<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I am troubled that this topic seems to be, for some people, the issue that defines PPUK. I would rather have moved on by now, but given PPUK's management has become a topic for debate here, I suppose one of the party's officers is beholden to respond, or else we will tacitly encourage the false impressions that the party's management is somehow secretive or opaque. So please allow me to respond as one of the party's (outgoing) officers.<div><br></div><div>One of the major criticisms of the party was that membership is paid for. I believe that paid membership is the only realistic and practical approach to raising sufficient funds in order to campaign in British elections. In the upcoming general election, it would cost over US$500,000 simply to field a candidate in every seat. If we do not field a candidate, nobody who lives in that constituency will have the option to vote for the PPUK. I doubt we will get anywhere near the target amount, but if we do not field candidates then it will be hard to maintain the support of voters, or even members, who cannot vote for our party. </div><div><br></div><div>Fielding a candidate is the absolute minimum of what a party needs to do. Whilst the internet brings down the costs of campaigning, it does not enable campaigning to reach out to all voters, and I believe the correct strategy is to use the political activity to reach out to moderate voters who may not consider themselves pirates and would not find out about our policies and candidates via the internet. Reaching out entails more mainstream campaigning methods, which will increase costs further. As a final point about the cost of running a party, even a small party like the UK's Green Party spends in the region of US$150,000 per year simply on administration. I doubt any supporters of the Green Party consider them to be corrupt because they spend money on ensuring the party is professionally run and complies with all of its legal obligations.</div><div><br></div><div>In the UK, unlike some other countries, there is no state aid for political parties, or even state funding for the kinds of youth associations that may be linked to political parties in other countries. The cost of offering a new democratic choice to British voters will hence all have to come from the money given to us by supporters.</div><div><br></div><div>Combine these facts, I believe demonstrates how vital fund raising will be to the prospect of offering British voters a democratic choice to vote Pirate. Our challenge is not as bad as the fund-raising mountain that needs to be scaled by our comrades in the US, but it is greater than that faced by other countries. The only way to promote change through democracy is to accept the reality of fundraising and be effective in how we go about it.</div><div><br></div><div>Based on money collected so far, over 80% of the party's funds has come from membership fees. In other words, less than 20% has come from voluntary donations. It is likely that, if there was no membership fee, then more money would have come from donations but I believe it is highly unlikely that we would have raised as much. Our membership fees are in line with other British political parties.</div><div><br></div><div>There are some people who feel strongly about the party's fundraising, and have been vocal about it. Bitplane, the person who blogged about why he will not be joining PPUK, is one of them, and frequently commented on our public forums about his unhappiness. For example, in one of his forum posts, he described the party's management, which includes me, as "money grabbing whores". If we do not respond to what he says, it is not because we do not listen. It is because it is far from obvious that the voices of disapproval are the ones we should be listening to. There are others with the contrary opinion, but may not be so vocal about it. Take this email I received from a supporter:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"></blockquote></div><div>"Love the idea of your party and would like to give some money... I am on incapacity benefit but would love to sent a tenner to promote freedom... best of luck with your party this country needs to get back to basic freedoms..."</div><div><br></div><div>Who is to say that Bitplane, vocal and passionate and with time to write blogs and forum posts deserves to be listened to more than the gentleman who sent me that email? Or that Bitplane is more representative than a supporter who never writes me an email, never writes a blog, and never posts to the forum? Bitplane and the person who sent me that email both talked about and care deeply about freedom, but we know that what can seem like freedom to one person is tyranny to another. We should be able to comprehend that a George W. Bush or Robespierre may be entirely sincere and very passionate about what they call 'freedom', even though we can disagree with their views on what freedom is. I am not of the opinion that a public forum on the party's website automatically equates to more freedom, and I also think that quite a trivial debate has been escalated out of all proportion to its real significance. But we know that the internet sometimes lead to a lot of sound and fury around trivial matters, at the expense of topics which are far more important. That is why copyright infringement is simplistically reduced to the metaphor of 'stealing', whilst news outlets in the developed world are depressingly devoid of debate about how patents for medicines equate to a huge cost in human lives.