[pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013

Wed Jun 12 07:27:47 CEST 2013

Dang, sorry, was meant to go just to Jay. stupid webmail interface

Andrew

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at ktetch.co.uk> wrote:
> Jay,
> Is this still about April's failed NYPP coup? At least you put more
> thought into this email than you did back then. (
> http://db.tt/1Lssg70x if you forgot) I had nothing to do with that.
> But if it makes you feel happy to blame me for your constant failings,
> go right ahead. Especially if it'll stop you from constantly harassing
> and disrupting the NYPP while they're trying to get an election
> campaign started, I will be your 'nemesis', the cause of all your
> suffering, and the reason all your ventures fail.
> Ok? can we move on now? and you not spam the list?
> Andrew
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Jay Emerson <jemers2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Norton is an insufferable cunt who sticks himself into shit-slinging
>> fights by being an asshole and then pointing to some statute of bullshit
>> demanding to be taken seriously as if he's right about whatever shit he's
>> decided to spew from his egotistical shit-tank of a mind to his fingertips
>> that then tap away at a keyboard and proceeds to send that message to fuck
>> with those who get suckered into actually taking his bullshit seriously.
>>
>> He is an anal regurgitated seminal fluid bubble that should be popped,
>> wiped, and flushed down the fucking toilet.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> - Jay Emerson
>> Pirate Party of New York
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013 11:37 PM, "Antonio Garcia" <ningunotro at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It feels like it is useless to argue.
>>>
>>> The abstentions that do not count towards the vote for the election of the
>>> members of the CoA are those of the members of the PPI that did not care to
>>> show up to participate, be it sending a delegate or having delegated their
>>> vote to someone present. This is, if PPI had 50 members with voting rights
>>> then 50% approval would need 26 votes, unless abstentions did not count and
>>> only the 16 represented at the exact time and place the voting was organized
>>> were taken into account.
>>>
>>> Then, the candidates have to achieve a simple majority of "yes" votes from
>>> the members present and voting. All of them have to obtain at least 9 votes,
>>> which is the simple majority of the 16 present. Abstentions do not count...
>>> in the sense that if only 10 cast votes on one specific candidate... the six
>>> remaining are not subtracted... he still has to achieve 9 yes votes to be
>>> in.
>>>
>>> That is why you Andrew, and Arturo, with 8 votes, did not achieve the
>>> needed results, and neither did anyone that achieved even less.
>>>
>>> And because 5 elected was enough according to the statutes and also
>>> conveniently uneven to avoid even splits in the votes of the CoA... that
>>> result was enough and sufficient.
>>>
>>> You can whine any way you want just because you want to be in.
>>>
>>> I have nothing to gain in this dispute but increasing respect for logic
>>> and ethic. Which should help us out of all the mess unrestricted
>>> improvisation without any basis...
>>>
>>> ... like the one that accepted to change a question into a motion in
>>> Prague, and then had a vote on the admission of the Catalan Pirate Party as
>>> a full member of PPI without respect for any official procedure... just one
>>> single day after an ad-hoc decision of the CoA had ruled that the GA had no
>>> such powers and that the candidates that had followed procedure but
>>> submitted the paperwork after the official deadline had to wait for the next
>>> official deadline at the following GA.
>>>
>>> The kiddies getting what they like even when it is against Statutes and
>>> procedures...
>>>
>>> ... is what is turning PPI into a kindergarten where anything serious
>>> takes too much time to materialize.
>>>
>>> You can not shove a chimney pipe up the arse of too many too long...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Antonio.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:57:28 -0400
>>> > From: ktetch at ktetch.co.uk
>>> > To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > I do not buy, Andrew.
>>> > >
>>> > > The bit "...votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and
>>> > > voting on
>>> > > them[18]..."
