Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
I see no fault with the process of the vote. Geoffrey Neale ------Original Message------ From: Starchild To: Geoffrey Neale To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Sent: Jan 30, 2013 5:25 PM Well, if everyone votes quickly, we don't have to keep the voting open for the full period. Meanwhile perhaps the secretary or the chair could also withdraw the current ballot? I'm not certain about the mechanics of that, but it seems like there should be a way to withdraw and restart a ballot that is faulty in some manner. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Okay - let's think this through.
Let's suppose you get the required number of sponsors for your motion, and in a few days we start a vote to "start over" with different rules, which will take an additional ten days.
In the meantime, the current election round one will be over, and perhaps a candidate will have reached the threshhold for winning according to our Bylaws.
Just exactly how do we reopen an election?
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:13:05 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Geoff, Do you disagree with my analysis of how the current voting method could discourage people from voting for candidates they expect to draw less support in order to not risk "wasting their votes"? If so, can you explain your disagreement? Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:46 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
I see no fault with the process of the vote.
Geoffrey Neale ------Original Message------ From: Starchild To: Geoffrey Neale To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Sent: Jan 30, 2013 5:25 PM
Well, if everyone votes quickly, we don't have to keep the voting open for the full period. Meanwhile perhaps the secretary or the chair could also withdraw the current ballot? I'm not certain about the mechanics of that, but it seems like there should be a way to withdraw and restart a ballot that is faulty in some manner.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Okay - let's think this through.
Let's suppose you get the required number of sponsors for your motion, and in a few days we start a vote to "start over" with different rules, which will take an additional ten days.
In the meantime, the current election round one will be over, and perhaps a candidate will have reached the threshhold for winning according to our Bylaws.
Just exactly how do we reopen an election?
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:13:05 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Starchild - here is my analysis - you are a member of the board of the LP. Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:59:36 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Geoff, Do you disagree with my analysis of how the current voting method could discourage people from voting for candidates they expect to draw less support in order to not risk "wasting their votes"? If so, can you explain your disagreement? Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:46 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
I see no fault with the process of the vote.
Geoffrey Neale ------Original Message------ From: Starchild To: Geoffrey Neale To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Sent: Jan 30, 2013 5:25 PM
Well, if everyone votes quickly, we don't have to keep the voting open for the full period. Meanwhile perhaps the secretary or the chair could also withdraw the current ballot? I'm not certain about the mechanics of that, but it seems like there should be a way to withdraw and restart a ballot that is faulty in some manner.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Okay - let's think this through.
Let's suppose you get the required number of sponsors for your motion, and in a few days we start a vote to "start over" with different rules, which will take an additional ten days.
In the meantime, the current election round one will be over, and perhaps a candidate will have reached the threshhold for winning according to our Bylaws.
Just exactly how do we reopen an election?
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:13:05 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Geoff, I am an LNC member, but I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand. Please explain. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:37 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Starchild - here is my analysis - you are a member of the board of the LP.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:59:36 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
Do you disagree with my analysis of how the current voting method could discourage people from voting for candidates they expect to draw less support in order to not risk "wasting their votes"? If so, can you explain your disagreement?
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:46 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
I see no fault with the process of the vote.
Geoffrey Neale ------Original Message------ From: Starchild To: Geoffrey Neale To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Sent: Jan 30, 2013 5:25 PM
Well, if everyone votes quickly, we don't have to keep the voting open for the full period. Meanwhile perhaps the secretary or the chair could also withdraw the current ballot? I'm not certain about the mechanics of that, but it seems like there should be a way to withdraw and restart a ballot that is faulty in some manner.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Okay - let's think this through.
Let's suppose you get the required number of sponsors for your motion, and in a few days we start a vote to "start over" with different rules, which will take an additional ten days.
In the meantime, the current election round one will be over, and perhaps a candidate will have reached the threshhold for winning according to our Bylaws.
Just exactly how do we reopen an election?
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:13:05 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Starchild - never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:49:18 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Geoff, I am an LNC member, but I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand. Please explain. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:37 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Starchild - here is my analysis - you are a member of the board of the LP.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:59:36 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
Do you disagree with my analysis of how the current voting method could discourage people from voting for candidates they expect to draw less support in order to not risk "wasting their votes"? If so, can you explain your disagreement?
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:46 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
I see no fault with the process of the vote.
Geoffrey Neale ------Original Message------ From: Starchild To: Geoffrey Neale To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Sent: Jan 30, 2013 5:25 PM
Well, if everyone votes quickly, we don't have to keep the voting open for the full period. Meanwhile perhaps the secretary or the chair could also withdraw the current ballot? I'm not certain about the mechanics of that, but it seems like there should be a way to withdraw and restart a ballot that is faulty in some manner.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Okay - let's think this through.
Let's suppose you get the required number of sponsors for your motion, and in a few days we start a vote to "start over" with different rules, which will take an additional ten days.
In the meantime, the current election round one will be over, and perhaps a candidate will have reached the threshhold for winning according to our Bylaws.
Just exactly how do we reopen an election?