</div><div><br></div><div>Many of the people who have joined PPUK have chosen not to be active on the forums. I do not find that surprising. Empirical observation tells us that even when people have equal access and equal competence to use the internet, their motivations and behaviours differ. Some will spend a lot of time sharing and stating their views. Others will never do so. As an example, I have a friend who recently joined the party. Because I know him well, I know he will never read the forums and will never comment on them. He cares deeply in his own way, but he is not the kind of person who ever wants to be public about his views. That is his choice and I respect him for that. He is not a secretive person; it is just that he is a private and modest man who does not like to preach to others. By giving money and becoming a member, he has made a kind of expression of support. My own crude analysis of how many posts are made by each of the party's members leads me to believe my friend is far from alone, and that there are many other quiet supporters who will never post to the party's forum. If we want to get his opinion, we will need to email him and engage him with a specific activity he might respond to, like a vote on party policy. That does not make him better or worse than an individual like Bitplane, but it does exemplify the question of who a political party should listen to and how they listen. I am not of the opinion that a democratic party should listen to the people based on who shouts loudest, but it is not clear how proponents of an open forum would mitigate the risk that the loudest will exert a disproportionate influence, even though they may have no real commitment to the party and its goals.</div><div><br></div><div>In some of the debate around this topic, there is an underlying but rarely examined assumption. This is that the party should listen by engaging and supporting the kinds of discussion that mostly occur on the internet. That has a certain appeal to it. But I think it lacks balance. We all know that the voices that tend to get heard on the internet are different to the voices that are heard when large groups discuss and reach decisions in other ways. We all know that more extreme voices will get attention and be listened to on the internet, simply because they are extreme. In contrast, more mainstream opinions get less attention, simply because they are less sensational. The most vocal person during PPUK's short history, as measured by the number of forum posts, was found to be using sockpuppets. Irrespective of the distorting impact of sockpuppetry, I think we can all agree that someone prepared to undermine freedom of speech by abusing it is not going to be representative of the views of most pirate supporters. Which brings us to a real and serious practical question of how best to listen to our supporters, because we will not be effective in listening if we allow some voices to be drowned out by others.</div><div><br></div><div>With PPUK, the management team has tried to listen not just to the loudest voices on the internet, but also to the people who support the cause but are quiet. It makes our work much harder, but I think it is the right approach. The justification is straightforward. We are a political party, and success is ultimately measured in terms of attracting votes, not internet traffic. The votes of a quiet person count just as much as the votes of somebody who is outspoken. Whilst the internet forum provides one kind of voice, the party's management team do not want to encourage the perception that the forum is the best or only way to engage with the party. Some individuals have misinterpreted this as a predilection to control freakery by individuals such as myself. They could not be farther away from the truth. On a personal level, some of the insulting language directed at individuals like myself has been tedious and unpleasant to say the least, but I guess that is another burden that we have to bear. The disagreement is not about whether to listen or not to listen, in the simplistic way that some have suggested. Throughout history, even the worst tyrants have proclaimed themselves to represent 'the people', so I have little respect for the trivial assertion that providing a public forum on the party's website is the best or only way to listen to 'the people' and not doing so means we are not listening to 'the people'. The very idea of a political party that equally listens and represents all people is an oxymoron. Political parties represent the collective opinions of a subset of the population, not of all. To represent all opinions would mean trying to write a manifesto that finds common ground with the RIAA and Rupert Murdoch and anybody and everybody else who we obviously disagree with on a fundamental level. They are people after all, and should be no more excluded from the collective views of 'the people' than we should exclude someone based on their gender or race. So there is more to effective listening than having a public internet forum which can be used by anyone, and the decisions of a political party are not made by 'the people' in abstract, but by a specific group according to the rules agreed by the group. There are rules on how people join that specific group, and there are rules on how the group behaves and interacts. Whilst I am emotionally sympathetic to the ideas that underpin anarchism, I do not believe that anarchies can deliver freedom in practice. Like most people, I believe maximizing freedom is a question of balance, and recognize that different people disagree on what is the right balance. So whilst I hear the voices that say that an open internet forum on the party's website is the best way to provide people with the freedom to engage with and influence the party's decisions, I disagree with them and have been part of the team building the framework and processes that will provide for a more sophisticated and robust mode of interaction than an open forum. However, this takes longer than implementing a web forum, and ours is a new party, so I believe some individuals have misinterpreted the current lack of these decision-making processes as an indication that decisions are made from the top-down. I believe we will ultimately be judged by what we deliver, which will be far more substantial than a web forum.