<div dir="ltr">TL;DR most of it<br><br>+ 1 for <a href="mailto:peppecal@gmail.com">peppecal@gmail.com</a>, very well put!<br>+ 1 I agree with Zbigniew, Infrastructure is the critical point!<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
For that goal we need a communication channel that:<br>1. Matters. Taking part in the discussions requires some effort - so<br>people will only do that if they feel that this effort leads to<br>somewhere.<br>2. Is fair - democratic and self-governed.<br>
3. Is efficient - the effort for reading it and writing is not too big.<br></blockquote><br>+ respect privacy and allows for proof of identity at the same time<div><br>I still propose to fork Reddit for many reasons but mostly because it is the practical next step from email.<br>
<br>Language: Not a problem, English works fine, it’s a prerequisite like an internet connection. I am sure that people without internet connection have important things to contribute but the cost of integrating them exceeds by far the possible gains. Think of it like illiteracy, or just computer-illiterate people that are not excluded but invited, the same goes for people that are linguistically handicapped - <a href="http://www.mooec.com">www.mooec.com</a> - I am happy to help :)</div>
<div>+ it’s much easier than the sisyphean-task of constant translation<br><br>The above also solves the next problem that is mentioned by Matías: "<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">PPI structure is strongly vertical" -</span> This is a simple result of current boundaries of communication due to a) language barriers and b) missing communication infrastructure.</div>
<div>Vertical - is just the most practical form of organisation under current constraints.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Martin</div><div><br></div><div>PS: Fun fact: - The proto-democracy that the united states of America but also many european nations have today originated in 18th and 19th century because of the same restrictions that we face now within the global pirate movement, (computer)illiteracy, language, very limited communication channels that necessitate a representative systems which ultimately deteriorates towards an oligarchy or particracy</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:38 PM, seykron <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seykron@partidopirata.com.ar" target="_blank">seykron@partidopirata.com.ar</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">> So you propose that we have a mailing list (or web forum or whatever)<br>
> with all members of all pirate parties? Plus translations of all<br>
> messages on that mailing list for people that don't know English and<br>
> than when they want to add from themselves you'd like the translators<br>
> to be required to translate it and send to the mailing list?<br>
<br>
</div>Of course not, it could be extremely painful and again, communication<br>
will not work. Here we should be a bit more pragmatic. For example, we<br>
can make some assumptions:<br>
<br>
1. Communication does not work, so you'll need to "change" something<br>
and there is no guarantee that a new communication model will work. So,<br>
it is a work in progress until you consider the goal is reached (and<br>
believe me, communication is an endless WIP). Maybe you'll need to<br>
change the model many times during the process.<br>
<br>
2. The current PPI structure is strongly vertical, so you need to begin<br>
from this premise: people will tend to leave any communication channel<br>
you create, because you have nothing to keep them active in the<br>
pirate movement. It leads to the next assumption.<br>
<br>
3. There're two-way communications: from PPI to people and from people<br>
to PPI. If you don't success creating a symmetric channel, people will<br>
leave as they did from existing mailists. There's a ton of information<br>
every day, if people can't actively participate on decisions there's<br>
nothing more than daily spam. Here you have to answer a couple of<br>
questions: does the PPI want to turn into a more participative<br>
organization?, if so, how do you open participation within that big<br>
organization?, is PPI that big?, how many active people are in the<br>
movement and in local pirate parties?, how many of that active people<br>
want to get involved in certain topics? It leads to the next<br>
consideration.<br>
<br>
4. You have to define the level of granularity for communication<br>
channels. I think this is the worst part, and the one that will change<br>
quickly according to the people getting involved in topics. If I'd have<br>
to make an "official" proposal should be this one:<br>
<br>
I. at the beginning we can assume people can speak english (it is a<br>
disadvantage facing native speakers, but it is how it works right<br>
now), so channels are all in english. Maybe some people want to<br>
