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

David Demarest dprattdemarest at gmail.com
Thu May 18 13:39:54 EDT 2017 

Ken, we shall see what the long term consequences of this incident are and
whether our increased awareness pays dividends. I am optimistic but
regardless, I will support those who make every effort turn this call to
action into a net-positive in the admirable manner that Libertarians are
capable of.

Thoughts?

On May 18, 2017 11:48 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:

> My way of waking people up is strategic in nature, and situational.  When
> addressing a large audience, I generally scale back to a generally accepted
> message.  When one-on-one, I am likely to speak much more specifically to
> particular issues of value to that other individual.
>
> The interesting thing about repulsing people is that no matter what
> happens, you can pretty much never mend the bridge and never reach that
> person or those persons. When it switches from the policy to the personal,
> things like principles and goals get thrown out the window, in favor of
> "Eff that guy."  In fact, repulsion can create (an) activist(s)
> specifically against you, or even your position, because of the emotional
> response.
>
> In trying to come up with a good analogy, I remembered that once upon a
> time, in High School, I was involved in an RPG. In this RPG, the "good
> guys" turned into "bad guys", and upon discovering time travel decided to
> go back in time and convince their "good guys" selves to become "bad guys"
> sooner, so they would become richer in the future. The "good guys" version
> of the past were repulsed by this idea of turning bad, and became firm in
> their resolve to never become "bad guys" (and since time travel was
> involved this created a paradox, but that's not the point right now).
>
> The point is that if you draw a hard line between yourself and someone
> else, it makes it far less likely that you'll convert them to your side of
> the line later.
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Ken, I fully agree that we are all trapped in this huge scam government
>> manipulation system. How did we get there? With the permission of the
>> majority.
>>
>> Due to the timerity of Arvin, are we now more aware of our role in this
>> manipulation system? I certainly am.
>>
>> How do we get ourselves out of this system? We start by becoming more
>> aware of our role. Then we must answer Arvin's challenge by leveraging our
>> increased awareness as an incentive to get on with our Libertarian
>> responsibilities for thoughtful due diligence instead of acting out because
>> Arvin abruptly nudged us out of our comfort zone.
>>
>> Could this internal hubbub cost us in a few elections? Possibly in the
>> very short term but likely the opposite in the long term. More important,
>> those candidates and their supporters who hysterically run for damage
>> control cover at the expense of long term clarity on our principles will
>> set a dubious example with possible unintended consequences in our pursuit
>> of freedom.
>>
>> Ken, thank you for your astute observation that we are all trapped in in
>> a pervasive manipulation system. What are your proposals for eliminating
>> the manipulation system?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> On May 18, 2017 10:36 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>>
>> My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles
>> do come with us.  This is politics.  When you speak, you are speaking on
>> behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even
>> extends beyond our term in a leadership position.
>>
>> There's no such thing as "Off Time".  Should Donald Trump get a pass
>> because "it's his personal Twitter"?  Likewise, when we speak in public, we
>> are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not.  I personally hate it
>> - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never
>> want to be a chair ever again.
>>
>>
>> We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core
>> problem.  Let's review the last 3 blow-ups.
>>
>> Against oligarchy and political dynasties?  Yes!
>> Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group?  Bad idea.
>>
>> Satanic Temple post?  Fine.
>> Satanic Temple post on Easter week?  Bad idea.
>>
>> Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying
>> recruiters? Yes!
>> Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons?
>> Bad idea.
>>
>> It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery.  How an argument is
>> framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone
>> to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp
>> line in the sand.  In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw
>> lines.  We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds
>> and Rs play to galvanize their political bases.  We need to speak in ways
>> that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us.
>>
>> In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame
>> the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system
>> itself.  I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame
>> everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem.  We're all trapped in
>> it.  People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the
>> market is supposed to work.  The problem is that we have a system that
>> gerrymanders choices and manipulates results.  The system of manipulation
>> is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system.
>>
>> I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky.  The
>> big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the
>> targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at
>> that facility.  They don't work there because they love the IRS.  They work
>> there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to
>> support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose
>> to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their
>> family.  I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their
>> families.  I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private
>> sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it
>> impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the
>> standard of living their family currently has.
>>
>> I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with
>> requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else
>> can find me.  I don't want to recall anyone, either.  I'm a Region
>> Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region
>> Chairs.  I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take
>> action in NOLA, not through the LNC.
>>
>>
>> I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the
>> system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it.  We're
>> all trapped inside of it.  Every single one of us.  Some of us are more
>> aware of it than others.  Smacking people in the face by claiming they are
>> heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking
>> their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead,
>> it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us.  And even if
>> the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing
>> people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end.
>>
>>
>> My too-long $0.02.
>> ken
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I certainly agree with that last sentence.  That's why I started this
>>> thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my
>>> position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on
>>> their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so.  I went on to say
>>> how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of
>>> automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the
>>> members writing to us are concerned about.
>>>
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joshua,
>>>>
>>>> You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words.  You initial post spoke
>>>> about content and tone and my comments spoke to that.  I then reiterated
>>>> that I favour professional strategy consultants.
>>>>
>>>> Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign
>>>> committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now
>>>> being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory
>>>> solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson
>>>> campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and
>>>> did once again.
>>>>
>>>> Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a
>>>> range.  How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a
>>>> personal post on a personal page.
>>>>
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us
>>>>> failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it
>>>>> so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from
>>>>> expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has
>>>>> declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it.  Call that bad form if you
>>>>> want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race
>>>>> a year away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which
>>>>> is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to
>>>>> some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant.  It is a
>>>>> position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in
>>>>> 2014.  It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on
>>>>> this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent
>>>>> and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree
>>>>> with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current
>>>>> situation.  (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our
>>>>> messaging, as it were.  I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it
>>>>> integrates with what he advocates here.  I remain partially in agreement
>>>>> with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to
>>>>> think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the
>>>>> direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent
>>>>> voice.)  I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because
>>>>> there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB
>>>>> uproar.  To call that reactionary is simply incorrect.  I am not reacting
>>>>> to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I
>>>>> was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in
>>>>> particular.  If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything
>>>>> to do with this instance.  If we had a stronger voice, no one would care
>>>>> about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints.
>>>>> Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I
>>>>> might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself.
>>>>> When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be
>>>>> speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members.  Such a
>>>>> situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to
>>>>> choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up.
>>>>> A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and
>>>>> to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the
>>>>> voice of the party.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight <
>>>>> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people
>>>>>> as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with
>>>>>> our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170518/37a91f1c/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list