</div><div><br></div><div>It is true that there was a forum vote with a majority in favour of opening up the party's forums, but it is also true that the results are different if you filter out the non-members that voted, and we can surmise that a forum vote attracts and engages the people who like to use forums, so may not give the most accurate representation of the beliefs of all PPUK supporters. However, people who are heavy users of forums and vocal in their opinions may not see things that way. They are entitled to their opinion that the PPUK management team has made the wrong decision in closing some forums to non-members. However, I do not think they are entitled to conclude a party cannot be democratic without hosting an open forum on its own website. But if they think the management team is wrong and out of tune with supporters, there will be the perfect opportunity to reverse course when the management posts are up for election in January 2010. A more reasonable approach would not be to perpetuate the debate via the internet, but simply for the prominent individuals who oppose the approach taken thus far to stand for election and canvass votes based on wanting to open up the forums, changing membership rules and any other topics where they have a strong disagreement with the party's current management.</div><div><br></div><div>With this in mind, let me make an important observation that is repeatedly lost in this debate. When the party formed, I commented that most of the party's supporters had got used to talking about the 'Pirate Party' and being members of the party when there was no party and no membership. There had been a web presence for several years, but the levels of debate and discussion were low, because there was no actual party and hence no real party political activity. Now there is a party, and the party is its members. Equating a party with its members is not a point of view, but a fact. This is based on what kind of thing a political party is, at least according to the UK's laws. By the same token, people keep talking about the party's policies when there are, at this moment in time, no policies. Even the 'policies' as described on the party's home page are not genuine policies, but merely a placeholder necessary to start a political process. I say there are no policies because the policies of a democratic party are the result of a democratic process. We are a democratic party, but we have not completed any democratic process to determine policy. In fact, there is an absence of a process, and we are trying to build the process from the bottom up, not from the top down. That means Bitplane's criticisms of policy, and some of the responses to this thread, are premature. The party has no policy on the Obscene Publications Act, nor any other piece of legislation, nor censorship in general. There is only a shorthand to talk about what the policies might turn out to be.</div><div><br></div><div>I will briefly summarize what the party management and others are doing to ensure that policy and other decisions will be made in a democratic way that really does listen to supporters:</div><div><br></div><div>- Though 'elected' by a pre-formation vote of party supporters, the party's senior management team will be subject to a full and proper election by a vote of all members to be held in January 2010. This would be an appropriate time for individuals like Bitplane to put themselves forward for election if they believe the current management team is not listening to the majority of members.</div><div>- Less senior management appointments will all be subject to ratification by a full member's vote, ensuring that the senior team cannot appoint individuals to any position of responsibility without the party's support.</div><div>- Policy is formulated by working groups comprised of volunteers from the membership. Any party member is eligible to participate in any working group. The working groups have been self-organized by each working group's chair. The chairs are prominent volunteers and none of them are part of the current management team. No decision has been made on how to appoint them in future, though I expect we will include the policy group chairs in the party election to be held in January 2010. The thinking behind allowing the chairs to determine the way the working groups did their work was to ensure the management team had no back-door mechanism for exerting an influence over policy decisions. Some of the chairs have used forum debate and votes as part of the process for formulating policy. Others place more emphasis on getting a small group to work cohesively on collaborative authoring. This has been entirely up to them. The work of the policy working groups is underway but has not been completed. When the working groups complete their first drafts, the policies will be reviewed by an appointed individual (ratified by a full vote of party members) and his or her review committee, with a view to ensuring the research that backs policy is solid and reliable and that the policies are well-enough written to be effective for public communication. The review committee will not influence the policies themselves. Then the policies will be presented to the party's membership to vote on and either accept or reject. Until the policies are written, it will be impossible to determine how to break down the votes per each section of the policy, but the review committee will decide how to manage the voting process to ensure there is the right level of granularity in the questions put to the membership. This separates responsibility for the manifesto from the party's day-to-day management.</div><div>- One prominent volunteer, with no current official position, is setting up a 'think tank' which will be independent of the party's membership. He is doing that with the support and blessing of the current party management team. He already has interest from prominent individuals who are not pirate party members, but who have relevant things to say about issues like copyright or surveillance. The think tank, by being independent, will provide an alternative voice on party policy.</div><div>- Local parties are encouraged to form and self-regulate, much like the working policy groups are self-regulating. The local parties can independently decide how to engage with supporters, whether members or non-members. One of the most outspoken critics of the closure of the party's website forums to non-members has become the co-ordinator for a local party, and I have personally encouraged him to set up his own public web forums if he believes that will help him. As I explained to him, I would be keen to see what kinds of results he gets and compare them to different approaches elsewhere, so instead of having a theoretical debate we can examine how well different options work in real life. As I explained to him, I can be persuaded to change my mind, but I am persuaded by evidence and facts, not rhetoric.