[Lnc-business] Request for Co-Sponsors

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I urge the chair to call an e-meeting.

I do not agree, but many are now suspecting that this public shameful
display is politically motivated and designed to set up a social media
campaign against our chair.

I thankfully have little clue what is going on with FB since I have been
avoiding it for a few months now except for very disciplined and limited
sessions.

My life is better for it.

Our ED sent this privately.  No one LNC member or even several had the
right to make this into a public shitshow without every attempt to avoid.
The lack of judgement is abysmal.

Discipline for private individuals is private.

How hard is that to understand?

It is not this man that hurt our reputation.  It is the reckless acts of a
few that have.

-Caryn Ann

Mr. Nekhaila - we are the Party of individual not collective rights.  I
find that collective argument alarming.  Who’s next to be sacrificed?  The
allegedly tiny percentage of anarchists?

Mark my words.  You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 9:45 AM Erin Adams via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I support the appeal and the e meeting as long as the e meeting deals
> SPECIFICALLY with what actions are taken concerning a refund and
> "expungement" of membership or not.
>
> On Dec 24, 2019 10:20 AM, "john.phillips--- via Lnc-business" <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> As always, a well thought out and thought provoking statement sir.
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On Dec 24, 2019 10:14 AM, Steven Nekhaila <steven.nekhaila at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Between preparations for the holidays and "hell week" coming up in the
> Florida Keys it has already been a busy week, and with the latest
> controversy a troubling past few days.
>
> I have been giving this issue a lot of thought and it has weighed on me
> as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida, the last thing I
> want to do is promote an internet lynch mob and attack an individual of
> which I am not his judge nor jury.
>
> I want to start off by expressing my sheer dissappointment at the
> individuals name becoming public. Here is a man, through whatever
> cascading torrent of events in his life, felt the need to dispatch a
> signed NAP and a $25 check to the Libertarian Party in the hopes that we
> would fight for him in some way or serve as a part of a greater
> political purpose in his life. Or perhaps he's mad at the world and
> thinks we could make it worse, I do not know. Nor do I know the
> circumstances of his case, the only thing I know is the conviction by
> the State. Sex trafficking minors, or pimping 16 year old girls on
> Backpages. That was his crime, and now he is currently incarcerated, his
> name is being spread on social media by an organization he applied for,
> an organization which could have simply turned him down or blindly
> accepted his money.
>
> It was not the right decision to make this case public, transparency is
> not always our best option and not every member needs a say in every
> decision the LNC makes. Furthermore, does joining the Libertarian Party
> now constitute the fact that your past may be publicly scrutinized and
> remain available on an online list forever with strangers who get to
> debate about your character?
>
> I am assuming our Executive Director may be more cautious in the future
> as to bring certain issues to the board, or simply confide with the
> Chair or a few select members on advice before taking action.
>
> Is that the culture we want to set for the board? Where all
> controversial issues become public and a point of contention amongst us
> and our members? I would think not.
>
> Some day, there will be a point where we cannot afford to vet every
> single individual who joins our organization, that point may have
> already passed. However, there does come times when we receive a choice,
> and that choice should be given the full weight of repercussions and
> must not be taken lightly when it does come. Now, the Non-Aggression
> Pledge was designed to distance ourselves from people who do do terrible
> things in our name if/when it does happen, but what if they've already
> done something?
>
> Now, do we allow this individual, who we have made the center of an
> avoidable feeding frenzy, to join our organization or do we reject his
> membership and/or donation?
>
> After much thought into the issue, I must consider who I owe my
> allegiance to, which is the membership. The membership will not benefit
> from one convicted and currently incarcerated man from becoming a member
> at the expense of the organization's reputation, of which directly
> effects the standing of our members. Our reputation is everything, and
> must be protected with care and molded like a great artist. We cannot
> leave our reputation to chance or gossip. We must not allow the Party to
> look weak and allow our membership to suffer because of the consequences
> of the LNC making this public (regardless of what our decision would
> have been). Many members in Florida believe this is a waste of time, and
> I agree. However, to many members, child abuse, despite whatever
> arguments may be made that the acts could have been consensual or that
> they could have been underprivileged, are just excuses to those who hear
> child abuse.
>
> Thus, I have made the decision to co-sponsor the motion on the floor as
> well as join in appealing the ruling of the Chair.
>
