Ken, what a great compromise!
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention
>
>
>
> Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
>
>
> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Starchild
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:30 AM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Cc: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>
>
>
>
>
> The point of having a more interactive website, with more blogging and ability for site visitors to post comments, isn't only to help people find out more about who we as LNC members are, although that would be one benefit. Other positives would likely include:
>
>
>
>
>
> • Drawing more traffic to our website, thereby raising it in search rankings, and making more people more likely to discover it, resulting in more inquiries, memberships, donations, etc.
>
>
>
> • Giving the LP the bandwidth to publicly address topical issues with greater frequency than we do now, and increasing the likelihood of media coverage of our statements
>
>
>
> • Making the party more participatory and bottom-up by decentralizing power a bit and giving members more of a soapbox than they are currently allowed to have
>
>
>
> • Reinvigorating the party and making LP News and LP.org more interesting to read by having more Libertarian voices and less institutionalism and sterility, as per David and Caryn Ann's comments below
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 15, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
>
>
> A personal website is even more problematic... would rather things be vetted by APRC
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'd like to propose a compromise.
>
>
>
> How about, on the LNC members page, we put a "Personal Website" link under the image of each LNC member who wishes it. In that scenario, it keeps the primary LP.org "clean" or on-point, but also allows us to each, individually, allow people find out more about who we are.
>
>
>
> That will prevent the APRC issues with approving content. That will prevent fights over content on our party's website.
>
>
>
> Just a thought.
>
> ken
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
> On 2017-02-15 19:47, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> I think this is better discussed in person, but I am generally in favour. Frankly what comes out sometimes has been sanitized to death and we have become a bit sterile, and not the vibrant passion-filed wildfire to liberty I see in our historical documents. This isn't meant as a criticism, it is I think natural. And I think we have to consciously go back to the vanguard voice.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This topic came up, if I recall correctly, early last term. When first suggested, it made perfect sense to me - how can we, the board, delegate the authority to do these things without having it? I lost interest as the direction of the discussion turned towards wanting a uniformity of message or tone, which pointed out to me some of the practical difficulties with implementation.
>
>
>
> While Mr. Demarest is correct that, philosophically, it is nonsensical to speak of organizations as having a voice, it isn't meant as a philosophical claim, but rather as a description of how (some) organizations present themselves. I want to ensure that everything that comes out from this party, with our stamp of approval, is true, professional, on-message, and strategic. We pay staff to do that (although they could do it better with some advance strategic and image guidance from the board). Starchild speaks of anything written by board members passing through the APRC, which does solve the objection that, as I said separately, our position vis a vis the party is as members of the board, not as individuals - would it also be evaluated by staff for the things I mentioned, and possibly edited? If so, will it be signed when it comes out?
>
>
>
> If it is, I find that problematic. Staff might not be in a great position to say that a piece is not useful/timely/etc. to a person who votes on their contract and pay. EPCC and EC members might be viewed differently in this regard, as well. If not, well, we've made staff's job of presenting this party to the world a little harder by providing another channel outwards from the party, and it's not clear to me exactly what we'd be getting in return. Yes, many of us may well have things worth saying, and many of us do say them, in our personal capacity. Do we really have such indispensible insights that they must be distributed by the party itself? (If we do think that, well, feel free to organize a giveaway of my book.) Personally, I am satisfied with staff and our chair being our public voice. Certainly, of course, board members often make media appearances and identify ourselves with our board position, speak at various events, and so on, and I think that's all well and good, but, again, we're not speaking as the party when we do that. At this point, it is hard for me to see what is gained from this proposal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:24 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
> Starchild: Your suggestion certainly opens a can of worms. However, it is a can that must be opened if we are to effectively embrace our ideological and methodological diversity and connect effectively with the broader audience within and external to the Libertarian Party. Your blogging brainstorm presents an exciting challenge and long-overdue opportunity to develop and refine our personal Libertarian messaging technique and targeting strategies.
>
>
>
> We need to keep in mind that individual living, breathing Libertarians are the voices of our institutions, not vice versa. The notion that inanimate institutions have a "voice" is philosophical nonsense and a classic example of authoritarian groupthink that we Libertarians are or should be fighting against.
>
>
>
> There are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Nevertheless, individual Libertarians each have inspirational message worthy of an equally remarkable messaging technique and targeting strategy. It is high time to develop innovative individual messaging technique and targeting strategies so we can effectively communicate our inspirational personal Libertarian messages of freedom.
