[Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns

[Steven Nekhaila]

While having external links is a nice idea, and would benefit people like
me who run a blog, it is not representative of the LP as an organization
and should not be permitted. Personal blogs are strictly personal, and if
someone wants to have one that is fine, but all blog posts connected to
LP.org or the Libertarian Party, or endorsed by the LP, should be vetted
for quality by the APRC. Not to mention, that would just drive traffic to
personal blogs rather than LP.org which defeats the purpose. If anything,
we should just allow our staff, representatives and members to contribute
to the official blog.

In Liberty,

Steven Nekhaila

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:

> I'm pretty indifferent on this, but to provide a bit of clarity I want to
> note that websites are not places where interactions occur these days.
>
> Yes, you need to have a website. Yes, it should contain good information
> and should be pleasing to use.  But typically websites are for research --
> when's the next meeting, how can I donate, etc.  Most interaction happens
> on social media now.  So what we're really doing is linking blog entries
> posted on LP.org to social media.  This can have various effects.
>
> If someone writes something controversial, it could become a viral link
> that boosts hits to that specific entry, but not to anything else on the
> website.  That boosts our hits, which is nice for metrics, but how many are
> looking at anything else on the site?  We should try to measure that, if we
> go forward with this plan.
>
> We do have a "hit limit", after which we get charged extra for hits. Now,
> if we're getting hits that turn into memberships or donations, that's
> awesome and we don't care about the hit limit. But if these hits are just
> "garbage" hits, then that's not so awesome.
>
> And there's always the "remorse" factor. Does anyone here want Root's old
> blog entries out there?  It's not even about the content, but that he went
> turncoat and for Trump. That sends a bad signal to external people, I
> believe.  The upside of using externally-linked sites is that if someone
> turns traitor, we just take the link off the website and we're done (and
> thus the reasoning behind my compromise proposal).
>
> Just things to think about.
>
> ken
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 9:18 AM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
>> Like Starchild and Caryn Ann, I agree with Arvin’s line of reasoning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, what do we need to do to make it happen? If it requires a motion, I
>> will co-sponsor.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>
>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Starchild
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:42 PM
>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] LNC blogging / LP News columns
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             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 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>
>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>
>>
>>
>> *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 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>
>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>> <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 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>
>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>
>> >>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> >>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>> <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
>> <(800)%20905-9505>
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> 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 <(800)%20244-1111>
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>>      *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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170220/e3dfb1a8/attachment-0002.html>