> Let is be a lesson to us all.
>
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Steven Nekhaila
> Region 2 Representative
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Impotentes defendere libertatum non possunt
> "Those without power cannot defend freedom"
>
> On 2019-12-24 09:38 AM, john.phillips--- via Lnc-business wrote:
> > I will point out to those weighing whether to object that it was the
> > actions of the chair that set up this ruling.
> >
> > If he had not directed the E.D. to process the application during
> > ongoing discussion there would not yet be a membership to cause his
> > bylaws interpretation.
> >
> > The chair is a very intelligent man, and as such it is my OPINION -
> > not known fact - that he knew this would be the case, and did so
> > intentionally.
> >
> > In my experience, despite his rebuttal that while Rulings of the Chair
> > only coming after a motion being is technically true, it is customary
> > in every board I have worked with to give one, or at least what it
> > would be, when asked. A custom I have witnessed being followed on this
> > board.  That custom not being followed here supports supports my
> > opinion in my mind. Not only that, but it is my belief that a ruling
> > could and should have been made at the time it was first brought to
> > us.
> >
> > It is my opinion that we cannot allow this kind of manipulation by the
> > chair to go unchallenged.  Even if I believe his motives were good,
> > which I do, I will never be ok with the means.  Regardless of how you
> > vote on the original motion itself, I ask that you consider the appeal
> > carefully.
> >
> > This is a large part of my consideration for going ahead with the
> > appeal, as well as my other email.  I find the bylaws in this case
> > open to interpretation.  I see the merits of both sides. I think that
> > the interpretation that the bylaws specify requirements for the
> > member, not require the party to accept is stronger.
> >
> >  I think that as a political party we need to keep the political
> > aspect in mind, as much as it sucks.  This could easily be our Epstein
> > moment, do we really want to jump in with both feet?
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
> >
> > On Dec 24, 2019 7:57 AM, john.phillips at lp.org wrote:
> >
> >> I do not object to that ruling. If we are asking it to be done by
> >> email, email rules should apply.
> >>
> >> John Phillips
> >> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> >> Cell 217-412-5973
> >>
> >> On Dec 23, 2019 9:05 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business
> >> <lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mail ballots have a seconding requirement of four cosponsors (or
> >>> the
> >>> Chair), it would make sense that appealing a ruling of the Chair
> >>> by mail
> >>> ballot would require the same number of seconds.
> >>>
> >>> You could appeal this interpretation of the rules by the Chair,
> >>> but at some
> >>> point this is going to become absurd.
> >>>
> >>> -Nick
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:51 PM joshua.smith--- via Lnc-business <
> >>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It requires one second.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you direct me to the section in RONR that says "an appeal to
> >>> the
> >>>> ruling of the chair requires 4 seconds"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Joshua
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 23, 2019 6:41 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> It would require four sponsors in my understanding.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would seek the chairs guidance however as that is not my call.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:35 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes the bylaws limit our power and they should, however I do not
> >>> believe
> >>>> it is being well applied here.  Boards exist to handle the
> >>> situations where
> >>>> rules and standard procedures do not quite fit.  I believe this
> >>> is one of
> >>>> those cases.
> >>>>
> >>>> As I believe the appeal must be seconded I will do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> While the order of operations normal in an appeal is difficult
> >>> in an
> >>>> email, it is an issue that I believe is negligible.  Mr Sarwark
> >>> is free to
> >>>> speak whenever he chooses, nor do I believe much in the way of
> >>> repetition
> >>>> of the same arguments is needed, though of course I welcome
> >>> anyone to do
> >>>> so.  7 days of time allows ample opportunity.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe I will leave it at that, as I am AGAIN disappointed in
> >>> people's
> >>>> willingness to see the positives of compromise - to be fair much
> >>> of which
> >>>> was not in this group.
> >>>>
> >>>> John Phillips
> >>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> >>>> Cell 217-412-5973
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 23, 2019 6:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Mr. Smith I too received emails with choice words about LNC
> >>> overreach.
> >>>> That does not excuse me to treat you or anyone indecorously.
> >>>>
> >>>> Keeping one’s cool is an important part of leadership.
> >>>>
> >>>> I learned that the hard way when I quite literally lost my shit
> >>> at an LPRC
> >>>> convention over this same issue (ie nothing triggers me more
> >>> than harm to
> >>>> children).  I felt I was doing the right thing.  That I was on
> >>> the side of
> >>>> the angels.
> >>>>