>
>
>
> Daniel: I agree that website integrity takes precedence but should not be used as a delaying tactic to prevent the discussion of the viability of Starchild's ground-breaking blog proposal. While the website is a critical tool, it is only a vehicle to express our individual voices, the core of our Libertarianism.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention
>
>
>
> Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE
>
>
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>
> Cell: 402-981-6469
>
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
>
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
>
>
> Are you volunteering to be in charge of rebuttals when somebody says later, "Why didn't you propose that change when the website was being overhauled, instead of waiting until now that we finally have everything running smoothly!"?
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
> @StarchildSF
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>
>
>
> > Starchild,
>
> >
>
> > Absolutely not at the moment. Let's get the website under control first before we even talk about something like that.
>
> >
>
> > Daniel
>
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> >> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Thanks, guys! I'll have to keep that in mind if I get really hard up... Not that I'm convinced there's a great market for my advice; here on the LNC, it's hard to even give it away sometimes, LOL. ;-)
>
> >>
>
> >> Regarding columns however, I do think LNC members being able to blog on our website along with staff (of course what we write could likewise be vetted by the Advertising & Publications Review Committee), with LP members allowed to comment on those blog posts, would be a good idea that could draw more traffic to our site, spur greater member participation/engagement, and help spread the libertarian message. Perhaps each LNC member could also have the option to publish an occasional column in LP News, like the chair's column that appears every issue, but less frequently. Anyone else interested in a motion on either or both of these ideas?
>
> >>
>
> >> Love & Liberty,
>
> >> ((( starchild ))) At-Large
>
> >> Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> >> (415) 625-FREE
>
> >> @StarchildSF
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> P.S. – For those wondering what David and Daniel were referring to, it was a response I wrote to a very long letter that was recently sent to a number of LNC members (perhaps everyone on the committee, I didn't check). Normally when I receive something that's sent to more than two or three LNC members, I will respond and post my response to this list along with the original letter, however I didn't initially do that in this case, because the letter had basically nothing to do with the Libertarian Party and I suspected people would generally not want to read it. When replying, in fact, I "bcc'd" my LNC colleagues, which I normally don't do, lest she hit "reply all" and send us all additional correspondence. Since it's now been discussed (indirectly) on the list however, I've posted the correspondence at bottom for the sake of transparency – and also in case anyone else reading would like to write back to her with any words of encouragement or other things that I should have said in my reply, but didn't.
>
> >>
>
> >> To put it gently, the writer appears to be experiencing "consensus reality" a bit differently than most of us. But her final line (for those who managed to read that far), also suggested possible suicidal tendencies, which made me feel I should try to provide more than a cursory response. (I haven't heard anything back, although it's only been a couple days.) She did write to us for help, and she does have concerns about government – although I think they may be less well-founded than the usual concerns that libertarians have about government! Not that her letter contains any particular indication that she is a libertarian, just someone who sounds like she could use some help.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:19 AM, David Demarest wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Starchild,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I second Daniel's motion. Seriously, what a great idea! The next
>
> >>> challenge will be to find a media outlet worthy of a 'Dear
>
> >>> Starchild' column. Let's tackle that challenge head-on.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Thoughts?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> ~David
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Oct 20-22 2017 Omaha Libertarian Strategy Un-Convention
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE
>
> >>>
>
> >>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> >>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) Secretary,
>
> >>> LPNE State Central Committee
>
> >>> Cell: 402-981-6469
>
> >>> Home: 402-493-0873
>
> >>>
>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
>
> >>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf
>
> >>> Of Daniel Hayes
>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 12:06 AM
>
> >>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> >>> Subject: [Lnc-business] Dear Starchild
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Starchild,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> You should get a "Dear Starchild" column in one of the remaining
>
> >>> print newspapers around the country. Take this comment entirely at face value .
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Daniel
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
>
> >>> _______________________________________________
>
> >>> Lnc-business mailing list
>
> >>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2017, at 7:39 PM, Julie Nguyen wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Every day it becomes more lawless. The government became stealer
>
> >>>> and robber. Before they had stolen some valueless things like brand
>
> >>>> new camera, brand new bed cover sheet set and other secondhand
>
> >>>> things. Now I lost three thousand dollars cash. They cannot cheat
>
> >>>> me to rob my money anymore, now they rob my money in other way. I
>
> >>>> may lose more money and my jewelery. Please stop them. Please help
>
> >>>> me to find a civil right attorney who dares to bring this evil to
>
> >>>> light. I want to do something to stop this dirty game.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I have been harassed, abused, hurt by the government for long time.