</div><div>- Though nobody has taken up the offer, the party management has repeatedly said it is supportive of public forums so long as they are not hosted on the party's official website. This is just like other UK parties, where is now the norm for mainstream parties to informally support a small number of independent forums. This allows for freedom of expression whilst simplifying the task of distinguishing public debate from the party's official communications. If I was not busy with my current duties, I would have set up such a forum myself. I believe this is a good compromise, though ignored by individuals like Bitplane. My argument with Bitplane is that real supporters are not so unsophisticated that they would only visit the party's official website to discuss party policy. I believe the average supporter would have no problem with following a link to a forum hosted elsewhere. This has the advantage of avoiding confusion between the status of a member and a non-member, and that non-members are hence aware they have less influence on party policy than a member has.</div><div><br></div><div>Whilst these things are a work-in-progress, Andrew, the party's leader, has to field press questions and has to be in the mode of being able to talk about policy even though policy has not been decided. Individuals who talk about policy, Andrew included, are representing themselves and hopes for the party, not the party's official line, as there is no official line. This subtlety has been lost on some.</div><div><br></div><div>With respect to homophobia, and the party's lack of tolerance to homophobia, I believe Andrew has made the right decision. Once again, the party's membership will have the opportunity to have its democratic voice heard if they believe Andrew is wrong, but I expect the majority will back him. Whilst PPUK is fully committed to freedom of speech, the party's management team is also committed to a policy where the party will not violate current UK law, and I believe this policy has very strong support although there have been a few outspoken opponents. The UK law now prohibits homophobic hate speech, which is one good reason for PPUK to set clear expectations for members. Further than that, the question of balancing freedoms also arises. A party which appears intolerant of gays, lesbians and bis will discourage their support or involvement. The question of freedom of sexual orientation is not central to the party's manifesto, so it is not unreasonable to expect members to censor themselves by not expressing homophobic views using the party's communication channels, even if they hold those views. By the same token, the PPUK is not an appropriate place to discuss holocaust denial, pedophilia, sexual violence or any other topic which has no real relevance to the party's objectives. It is consistent to say that PPUK can debate the rights and wrongs of censorship of homophobia, and even be in favour of laws that forbid such censorship, without allowing itself to be used to communicate the homophobic comments themselves. That is because freedom of speech is a totality of rights, not a free for all that needs to be implemented at every opportunity. Expressions of homophobia are no more appropriate for PPUK's communication channels than debates about which football team is best. On the other hand, the party's policy on membership is straightforward, and allows gays, lesbians and bisexuals to join just like any other British voter. Permitting language that would discourage them from joining is not just a point of principle, but one of practicality too. We want to maximize support for our goals, and we will not do that by allowing any individual or group to hijack the party and use it as a platform for their homophobic rantings.</div><div><br></div><div>On the topic of whether people are 'forced' to join PPUK in order to support, let me observe that it is wrong-headed to equate membership with support. All political parties, in all democracies elsewhere, rely upon support from both members and non-members. The management team of PPUK understands that perfectly well. You don't have to join a party in order to vote for it, and we are firmly focused on the goal of any sensible political party: maximizing votes and support in general. The rules that govern membership forms part of the means to the end. If anything, I would say that idea that having a special status for members will somehow exclude participation from other supporters is the one which is mistaken. In different countries and different parties, the line between what a member can do, and what a non-member can do, is drawn differently, but all parties everywhere benefit from the efforts from supporters who are not members, and PPUK will be just the same.</div><div><br></div><div>Please indulge me as I make a final observation. Some people comment, from time to time, that I write lengthy emails and forum posts ;) They often, sometimes in a gentle and affectionate way, other times with less affection, complain about the length. I dare say that relatively few will have read all the way to this point in this email, compared to some of the shorter responses to this thread. I find this amusing because, whilst we recognize that freedom of speech is a right, we can fail to observe that not everything can be said with just a few words. We have heard some opinions on this thread about why people are cynical about politics. Let me add a different observation about why people are cynical. They are cynical that politicians are people who try to deal with complicated issues by issuing trite and simplistic slogans and soundbites, instead of taking a balanced view that listens to all sides and weighs all the pros and cons before trying to make a good decision that really does consider the needs of all the people. It may sound like harsh criticism, but I don't believe open internet debate is a panacea that solves all the challenges in having a constructive democratic process that considers the wishes of all the people, or even of a restricted group of people. My concern is that could easily be used to give too much weight to the people who are least representative, and most extreme. Part of the reason for that is that internet forum debate emphasizes bite-sized and often trivial statements about complicated topics, sometimes with no regard for the facts. It is that thinking that leads me to remain comfortable with my own conscience, and that I and the other members of the management team are pursuing the right course that will deliver an open and democratic party, even in the face of sometimes extraordinary abuse from critics. In short, the challenge of listening to people and running a responsible party cannot be reduced to slogans. We've been doing the hard work to create a democratic party. The irony is that the members of the PPUK will have the choice to replace its management team, reverse our decisions and decide the party's manifesto not despite, but because of what we have been doing to deliver a real and working democratic party.