propose themselves as translators for a specific language, and we can<br>
list their contacts in the PPI site, but messages to the channels<br>
must be in english.<br>
<br>
II. Identify work units in the PPI and make them virtually<br>
horizontal and independent from any hierarchy. For example, if<br>
there're committees or boards and they're responsible of certain<br>
topics, they could be considered a virtual work unit on a category of<br>
topics (in the PPAr we call these units "pirate ships"). Some "ships"<br>
I figure out right now could be "parliamentary ship" to discuss and<br>
build Bill proposals; "communication ship" to create effective<br>
announces and media material; "translation ship" to translate<br>
documents into local languages; "treasure ship" to guarantee that any<br>
finance movement is transparent and properly announced. I don't know<br>
the PPI structure, but for sure there should be a couple of others.<br>
<br>
III. List all existing ships in the PPI site and create a single<br>
channel for each "ship". People can subscribe to any channel (I like<br>
mailing lists because I can apply filters and it is a distributed<br>
system, no one can say "my message was deleted" or something like<br>
that).<br>
<br>
IV. As mechanisms to take decisions are already defined in the PPI and<br>
there should be a lot of legal concerns in the middle, maybe at the<br>
beginning it is not possible to translate consensus (which is a<br>
practice and it takes a while to work smoothly) to decisions. Here<br>
the PPI can make a compromise with people: we're working to be a<br>
high-scale participative organization, keep helping us on topics<br>
you're interested in while we change our decision making structure to<br>
include you as part of PPI decisions).<br>
<br>
This is a brief outline of what I imagine of a pirate organization,<br>
but there're million of possible strategies if you want to. At this<br>
point I think you understand it is not about "communication" but a<br>
common political practice. If you simply want to announce what's<br>
happening in the PPI just like in other political parties, you can<br>
publish announcements in a blog or site or social network, but take into<br>
account that it will find the same luck as any other information in<br>
internet. Personally, I will not be part of a classical political party<br>
(though it dress up and cheat people presenting itself as a new<br>
alternative), and I will not spread any message from it if I cannot<br>
take part on decisions. Most of people that's claiming for a "change"<br>
or a "better democracy" will take a similar path than I. You'll see<br>
that people can be cheated once, but when the trick is discovered the<br>
organization will fall to pieces as a giant troll.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Matías<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:21:11 +0200<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">Zbigniew Łukasiak <<a href="mailto:zzbbyy@gmail.com">zzbbyy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> So you propose that we have a mailing list (or web forum or whatever)<br>
> with all members of all pirate parties? Plus translations of all<br>
> messages on that mailing list for people that don't know English and<br>
> than when they want to add from themselves you'd like the translators<br>
> to be required to translate it and send to the mailing list?<br>
><br>
> I like the techniques from<br>
> <a href="http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus.html" target="_blank">http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus.html</a> - I<br>
> believe they are great for improving legitimacy and in general making<br>
> the group strong - but they will not work on such a scale and with<br>
> this kind of communication difficulties.<br>
><br>
> Z.<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, seykron<br>
> <<a href="mailto:seykron@partidopirata.com.ar">seykron@partidopirata.com.ar</a>> wrote:<br>
> > The language is a barrier, yes, but I don't see how it could turn<br>
> > to a representative system. Maybe it could help: in the PPAr's<br>
> > Statute we defined a kind of bodies called "bureaucratic bodies",<br>
> > which are usually administrative roles without autonomy.<br>
> > Bureaucratic bodies must execute directions from the Permanent<br>
> > Assembly and they have to report any activity concerned to the<br>
> > assigned role. Maybe the translator(s) could be this kind of body,<br>
> > and we even could ask for help to other pirate parties.<br>
> ><br>
> > Regarding your comment:<br>
> ><br>
> >> My goal is to have some communication structure linking all the<br>
> >> pirate parties that works. The current one does not work - because<br>
> >> not many people use this mailing list or even the leaders maling<br>