>>> > >
>>> > > Clearly means the members present and participating in the election
>>> > > process
>>> > > to elect members of the CoA (the them in that sentence means them as a
>>> > > body,
>>> > > the CoA, not them as individual members of a group). These are 16, as
>>> > > seen
>>> > > in the columns of the voting results. Members not present do not
>>> > > count. But
>>> > > all present do count for all of the candidates. So >50% is 9 votes for
>>> > > each
>>> > > and every of the candidates, no matter if they get 9 votes in favour
>>> > > from
>>> > > the only 9 that care to vote, or 9 votes in favour and 4 against and 3
>>> > > abstentions (ties do not count who has less votes against, a new vote
>>> > > must
>>> > > be organized).
>>> > Thank you for pointing this out and AGREEING with me.
>>> > The bit that's key is 'abstentions do not count'. You have decided
>>> > that they DO count, and that they count as a No. In which case, what's
>>> > the point of abstentions? Or indeed, that part in the RoP (well,
>>> > redundancy, but they could have been implicit and said 'abstentions
>>> > count as a no', or 'abstentions count')
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > But keep on kidding me, if you so wish, I can't stop you making a fool
>>> > > of
>>> > > yourself anyway if it is absolutely what you wish to do.
>>> > >
>>> > > No wonder we never have enough time to finish what has to be done.
>>> >
>>> > In this I agree with you, which is why I tried to get this sorted and
>>> > clarified 7 weeks ago.
>>> > >
>>> > > Repetition in reading statutes and procedures does not help if
>>> > > capacity to
>>> > > understand is NIL :( .
>>> >
>>> > Antonio, I could say the same to you. You are reading what you assume
>>> > to be there, rather than what is actually, plainly and clearly there,
>>> > and understanding what it says. You entered into things with a
>>> > preconceived notion (that approval voting is 'usual') and thus have
>>> > twisted what you read to support that assertion. How is that different
>>> > than the assertion that last years CoA entered the Catalan decision
>>> > with the notion that since the GA voted yes (no matter the
>>> > circumstances or details) that it was a fait accompli, that just
>>> > needed to be rationalised through creative interpretation of the
>>> > rules.
>>> >
>>> > That is what happens when, as you have done here, you take a clear and
>>> > unambiguous set of statements, and attempt to redefine what they mean.
>>> > How does it feel?
>>> >
>>> > Andrew
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Antonio.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:25:18 -0400
>>> > >
>>> > >> From: ktetch at ktetch.co.uk
>>> > >> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Antonio Garcia
>>> > >> <ningunotro at hotmail.com>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >> > Really, this kiddy behaviour by the majority is sickening me.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > The used method is approval voting, with 16 parties present, so
>>> > >> > minimum
>>> > >> > 9
>>> > >> > votes to get voted in.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > That is why Andrew and Arturo are not in.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> There's one problem with that.
>>> > >> We were not using approval voting. So 'usual' or not ,it's
>>> > >> irrelevent.
>>> > >> Let me again quote for you.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/RoP#Art._6a_Elections
>>> > >> "
>>> > >> 6a(6.c) The candidates that has achieved a simple majority of the
>>> > >> "yes" votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting
>>> > >> on
>>> > >> them[18] are elected in the order determined by number of "yes" votes
>>> > >> accumulated. Abstentions are not taken into account. In event of a
>>> > >> tie
>>> > >> where order matters, deciding elections are held, where only one
>>> > >> "yes"
>>> > >> vote per Ordinary Member can be cast."
>>> > >>
>>> > >> No mention of approval voting there, or indeed the word "approval"
>>> > >> anywhere in the document. If it HAD specified approval voting, I
>>> > >> would
>>> > >> be right there with you.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Abstentions do NOT count, but criterion is NOT >50% of votes cast
>>> > >> > for
>>> > >> > each
>>> > >> > candidate.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Indeed it's not >50% of the votes. Believing that it was was the
>>> > >> mistake made at the time. I would have caught it except I'd dozed
>>> > >> off,
>>> > >> and as I noted in my previous mail, I attempted to detail things as
>>> > >> soon as possible afterwards in order to avoid these prolonged
>>> > >> debates,
>>> > >> and to deal with issues as quickly as possible. instead it's >50% of
>>> > >> the votes Yay or Nay as abstentions do not count. There's a reason
>>> > >> for
>>> > >> that. With 42 ordinary members, that would require 21+ yes votes (as
>>> > >> those who did not vote were counted as abstentions). The highest Yay
>>> > >> total at any election that I see, is 15 (for nuno and Jelena for
>>> > >> their
>>> > >> respective positions) thus by true approval voting, no-one was
>>> > >> elected, and nothing was decided. That's *probably* why we didn't use
>>> > >> approval voting, but instead used a yay/nay majority.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Otherwise the one that got 7 for and 6 against would also have been
>>> > >> > elected
>>> > >> > with more than 50% of votes cast for him.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Except you missed out some other bits.