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:13:05 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Geoff, I'm afraid that's not much help! Will you please say what you mean, rather than speaking in riddles? Sorry if I'm being dense. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:52 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Starchild - never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:49:18 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
I am an LNC member, but I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand. Please explain.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:37 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Starchild - here is my analysis - you are a member of the board of the LP.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:59:36 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
Do you disagree with my analysis of how the current voting method could discourage people from voting for candidates they expect to draw less support in order to not risk "wasting their votes"? If so, can you explain your disagreement?
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:46 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
I see no fault with the process of the vote.
Geoffrey Neale ------Original Message------ From: Starchild To: Geoffrey Neale To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Sent: Jan 30, 2013 5:25 PM
Well, if everyone votes quickly, we don't have to keep the voting open for the full period. Meanwhile perhaps the secretary or the chair could also withdraw the current ballot? I'm not certain about the mechanics of that, but it seems like there should be a way to withdraw and restart a ballot that is faulty in some manner.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Okay - let's think this through.
Let's suppose you get the required number of sponsors for your motion, and in a few days we start a vote to "start over" with different rules, which will take an additional ten days.
In the meantime, the current election round one will be over, and perhaps a candidate will have reached the threshhold for winning according to our Bylaws.
Just exactly how do we reopen an election?
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:13:05 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Isn't it obvious? I think our job as board members is to act according to the Bylaws in the best interest of the LP. We need a permanent Secretary ASAP. If this was a vote in Convention, it would be conducted very much as the motion was submitted. I feel absolutely no duty to debate you. This motion is appropriate, and I find no value in your arguments. Besides, its too late. Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:05:37 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Geoff, I'm afraid that's not much help! Will you please say what you mean, rather than speaking in riddles? Sorry if I'm being dense. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:52 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Starchild - never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:49:18 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
I am an LNC member, but I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand. Please explain.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:37 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Starchild - here is my analysis - you are a member of the board of the LP.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:59:36 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
Do you disagree with my analysis of how the current voting method could discourage people from voting for candidates they expect to draw less support in order to not risk "wasting their votes"? If so, can you explain your disagreement?
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:46 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
I see no fault with the process of the vote.
Geoffrey Neale ------Original Message------ From: Starchild To: Geoffrey Neale To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Sent: Jan 30, 2013 5:25 PM
Well, if everyone votes quickly, we don't have to keep the voting open for the full period. Meanwhile perhaps the secretary or the chair could also withdraw the current ballot? I'm not certain about the mechanics of that, but it seems like there should be a way to withdraw and restart a ballot that is faulty in some manner.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Okay - let's think this through.
Let's suppose you get the required number of sponsors for your motion, and in a few days we start a vote to "start over" with different rules, which will take an additional ten days.
In the meantime, the current election round one will be over, and perhaps a candidate will have reached the threshhold for winning according to our Bylaws.
Just exactly how do we reopen an election?
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:13:05 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Geoff, Don't you think we should be using voting methods that avoid the "wasted vote" issue? It's my impression that we generally try to do this at conventions. Are you saying that once a ballot is released, there's no way to withdraw and correct it, even if it is found to be flawed? I'm not talking just about this particular ballot, I mean in general. If we proceed as is in this case, I think it will be unfair to the less-well-known candidates who have applied for the position, as it could discourage people from voting for them. However if I'm missing something and my analysis is not sound, I would be happy to be proven wrong. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild )) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:23 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Isn't it obvious? I think our job as board members is to act according to the Bylaws in the best interest of the LP. We need a permanent Secretary ASAP.
If this was a vote in Convention, it would be conducted very much as the motion was submitted.
I feel absolutely no duty to debate you.
This motion is appropriate, and I find no value in your arguments.
Besides, its too late.
Geoffrey Neale
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:05:37 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
I'm afraid that's not much help! Will you please say what you mean, rather than speaking in riddles? Sorry if I'm being dense.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:52 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Starchild - never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:49:18 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
I am an LNC member, but I don't see how that relates to the topic at hand. Please explain.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 4:37 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Starchild - here is my analysis - you are a member of the board of the LP.
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:59:36 To: <liber8or@austin.rr.com> Cc: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
Geoff,
Do you disagree with my analysis of how the current voting method could discourage people from voting for candidates they expect to draw less support in order to not risk "wasting their votes"? If so, can you explain your disagreement?
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:46 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
I see no fault with the process of the vote.
Geoffrey Neale ------Original Message------ From: Starchild To: Geoffrey Neale To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method Sent: Jan 30, 2013 5:25 PM
Well, if everyone votes quickly, we don't have to keep the voting open for the full period. Meanwhile perhaps the secretary or the chair could also withdraw the current ballot? I'm not certain about the mechanics of that, but it seems like there should be a way to withdraw and restart a ballot that is faulty in some manner.
Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:13 PM, liber8or@austin.rr.com wrote:
Okay - let's think this through.
Let's suppose you get the required number of sponsors for your motion, and in a few days we start a vote to "start over" with different rules, which will take an additional ten days.
In the meantime, the current election round one will be over, and perhaps a candidate will have reached the threshhold for winning according to our Bylaws.
Just exactly how do we reopen an election?
Geoffrey Neale Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> Sender: "Lnc-business" <lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:13:05 To: <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Reply-To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] E-MAIL BALLOT: Selection of LNC Secretary - Problematic voting method
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
participants (3)
-
David E. Blau, Esq. -
liber8or＠austin.rr.com -
Starchild