> >>>> In retrospect I demonstrated immaturity in treating my peers and
> >>> I’m
> >>>> thoroughly embarrassed by that memory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Peers and friends don’t treat each other that way.  You and I
> >>> are both.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Caryn Ann
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:05 PM <joshua.smith at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You'll have to take that characterization up with our membership
> >>> and the
> >>>> state chairs I've spoken with. Those words did not come from me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Joshua
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 23, 2019 4:03 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The order of operations for one.  In an e-meeting members can
> >>> attend.
> >>>>
> >>>> I ask you to please stop mischaracterizing those who disagree in
> >>> good
> >>>> faith.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Caryn Ann
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM <joshua.smith at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This thing is public and causing a lot of our membership to be
> >>> very upset.
> >>>> To the point of lifetime members threatening to ask for refunds
> >>> and to be
> >>>> removed from our membership list. I have fielded call after call
> >>> and
> >>>> message after message today with members upset that we wouldn't
> >>> do
> >>>> something as basic as protect our organization and membership
> >>> from
> >>>> associating with a child predator. Several from state chairs.
> >>>>
> >>>> It won't wait till February, and I'm not going to watch TWO
> >>> motions be
> >>>> ignored while some of us are working to represent and protect
> >>> our
> >>>> membership.
> >>>>
> >>>> What part of an appeal to the ruling of the chair cannot be
> >>> handled
> >>>> adequately through email?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Joshua
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 23, 2019 3:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I urge you to get sponsors for electronic meeting or wait until
> >>> Feb.
> >>>> appeals cannot be adequately handled by email.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Caryn Ann
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM <joshua.smith at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to start this email off with a motion appealing the
> >>> ruling of the
> >>>> chair.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no bylaw explicitly saying that we HAVE to accept
> >>> someone's
> >>>> contribution. There is also not one stating that we cannot
> >>> return a
> >>>> donation or terminate a membership.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we not frequently refer to RONR for things that may not be
> >>> covered in
> >>>> the bylaws like pretty much every other major organization or
> >>> society? If
> >>>> so, this is a dog and pony show, and we have the authority to
> >>> return the
> >>>> donation and terminate membership because that's covered on
> >>> pages 643-644,
> >>>> being the first two pages on Discipline in Chapter XX.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we must follow those procedures, I will gladly make a motion
> >>> as well to
> >>>> get that started, but I'm first appealing the ruling of the
> >>> chair as there
> >>>> was a motion made by Mr. Phillips with a second.
> >>>>
> >>>> In liberty,
> >>>> -Joshua
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 23, 2019 2:13 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> >>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The bylaws limit our power.  Just as the constitution was
> >>> supposed to
> >>>> limit
> >>>> the state.  They have had many good reasons to violate it - and
> >>> we now see
> >>>> the result.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the mistake you are making is viewing this as about any
> >>> particular
> >>>> person rather than the objective action.
> >>>>
> >>>> Our dogma and everything about our beliefs anathematizes the act
> >>> of the
> >>>> victimization of children.  The act can be condemned objectively
> >>> and that
> >>>> is the Party position.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are also acts that many of us do in secret that are
> >>> condemned (from
> >>>> minor to major).
> >>>>
> >>>> It is the same way the party doesn’t judge whether someone is
> >>> libertarian
> >>>> enough - only whether a particular belief or act is consistent
> >>> with
> >>>> libertarianism.
> >>>>
> >>>> If this were not so, anarchists could theoretically claim the
> >>> pledge as an
> >>>> anarchist blood oath as some have claimed and call everyone else
> >>> a
> >>>> statist.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is obviously not the correct path.
> >>>>
> >>>> All membership confers is the status of member in minimal
> >>> compliance.  It
> >>>> does not declare any person clean.
> >>>>
> >>>> We must respect that the delegates knew of these kinds of issues
> >>> for
> >>>> decades and never gave us that power.
> >>>>
> >>>> They can choose to do so in Austin.
> >>>>
> >>>> I will not grasp power not explicitly given to us.  That was my
> >>> raison
> >>>> d’être for being on the LNC to begin with.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Caryn Ann