>>> > >> Namely
>>> > >>
>>> > >> "6a(6.d) If the decided number(Art. 6a(6a)) of positions is not
>>> > >> filled, additional round of elections is held unless decided
>>> > >> otherwise."
>>> > >> With Arturo and me elected, the maximum number of positions (7) is
>>> > >> reached.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > And the Catalan issue is still not off the table...
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> That is a whole other topic in itself.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > No wonder serious people are scarce among pirates... you really
>>> > >> > should
>>> > >> > resign from kindergarten one day, all of you.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I'm deadly serious, Antonio. So serious, in fact, I made very sure I
>>> > >> read the Rules of Proceedure, and the PPI statutes in detail, and did
>>> > >> so repeatedly until they were crystal clear. As such, I am in no
>>> > >> question as to their contents, or how they should be acted on. I
>>> > >> would
>>> > >> advise you to do likewise before casting aspersions on people.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Also be aware of how what your proposing would worked elsewhere.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Andrew
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Antonio.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:51:36 -0400
>>> > >> >> From: ktetch at ktetch.co.uk
>>> > >> >> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> >> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Ok, an update on this for those that are interested (and we all
>>> > >> >> should
>>> > >> >> be)
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Nuno's been arguing to have the Court fully constituted as
>>> > >> >> required by
>>> > >> >> PPI statutes.
>>> > >> >> in the Board meeting 2 weeks ago, he pointed out that under the
>>> > >> >> Rules,
>>> > >> >> myself and Arturo were also elected, but that Denis and Sven
>>> > >> >> misunderstood the statutes as regards abstentions.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Minutes_2013-05-28#6_Activity_of_CoA
>>> > >> >> From there, Gregory said he'd check with Sven over the recorded
>>> > >> >> accuracy of the votes, if they were accurate, then everything
>>> > >> >> sorted,
>>> > >> >> and he'd create the two accounts.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Now the next meeting was today, and since nothing had moved since
>>> > >> >> then, Nuno has raised it again today. You can read the minutes
>>> > >> >> here
>>> > >> >> (from line 145) http://ppi.piratenpad.de/agenda-2013-06-11
>>> > >> >> Basically, despite it being announced wrong at the time, it can't
>>> > >> >> simply be 'corrected'. Instead, now the court must rule on it
>>> > >> >> (???).
>>> > >> >> Apparently, the argument was that since no-one objected at the
>>> > >> >> time,
>>> > >> >> it can't be fixed, despite me asking for the results of all the
>>> > >> >> elections right after
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> (http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2013-April/014107.html),
>>> > >> >> for that reason.
>>> > >> >> So now it rests with the 5 already confirmed CoA members, and it
>>> > >> >> really is a no-brainer, but then again so was the invalidity of
>>> > >> >> the
>>> > >> >> Catalonia membership a year ago, and look how that turned out
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> (http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/2012-May/011713.html)
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> So, almost 2 months after the Conference, we can maybe finally
>>> > >> >> finish
>>> > >> >> with
>>> > >> >> it.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Andrew
>>> > >> >> sent unsigned from my Android
>>> > >> >> +1(352)-6-KTETCH
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Nuno Cardoso
>>> > >> >> <nuno.cardoso at pp-international.net> wrote:
>>> > >> >> > Seems pretty simple to me as well, both Andrew Norton and Arturo
>>> > >> >> > Martínez
>>> > >> >> > are also elected members of the CoA and should be considered as
>>> > >> >> > such
>>> > >> >> > even
>>> > >> >> > if at the time there was a misinterpretation of the statutes.