>
> >>>> They are pushing me to do and live the way they want. I don't do
>
> >>>> and will never accept it, so they block all ways of my life. I
>
> >>>> cannot find justice, no laws support me, all my rights have been
>
> >>>> trampled. All people can hurt me, cheat me, insult me and they are
>
> >>>> not punished by laws, they are all safe under the government
>
> >>>> protection. The harassment keeps increasing with time, now my life
>
> >>>> is completely deadlock.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> First, all people I knew such as neighbors, acquaintances... hinted
>
> >>>> me to join some groups of Vietnamese community; contact the family
>
> >>>> in Vietnam; sponsor some people from Vietnam to the US...; they
>
> >>>> directed me to get along with more other people of Asian races:
>
> >>>> Chinese, Japanese, Indian...; they had an attitude of superiority to
>
> >>>> my life, my personal
>
> >>>> things: the clothes I wore, the money I spent, the time I used...;
>
> >>>> they questioned me why I did this, why I did not do that... I ignored
>
> >>>> and stopped contact them. From then on I had trouble everywhere, at
>
> >>>> home, at any business services, at public places... I had to wait for
>
> >>>> long time at any business services, and the jobs were not done
>
> >>>> well, redid again and again. So I must see people longer and hear what they said.
>
> >>>> They set the scene that I must see and have contact with Asian
>
> >>>> people at any fields and must do what they hinted. If I did not
>
> >>>> come to the right places or the right persons, I had no business
>
> >>>> services. If I did not do what they hinted, the harassment would increase.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I don't care about politics. It is not my business if the
>
> >>>> government wants to support Asian people to have place in the
>
> >>>> system. But they have no rights to force me to follow their way. I
>
> >>>> will provide the main information for over ten years from the
>
> >>>> beginning to present, from low to high level of harassment.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> In 2003, I lived in the condominium at 4300 NE, Sunset Blvd F8,
>
> >>>> Renton, Washington 98059. I have been bothered by anonymous phone
>
> >>>> calls, day and night, every day, just asking some certain names or
>
> >>>> impolite talk. I tracked their phone numbers by using the local
>
> >>>> telephone company service, but I could not know what they were and
>
> >>>> filed a complaint to the Renton police department. They did not
>
> >>>> take any actions, and the problem still continued. I called the
>
> >>>> police few times later to request their help. They did not say or
>
> >>>> do anything, but the phone harassment was ended. I found out from
>
> >>>> the police that one phone call was from a Vietnamese man who was my
>
> >>>> insurance agent, and he moved to California few months later.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Next, a Vietnamese neighbor in unit F1 which was behind the wall of
>
> >>>> my bedroom. He bothered me by loud noise, and tried to get my
>
> >>>> attention by doing car wash in my parking lot, standing in front of
>
> >>>> me... Some strange cars often parked in my parking lot when I got
>
> >>>> home late in the evening. They installed a device furtively into
>
> >>>> the smoke alarm in my bedroom. It sounded a big noise every two
>
> >>>> seconds. They did spot jamming on some TV channel. It was a start
>
> >>>> time people let me wait long time at some business services at some locations.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> One day the food waste disposer did not work. I called many people
>
> >>>> to fix it, but all of them refused to do. Later I asked the right
>
> >>>> man that they wanted him to do for me, he came quickly.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> At the same time, I began to receive a lot of junk mails for the
>
> >>>> receiver's name Phong Nguyen. I had lived at this address for
>
> >>>> several years before, and had never had any correspondence with
>
> >>>> that name, and nobody in my home had that name either. It was a
>
> >>>> huge amount of junk mails every day to the day I moved out.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> In January 2005 I moved to the new house at 2407 Camas Ave NE,
>
> >>>> Renton, Washington 98056. The builder, Crescent Home, intended to
>
> >>>> make a lot of mistakes. The tiles were not placed correctly, the
>
> >>>> sink leaked water, and the nails came out on some areas under the
>
> >>>> carpet. It was really painful if someone accidentally stepped on.
>
> >>>> The builder did not want to fix the mistakes until I wanted to take
>
> >>>> the problem to the third party.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> At this house on the Camas Ave., I continued to receive junk mails
>
> >>>> for the receiver's name Phong Nguyen with my new address on the
>
> >>>> junk mails. One day, I received a cell phone bill from Sprint
>
> >>>> Company for Phong Nguyen at my new address on it. I called the Sprint Company.