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:57 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> That question was a cut and paste from a member.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see both sides on this.  So I am debating my next step.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My motion was a compromise one to attempt to reconcile both
> >>> sides.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will point out that under the logic presented Hitler and
> >>> Stalin could
> >>>>> sign the form and be members were they still alive.  So it is
> >>> not the
> >>>>> weightiest of responses to me, though I will not say it is
> >>> wrong, just
> >>>>> carries less weight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The question will come, are we a haven for those who prey on
> >>> children?
> >>>> Or
> >>>>> do we flatly reject those actions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It will also come, do we believe in second chances, and if so
> >>> what must
> >>>> be
> >>>>> done to earn that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are we as Libertarians so bound in the dogma of our bylaws
> >>> that we will
> >>>>> not look at interpretations to do what is right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Those questions will weigh heavily on my soul, and then in
> >>> which
> >>>> priority
> >>>>> do I place them?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we are to be a haven for predators, I do not know if I will
> >>> be able
> >>>> to
> >>>>> wrap my conscience around that enough to continue to represent
> >>> this
> >>>> party.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This will take some thought.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Phillips
> >>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> >>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 3:36 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mr. Phillips please allow me to give some history here.  The
> >>> pledge WAS
> >>>>> never intended to be a gatekeeper to exclude people from the
> >>> Party
> >>>> because
> >>>>> as David Nolan said, bad people will lie.  While it
> >>> legitimately
> >>>> reflects
> >>>>> our beliefs and it is hoped it is signed in sincerity of
> >>> internal
> >>>> beliefs,
> >>>>> its purpose was to protect the Party from the government and
> >>> to educate
> >>>>> members.  Further, if any evil person reformed themselves,
> >>> they could
> >>>>> legitimately sign the pledge.  I doubt any of us are free from
> >>> past
> >>>>> aggression.  I have no idea of this individual's current state
> >>> of
> >>>>> repentance, but such difficulties are exactly why that was
> >>> never the
> >>>>> purpose of the pledge as originally intended.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://lpedia.org/Libertarian_Membership_Pledge
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just recently we had a few members calling for the expulsion
> >>> of any
> >>>> parent
> >>>>> that spanks their children - that is not a fallacious slippery
> >>> slope, it
> >>>> is
> >>>>> one supported with evidence.  I am NAPster purist as they
> >>> come, but we
> >>>> are
> >>>>> not the judgment throne of God.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Caryn Ann
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *In Liberty,*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> >>> Syndrome
> >>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.
> >>> If anyone
> >>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> >>> social
> >>>> faux
> >>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:21 PM john.phillips--- via
> >>> Lnc-business <
> >>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I question whether someone who has engaged in child
> >>> prostitution can
> >>>>> legitimately sign the NAP.  Would we have to accept Jeffrey
> >>> Dahmer or
> >>>>> Timothy Mcveigh's applications?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Phillips
> >>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> >>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 2:35 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
> >>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm going to start with the relevant section of the Bylaws,
> >>> since it
> >>>> makes
> >>>>> it easier to reference for those reading:
> >>>>> "ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
> >>>>> 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have
> >>> certified in
> >>>>> writing
> >>>>> that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
> >>> or social
> >>>>> goals.
> >>>>> 2. The National Committee may offer life memberships, and must
> >>> honor all
> >>>>> prior and future life memberships.
> >>>>> 3. The National Committee may create other levels of
> >>> membership and
> >>>> shall
> >>>>> determine the contribution or dues levels for such
> >>> memberships.
> >>>>> 4. “Sustaining members” are members of the Party who: a.
> >>> During the
> >>>> prior
> >>>>> twelve months have donated, or have had donated on their
> >>> behalf, an
> >>>> amount
> >>>>> of at least $25; or b. Are Life members."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The person mentioned in the motion has met the conditions set
> >>> forth in
> >>>> the
> >>>>> bylaws (Art. 4, Sec. 1 and 4) to be a sustaining member of the
> >>>> Libertarian
> >>>>> Party as of the date that the contribution and attached signed
> >>>>> certification were processed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It may be in order to refund the person's contribution as part
> >>> of the
> >>>>> LNC's
> >>>>> prerogative to issue directives overriding those of the Chair,
> >>> though it