>>> > >> >> > Congratulations to both :)
>>> > >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >
>>> > >> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Andrew Norton
>>> > >> >> > <ktetch at ktetch.co.uk>
>>> > >> >> > wrote:
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> "at 4:42:33 Sven says that 17 votes were recieved, the quorum
>>> > >> >> >> is at
>>> > >> >> >> 9
>>> > >> >> >> votes and that those 5 candidates were elected"
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> Rules of Proceedure
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> (http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/RoP#Art._6a_Elections)
>>> > >> >> >> state
>>> > >> >> >> Election Method
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> a) Before the voting, the number of elected positions should be
>>> > >> >> >> decided, if Statutes require to do so.
>>> > >> >> >> b) Every Ordinary Member may vote "yes" for any number of
>>> > >> >> >> candidates.
>>> > >> >> >> c) The candidates that has achieved a simple majority of the
>>> > >> >> >> "yes"
>>> > >> >> >> votes from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting
>>> > >> >> >> on
>>> > >> >> >> them[18] are elected in the order determined by number of "yes"
>>> > >> >> >> votes
>>> > >> >> >> accumulated. Abstentions are not taken into account. In event
>>> > >> >> >> of a
>>> > >> >> >> tie
>>> > >> >> >> where order matters, deciding elections are held, where only
>>> > >> >> >> one
>>> > >> >> >> "yes"
>>> > >> >> >> vote per Ordinary Member can be cast.
>>> > >> >> >> d) If the decided number(Art. 6a(6a)) of positions is not
>>> > >> >> >> filled,
>>> > >> >> >> additional round of elections is held unless decided otherwise.
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> 8 YES 6 NO is a simple majority when abstentions are not taken
>>> > >> >> >> into
>>> > >> >> >> account (57%). Nothing about a decided 'quorum' in there (and
>>> > >> >> >> in
>>> > >> >> >> fact
>>> > >> >> >> the unknown nature of abstentions mean you can't do it anyway)
>>> > >> >> >> at
>>> > >> >> >> all.
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> Seems pretty simple to me.
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> Andrew
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Pat Mächler
>>> > >> >> >> <patrick.maechler at pp-international.net> wrote:
>>> > >> >> >> > The following is according to my visual observations on said
>>> > >> >> >> > recordings,
>>> > >> >> >> > that I preliminary recieved
>>> > >> >> >> > The times mentionned are relative to the video; not actual
>>> > >> >> >> > daytime
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:30:20 the chair (Sven) announces that the ballot papers
>>> > >> >> >> > are
>>> > >> >> >> > prepared
>>> > >> >> >> > and the he CoA vote
>>> > >> >> >> > for the next 95 seconds Sven signs 16 voting cards (acoording
>>> > >> >> >> > to
>>> > >> >> >> > visual
>>> > >> >> >> > calculation) and
>>> > >> >> >> > hands out election ballot sheets to delegates and proxies
>>> > >> >> >> > along
>>> > >> >> >> > with
>>> > >> >> >> > the
>>> > >> >> >> > chair assistant (Denis)
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:32:10 Sven announces the vote to be open (for 4 minutes)
>>> > >> >> >> > and
>>> > >> >> >> > leaves
>>> > >> >> >> > the
>>> > >> >> >> > recording picture
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:32:40 he re-enters to the recording picture (returns to
>>> > >> >> >> > the
>>> > >> >> >> > table
>>> > >> >> >> > to
>>> > >> >> >> > answer questions)
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:33:10 he leaves the table again
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:35:00 he re-enters to the recording picture
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:36:30 Denis leaves the recording picture
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:36:40 Sven leaves the recording picture
>>> > >> >> >> > around 4:37:23 Sven and Denis are entering and leaving the
>>> > >> >> >> > recording
>>> > >> >> >> > picture
>>> > >> >> >> > within 5 seconds
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:00 the camera angle turns towards right; Sven and
>>> > >> >> >> > Denis
>>> > >> >> >> > can
>>> > >> >> >> > be
>>> > >> >> >> > seen;
>>> > >> >> >> > about 50% of the chair table can be seen
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:20 they walk to the left side; Sven can't be seen
>>> > >> >> >> > anymore
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:25 Denis walks out of the recording picture
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:30 the camera turns right again (the chair table can
>>> > >> >> >> > be
>>> > >> >> >> > seen
>>> > >> >> >> > for
>>> > >> >> >> > about 75%); Sven sits at the table
>>> > >> >> >> > at 4:42:33 Sven says that 17 votes were recieved, the quorum
>>> > >> >> >> > is at
>>> > >> >> >> > 9
>>> > >> >> >> > votes
>>> > >> >> >> > and that those 5 candidates were elected
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Pat Mächler
>>> > >> >> >> > <patrick.maechler at pp-international.net> wrote:
>>> > >> >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> >> According to the election notes I have here, I strongly
>>> > >> >> >> >> assume
>>> > >> >> >> >> that
>>> > >> >> >> >> the
>>> > >> >> >> >> chair calculated with 17 votes cast and an absolute majority
>>> > >> >> >> >> was
>>> > >> >> >> >> necessary.
>>> > >> >> >> >> However I got only 16 ballot papers.
>>> > >> >> >> >> I assume the missing vote could be by the UK who decided to
>>> > >> >> >> >> generally
>>> > >> >> >> >> abstain; however there is no such sheet among the ballot
>>> > >> >> >> >> papers
>>> > >> >> >> >> (in
>>> > >> >> >> >> contrast
>>> > >> >> >> >> to all other elections, where there was a blank UK ballot
>>> > >> >> >> >> sheet
>>> > >> >> >> >> provided).
>>> > >> >> >> >> I will back check ASAP with the preliminary video recordings
>>> > >> >> >> >> I
>>> > >> >> >> >> got
>>> > >> >> >> >> from
>>> > >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Preiss whether it could be inferred that UK cast an
>>> > >> >> >> >> abstention
>>> > >> >> >> >> vote
>>> > >> >> >> >> there.
>>> > >> >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> >> -pat
>>> > >> >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Mozart Palmer
>>> > >> >> >> >> <mozart.palmer at pp-international.net> wrote:
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>> Is there a reason why there are only five members of the
>>> > >> >> >> >>> Court
>>> > >> >> >> >>> of
>>> > >> >> >> >>> Arbitration elected? The statutes provide for up to seven,
>>> > >> >> >> >>> meaning
>>> > >> >> >> >>> that
>>> > >> >> >> >>> Arturo and Andrew should be elected according to the
>>> > >> >> >> >>> results.
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>> On 16 May 2013 05:46, Pat Mächler
>>> > >> >> >> >>> <patrick.maechler at pp-international.net>
>>> > >> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Dear pirates,
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Please find here the current status of the minutes of the
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> PPI
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> GA
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> 2013. I
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> would be grateful if you could provide corrections to me
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> via
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> mail.
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> 4 weeks afterwards the minutes will be automatically
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> accepted
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> according
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> to the RoP.
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/Minutes
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> You can blame the delay on me; part of the problem was,
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> that I
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> wanted
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> to
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> back check the recordings about the member application
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> ballots
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> (they
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> were
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> too fast).
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> fair winds
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Pat / Valio / vvv
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >> >> >> >>>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________
>>> > >> >> >> >>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > >> >> >> >>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >> >> >> >>>
>>> > >> >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________
>>> > >> >> >> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > >> >> >> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >> >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________
>>> > >> >> >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > >> >> >> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >
>>> > >> >> >
>>> > >> >> > ____________________________________________________
>>> > >> >> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > >> >> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> >> >
>>> > >> >> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >> >> >
>>> > >> >> ____________________________________________________
>>> > >> >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > >> >> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > ____________________________________________________
>>> > >> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > >> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> ____________________________________________________
>>> > >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > >> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >
>>> > > ____________________________________________________
>>> > > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>> > >
>>> > ____________________________________________________
>>> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>