>
> >>>> People did not want to talk to me, they let me wait for long time
>
> >>>> then disconnected the line. I had to call many times until they
>
> >>>> talked to me. I warned them that nobody in this house knew Phong
>
> >>>> Nguyen, if I still received the bill for Phong Nguyen at my
>
> >>>> address, I would file a complaint to the District Attorney. After
>
> >>>> that they stopped the mail harassment.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Cheating and delaying had been increased to new level.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> The technician from ADT monitor security protection did not come to
>
> >>>> install the system. At the end of the day we had to call them to
>
> >>>> reschedule to another day while they requested us had to be home at
>
> >>>> that time, if not, we had to pay for that fault. Then the
>
> >>>> technician did not do a good job, redid again.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Other business services did the same.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> At this new address. The Vietnamese man next door bothered me
>
> >>>> terribly. Besides making noise he always stayed before me to do
>
> >>>> provocative actions every time I came out. To avoid having trouble
>
> >>>> with the neighbor, I moved to another place after less than two
>
> >>>> years living there.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I moved to the new house at 4005 NE 21st Street, Renton, Washington
>
> >>>> 98056 in October 2006. The builder, American Classic, did the same
>
> >>>> like the other builder: The sink leaked water, the power system did
>
> >>>> not work well... The technician kept coming back many times, and the
>
> >>>> mistakes still remained to the day I moved out.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> At this location, after installing the alarm system in the house,
>
> >>>> the Pinnacle Security technician told me that I had to call the
>
> >>>> Indian guy's cell phone one a month, so he would come to check the
>
> >>>> system, it was a requirement (there were two guys at that time). I
>
> >>>> canceled the service immediately, and the main device immediately
>
> >>>> sounded noisily, a big noise every two seconds even I had taken it
>
> >>>> off the wall and thrown out of the house.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> The Asian neighbors in the front and in the back of the house did
>
> >>>> the same like the other neighbors. They tried to catch me every
>
> >>>> time I came out to get my attention on them.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> They installed some devices furtively again into each smoke alarm
>
> >>>> in the house. They sounded a big noise every two seconds. I had to
>
> >>>> disconnect the power line to all of them.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> · A & E Factory Service – North West Service District: 4786
>
> >>>> First Ave. S, Seattle, Washington 98134; phone: 800-905-9505
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> After two years living on the 21st Street, they damaged the
>
> >>>> dishwasher when nobody was home. I called A & E Factory Service
>
> >>>> many times, and fought with people on the phone because it costed
>
> >>>> my money and time, but the dishwasher never got done. Their
>
> >>>> technician came to my house many times, they pretended to repair
>
> >>>> it, after they left the dishwasher remained not working. Each time
>
> >>>> I called, they gave appointment after five days or over. One time,
>
> >>>> just a few minutes after the technician left, the dishwasher got
>
> >>>> fire. I had to call the fire department. It was repaired a year
>
> >>>> later after I had sent out all of the harassment to a lot of people.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> They kept damaging something in the house after the other things
>
> >>>> had been fixed, so if something was not a major part, I had to bear
>
> >>>> with it.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> · Qwest Services: Home telephone, cell phone, internet,
>
> >>>> digital TV (Direct TV): P.O. Box 2678, Omaha, NE 68103; phone:
>
> >>>> 800-244-1111
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> *Home telephone: After I had moved into the new house on the
>
> >>>> 21st Street for few months, the home telephone line did not work. I
>
> >>>> had to pay for the technician of Qwest to come in to fix it. From
>
> >>>> then on the phone line was controlled. If I called law offices, the
>
> >>>> American Civil Liberties Union or other people to get legal help,
>
> >>>> the phone line was very noisy, or I could not hear people who were
>
> >>>> on the phone line with me.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> *Internet: It could stop working at any time, especially when
>
> >>>> I searched for legal service. One time I had to call the Qwest
>
> >>>> Internet
>
> >>>> 24 Hours Service for the whole night because they hung up or did
>
> >>>> not answer the phone.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> *Cell phone: Qwest and Verizon Wireless cheated me by informed
>
> >>>> me that Qwest and Verizon Wireless worked together, I could renew
>
> >>>> the contract either with Qwest or Verizon Wireless, and the fee
>
> >>>> would be the same. I renewed with Verizon Wireless, then the fee
>
> >>>> was higher than it had been. I canceled the service and agreed to
>
> >>>> pay one hundred seventy five dollars for early end contracted, but
>
> >>>> again the amount was higher than that. I did not pay, and they put
>
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170218/e4936991/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list