> >>>>> would not be in order if it had the effect of denying that
> >>> person a
> >>>>> sustaining membership. Art. 4, Sec. 4 can be read as applying
> >>> by the
> >>>> fact
> >>>>> of the person making the donation, even if the donation was
> >>> subsequently
> >>>>> refunded.  That's a somewhat strained reading of it, so it
> >>> would be
> >>>> better
> >>>>> if the motion made it clear that it was a refund without a
> >>> change in
> >>>>> sustaining
> >>>>> membership status.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The latter half of the motion is out of order as the
> >>> membership
> >>>>> application
> >>>>> has been processed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The mover has the option to rewrite the motion to fit within
> >>> my
> >>>>> interpretation of the bylaws outlined above, appeal from the
> >>> ruling of
> >>>> the
> >>>>> Chair, or ask for time on the agenda in February.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yours truly,
> >>>>> Nick
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:47 AM john.phillips--- via
> >>> Lnc-business <
> >>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> A point I considered Caryn Ann and Alex, and appreciate.  I
> >>> considered
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>> moot as someone else had already made the name public, but
> >>> still had
> >>>>> qualms
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree on not using it going forward.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John Phillips
> >>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> >>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 23, 2019 7:40 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would encourage you to add this to February agenda.  The
> >>> chair has
> >>>>>> indicated that discussion of non-public figures is not
> >>> appropriate for
> >>>> a
> >>>>>> public list.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Caryn Ann
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:58 AM john.phillips--- via
> >>> Lnc-business <
> >>>>>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Given that the nature of this is no longer as time
> >>> sensitive, I
> >>>> disagree
> >>>>>> with the interpretation that it is not a matter we can
> >>> address, as was
> >>>>>> pointed out no ruling of the chair was officially given, and
> >>> I find
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> situation in general disturbing, I will ask for co-sponsors
> >>> for the
> >>>>>> following motion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The L.N.C. directs the Executive Director to refund the
> >>> donation of
> >>>>> Royce
> >>>>>> Corley, and further not accept his membership application
> >>> until after
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> National Convention in May of 2020."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This will allow the delegates, if they choose to address it,
> >>> to make a
> >>>>>> decision either in specific or in general about such
> >>> situations, while
> >>>>>> addressing the current objections of several members of this
> >>> board and
> >>>>> many
> >>>>>> of the party members currently.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As always I am open to suggestions and motions regarding
> >>> alternative
> >>>>>> wording.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John Phillips
> >>>>>> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> >>>>>> Cell 217-412-5973
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *In Liberty,*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as
> >>> Asperger's Syndrome
> >>>>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect
> >>> inter-personal
> >>>>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.
> >>> If
> >>>> anyone
> >>>>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some
> >>> other social
> >>>>> faux
> >>>>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> *In Liberty,*
> >>>>
> >>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> >>> Syndrome
> >>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> >>> anyone
> >>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> >>> social faux
> >>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> *In Liberty,*
> >>>>
> >>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> >>> Syndrome
> >>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> >>> anyone
> >>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> >>> social faux
> >>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> *In Liberty,*
> >>>>
> >>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> >>> Syndrome
> >>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> >>> anyone
> >>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> >>> social faux
> >>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> *In Liberty,*
> >>>>
> >>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> >>> Syndrome
> >>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> >>> anyone
> >>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> >>> social faux
> >>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> *In Liberty,*
> >>>>
> >>>> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> >>> Syndrome
> >>>> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> >>>> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> >>> anyone
> >>>> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other
> >>> social faux
> >>>> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>
>
> --

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *