[Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

David-

Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but
bravo! Well spoken!).  Our Platform speaks on some things clearly.  Let me
name one that I disagree with- abortion.  But it speaks clearly so I NEVER
give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice.  Yet on so many
issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no
force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name
others including anti-war in anything but strict defense).  We shy away
particularly here.  In that instance I agree that we should be saying those
core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the
"Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion).
But tone?  Other people are going to use their tone.  We are not Stepford
Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of
tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person
for us is pure unadulterated fantasy.  Great for campaign sloganeering and
propo but not in practice.

*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign
materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about
policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said
candidacy.*  or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that
way on this list.

Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and
dried.  And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a
unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini
or no state.  They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the
divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone
here or any comment here)

Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our
actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars
of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there
will be diversity in how that is done.

Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored
again particularly in social media targeting.

But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to
assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every
time.  It won't work and it's bad.

Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and
fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and
the Platform which is up to the delegates.

We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for
gun control.  We don't.  It should be clear that is the Party position.  We
should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.

We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others.
But within that there are different paths and ideas.  But we have NOT been
as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and
self ownership.

But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit
opportunistic to a preexisting agenda.  Let's not be like the other parties
in that.

Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal
posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.

-Caryn Ann


On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented
> people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less
> government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many
> Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose
> alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details.
> Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all
> of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG
> is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made
> of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The
> notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message
> is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of
> individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not
> possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or
> would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot
> and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would
> attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism
> that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
>
>
>
> I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of
> our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a
> consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such
> as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and
> token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as
> part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
>
>
>
> Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that
> diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower
> ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse
> individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of
> us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy
> open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content
> details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages
> of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate
> elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and
> breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use
> of force.
>
>
>
> I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink
> and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our
> inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip
> side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required
> for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of
> consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual
> Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up
> volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected
> officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message
> content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate,
> we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their
> arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get
> us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of
> inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process
> of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the
> groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the
> business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
>
>
>
> Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do
> to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists
> and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage
> our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> ~David
>
>
>
> *Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>
>
>
> ~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 *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
>
>
>
> If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying
> word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is
> absolutely correct.
>
>
>
> He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate
> newcomers to our actual positions.
>
>
>
> Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have.  And it goes way beyond tone
> issues of an individual member on a personal way.
>
>
>
> Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core
> principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that
> is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights,
> no siezing of resources without consent.
>
>
>
> We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles
> says and the Platform is derived theherefrom.  I have Libertarians shocked
> we oppose ALL eminent domain.  Because we often deliver less than that in
> messaging.
>
>
>
> Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin
> that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to
> avoid the point of what he is saying.
>
>
>
> We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions
> and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare
> etc.  but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting
> there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step
> our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
>
>
>
> That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
>
>
>
> To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this
> discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when
> the special election is over next week and not sooner.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> Arvin,
>
>
>
> So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
>
>
>
> What kind of steward of our donors money are you.  You just voted to give
> $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which
> way is it? Where are your morals?
>
>
>
> The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE.  Leave our Statement of
> Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank.  Danny Bedwell can tell you I have
> been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014.  He
> kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me
> what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with
> ya Danny!"
>
>
>
> I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards
> to telling other people how they MUST think.
>
>
>
> So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the
> growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting
> than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the
> segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
>
>
>
> Once again, your words don't match your recent actions.  Why would you
> give money to a candidate you thought was weak?  Is it because its mostly
> other people's money?
>
>
>
> Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive
> of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together
> on to protect and restore our Liberty?
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Hayes
>
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All -
>
>
>
> During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions,
> interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its
> current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and
> so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
>
>
>
> We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all
> government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the
> fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better
> than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and
> also tax funded education subsidies.
>
>
>
> But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging
> is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I
> hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican
> Weak.
>
>
>
> In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our
> platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of
> healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
>
>
>
> It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party
> numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word
> Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But
> the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what
> Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down
> message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they
> understand the specific policy implications.
>
>
>
> In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the
> anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are
> Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who
> worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo
> state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who
> actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the
> simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues,
> and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
>
>
>
> I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear
> arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about
> eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise
> most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and
> social security.
>
>
>
> This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did
> a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored
> all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at
> 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
>
>
>
> This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the
> education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new
> people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop
> lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate
> level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love
> of god phrase them somehow.
>
>
>
> Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a
> trendy word" party.
>
>
>
> If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be
> welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
>
>
>
> -Arvin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have changed my mind and decided now is the appropriate time to address
> what I did not agree with.
>
>
>
> Over the past year I have seen attempt after attempt to "control" our
> messaging (whatever the heck that even means now) and each time it is
> defeated. And now, this is being used as a wedge to do it again when
> contained even within this post is the admission *that it is not the
> Party message here that anyone is objecting to.*  Why is this being used
> to re-hash this yet again?
>
>
>
> For instance, Joshua points out that *unlike Larry and I* he doesn't
> agree with the underlying message. Interesting.  So which of us will be *controlled
> then?*  Are we just taking about delivery?  A need to be more
> empathetic?  Tightly controlled empathy then?  Also interesting. * Because
> that wasn't the issue in the other arguments.  For the record, I agree with
> empathatic delivery, and I agree, that we are selling a product - and we
> need good marketing - and that will include professional advice and
> assistance.*  But see here, there isn't even an agreement on what the
> underlying message is - since Joshua disagrees with what others of us have
> said.  So what will be controlled?  And this has to do this situation
> exactly *how?*
>
>
>
> == It is our job, to agree with Mr. Somes, to construct a message so
> good, so coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud that no one: board
> member, candidate, or member, can be taken to speak for the party if they
> contradict that messaging or its tone. ==
>
>
>
> *Our message is already good and coherent and it is the Statement of
> Principles and the potentially transitional steps derived therein in our
> Platform.*  And we don't have the right to "change" it.
>
>
>
> And we have been the most clear over the past year about our immigration
> stance, but that hasn't stopped controversies erupting over nationalism and
> other situations here that everyone is well aware of and doesn't need to be
> mentioned.
>
>
>
> Which then leaves just the tone.  But it isn't just the tone that Joshua
> disagreed with.  And how in the world will our tone change what others do?
>    We are not the dog. We are the tail.  The affiliates are the dog, and
> the affiliates are our primary messengers. To think we are going to
> "control" that from on high is foolhardy.   A great deal of them already
> refuse to use the chicken on a stick because they don't even appreciate our
> attempt to unify branding.   Or we can expect more nuclear flaming middle
> fingers from affiliates who do not appreciate being tone-policed or
> otherwise "controlled" by the LNC.  And I find it utopian (ironically) to
> think that we can magically be "so good, so coherent" so consistent, and
> broadcast so loud" that no one will ever be taken to speak otherwise.  For
> instance, our presidential candidates often contradict key positions.
> Other candidates do too.  Are they included in the "nobody"?  Or take the
> very different personalities and tones of the contenders last run.. we are
> going to control that too?  So a candidate that some thought was too
> boorish would never be taken to speak for the party?  This is the stuff of
> dreams, not reality.  It makes for good sloganeering not for accurate
> depictions of reality.
>
>
>
> While I think we need to - as David Demarest as said - get some good
> professional assistance in targeted marking, none of that really has to do
> with this situation and none of that will make a message "so good, so
> coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud" that NO ONE will ever be
> taken to speak for us.  Heck, on the fundamental question of anarchism v
> minarchism (yes let's get one of the elephants in the room out in the open)
> - this will control that?  In violation of the Statement of Principles
> changes which take no position on the issue?  The simple fact is that there
> are many ways to libertarian.  And it is utterly impossible to "control"
> that nor should desire for that power.
>
>
>
> This incident has absolutely ZERO to do with this near constant attempt at
> "messaging control" I have seen over the past year, and I am not pleased to
> see it capitalized upon this way.  These were the words of an individual
> member speaking an individual opinion in an individual tone.  A tone I
> disagreed with, and a tone for which that member has apologized (thank you
> for that Arvin).
>
>
>
> I fear this is an example of not letting a good crisis go to waste.   If
> we are removing the appropriateness of action against a personal opinion
> (and I am persuaded by that reasoning and Joshua really helped me there)
> then this has absolutely nothing to do with National Party messaging and it
> is not appropriate to use it as a wedge issue for same.
>
>
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Colleagues:
>
>
>
> Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with
> recent comments of one of our members.  I feel they are politically
> backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can
> bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my
> opinion.  Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these
> comments are "true but embarrassing."  I am not one who believes that we
> need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses.
> I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are
> wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to
> be either true or false.
>
>
>
> I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on
> any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension.  I would
> vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock."
>  Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take
> off our "hats" in public.  That's one reason I strive for a low social
> media profile - that's my personal vision of the position.  But when I
> speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do
> not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
>
>
>
> I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable
> activities carried out within office.  I do not believe it is appropriate
> to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.'  As
> I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some
> exceptions, except as members of this body.  Our power is to vote, not to
> direct things ourselves.  This cuts both ways.  We do not have the power to
> speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power
> by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion.  Lacking that
> power, we cannot do it wrong.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair.  They are elected
> by the delegates.  I resent the implication that a few outspoken members
> should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention.  It is not our
> job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive
> messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
>
>
>
> It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging.
> Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking
> carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution.  It
> is our job, to agree with Mr. Somes, to construct a message so good, so
> coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud that no one: board member,
> candidate, or member, can be taken to speak for the party if they
> contradict that messaging or its tone.  If we believe that one person,
> speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message,
> then shame on us.
>
>
>
> Further, that hasn't happened.  It is primarily our own people who are
> angry.  I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see
> outrage outside Libertarian circles.  It will be objected that this is
> because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were
> larger, we could not afford to be silent.  That may very well be true.  Yet
> the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion,
> should.  Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true
> that our own messaging would be better.  I say let's deal with the meme in
> our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging.  (As an individual, I
> feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
>
>
>
> Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a
> fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of
> others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity?  As
> far as I am aware, there is not.  We are speaking about a person who has,
> in my view, governed well.  We do not always agree, but I always respect
> his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the
> same.  Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well.  The
> vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these
> were carried out badly or incorrectly.  Until I see allegations about those
> (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those
> responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
>
>
>
> In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed
> classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an
> Israeli source.  The travel ban is still working its way through the
> courts.  The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was
> impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying.  Democrats
> and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the
> freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist
> policies.  I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians
> to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and
> other issues.  In addition to rolling back the size and scope of
> government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing
> more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown
> themselves capable of doing.  After all, a more effective government will
> require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government.  The
> government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence.
> So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making
> other political missteps.  I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both
> personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire
> not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right
> and with strong ideals.
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
>
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>
> *We defend your rights*
>
> *And oppose the use of force*
>
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
>
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>
> *We defend your rights*
>
> *And oppose the use of force*
>
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170518/3f3a72e3/attachment-0002.html>