</div><div><br></div><div>Eric Priezkalns, PPUK Treasurer</div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 2 Oct 2009, at 17:35, Erika Nilsson wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">I have to say I agree with the blogger's general point, although I remember that there were some very reasonable arguments for not making membership in the PPUK free, for example (running a party in the UK costs crazy amounts of money, etc). Supporting the Obscene Publications Act is, imo, as far as you can possibly get from the freedom of speech ethos of the Pirate movement (and the arguments for doing so seem to be generally along the lines of "let's not help load the cannon that's going to be pointed at us" - ie "we're not sure this is what we believe but we don't really dare to say otherwise"). As for keeping policy discussion closed to non-members, I wrote a pretty long comment to the blog post, but in short I would advocate opening up *discussion* to all forum members while closing actual *voting* on policy decisions to paying members.<br> <br>In contrast to the blogger, I don't hope that someone will form a "PPUK #2" - that would just be counter-productive and harmful to both parties, and to the voters - but I do hope that the PPUK will take these problems seriously, and not just start chanting that "if we open discussion up, our forum will turn into 4chan".<br> <br>Erika Nilsson<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/10/2 Chris Lockie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chris@lockie.org">chris@lockie.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div><span style="font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;"><div>I have to say that this statement about 'obscene' publications and images...</div> <div> </div> <div>"It's not censorship, it's exercising good moral judgement on behalf of the voters" </div> <div> </div> <div>...makes me deeply uncomfortable. It's bloody cheeky of any political party to think I'll let them decide on my behalf what's right and what's wrong, what's obscene and what's 'acceptable'. I had no idea the PPUK was in favour of that piece of legislation and I'm unlikely to support them in any election if that stance remains unchanged.</div> <div> </div> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid blue; padding-left: 8px; font-family: verdana; color: black; margin-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt;"> <div><div class="im">-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Pirate Party UK Critism<br></div><div class="im">From: Joonas_Mäkinen <<a href="mailto:joonasd6@gmail.com" target="_blank">joonasd6@gmail.com</a>><br> Date: Fri, October 02, 2009 3:44 pm<br>To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk<br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net" target="_blank">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a>><br> <br>Altough I am not from UK, I do have to point out what the text made me think about you: <div><br></div> <div>He is quite right about freedom of expressing opinions, even if they are homophobic.</div> <div><br>"<a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=655" target="_blank">http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=655</a>"</div> <div><br></div> <div>I disagree with this.</div> <div><br></div> <div>To get the trust of people who in turn have lost their trust in the old parties, you need to be more open than them.<br><br> <div class="gmail_quote">2009/10/2 Kai Mast <span><<a href="mailto:kai.mast@freakybytes.org" target="_blank">kai.mast@freakybytes.org</a>></span><br> <blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Hey,<br><br>I would like the members of the Pirate Party UK to comment on this<br>blogpost.<br> <a href="http://bitplane.net/2009/09/pirate-party-uk-fail/" target="_blank">http://bitplane.net/2009/09/pirate-party-uk-fail/</a><br><br>greetings,<br><font color="#888888">Kai<br><br><br></font><br>____________________________________________________<br> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br><a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net" target="_blank">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br><br><br>-- <br>Joonas "JoonasD6" Mäkinen<br>Varapuheenjohtaja, viceordförande<br>Piraattinuoret - Piratungdom<br><br>Department of Mathematics and Statistics<br>Faculty of Science<br> University of Helsinki<br> <br>gsm +358 40 700 5190<br></div> </div></div><hr><div class="im"> ____________________________________________________<br>Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br><a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net" target="_blank">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br> <a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br></div></div></blockquote></span></div> <br>____________________________________________________<br> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br> <a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br> <a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br> ____________________________________________________<br>Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br><a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br></blockquote></div></div></div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#444444" face="Verdana" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br></span></font></span></font><div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><br></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></body></html>