> >> list (read and write).<br>
> ><br>
> > There is another underlying problem that make communication harder:<br>
> > the PPI structure is strongly vertical. Decisions are taken by a<br>
> > small groups of elected committees or "boards". Direct democracy<br>
> > has a very important MUST: people must be able to get involved in<br>
> > any topic as they want. As I said before, it does not means that<br>
> > everyone must be involved in everything, but it must be possible if<br>
> > someone wants to. A representative system tends to exclude people<br>
> > and it builds an "elite" separated from the "mass" (there's a lot<br>
> > of political science literature about this). So the "mass" is<br>
> > limited to "choose between a set of leaders" instead of actively<br>
> > participate in decisions that matter (I encourage you to think<br>
> > about psychological effects of this kind of "delegation").<br>
> ><br>
> > Think about common problems in a representative system and you will<br>
> > see how they're also reproduced in the PPI. When there's a small<br>
> > group of people taking decisions, it doesn't matter whether they<br>
> > have good intentions or not (I assume yes), they will forget some<br>
> > scenarios, there will be holes in the decision that excludes more<br>
> > and more people from the scope. So excluded people start asking for<br>
> > "democratization", they fight against the "tyranny" of those<br>
> > representative that "cheated them" at election. It's happening all<br>
> > around the world, and it is boosted by another capitalist crisis<br>
> > that started on 2008.<br>
> ><br>
> >> For that goal we need a communication channel that:<br>
> >><br>
> >> 1. Matters. Taking part in the discussions requires some effort -<br>
> >> so people will only do that if they feel that this effort leads to<br>
> >> somewhere.<br>
> ><br>
> > Assuming that we talk about an horizontal organization, it requires<br>
> > effort but at least it is possible. If you success communicating to<br>
> > people that they're building a new social order based on strong<br>
> > relationships, and it leads to a kind of power that may make a<br>
> > difference on they daily life (for example, they can change little<br>
> > things on their neighborhoods), you won the half of battled. The<br>
> > other half is to fight against the social apathy produced by our<br>
> > representative systems. People forgot how to take decisions and<br>
> > execute collective actions. It sounds sad, but it happened to all<br>
> > of us. This perspective also can help to figure out the answer to<br>
> > "why a political party" :)<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> 2. Is fair - democratic and self-governed.<br>
> >><br>
> > Fairness is a trick. If we think about legacy of decisions time and<br>
> > time again everything gets stuck. I rather prefer to speak in terms<br>
> > of legitimation, and consensus is the essence of legitimation. As I<br>
> > said before, consensus is hard to reach, but there're a lot of<br>
> > tools and mechanisms that can help to build a strong<br>
> > consensus-based institution. I would like to resume a thought from<br>
> > Cal: "there are people with extensive political baggage, unable to<br>
> > understand how their preexisting ideas are controversial". This is<br>
> > the key. How many people like this have you in the organization? In<br>
> > the PPAr we assumed that 10% is good enough for our organization,<br>
> > but it depends on how the organization grows and the baggage of its<br>
> > founders. This percent of dissent is still easy to handle, and in<br>
> > most cases it can be addressed with a pair of beers :)<br>
> ><br>
> >> 3. Is efficient - the effort for reading it and writing is not too<br>
> >> big.<br>
> >><br>
> > This point is very important. People must learn how to manage their<br>
> > participation. The organization can help providing tutorials about<br>
> > tools or periodic workshops. If something can be automatized it<br>
> > should be made quickly (infrastructure autonomy is very important<br>
> > to make changes as it is required, that's because online services<br>
> > like google are not recommended for core services). For example, in<br>
> > the PPAr email lists the server automatically puts different email<br>
> > lists into IMAP folders. Of course, it is not too much, but more<br>
> > heuristics could be implemented.<br>
> ><br>
> > Just a last word about dissent. Trolling is a fact. Some people just<br>
> > dissent because they can, and sometimes they try to turn the<br>
> > discussion into another in which they feel more comfortable. That's<br>
> > because it is important to adopt mechanisms like Relevant Dissent<br>
> > and unlocking strategies. When there's a new type of trolling, the<br>
> > organization must create new tools against it. IMHO, the effort<br>
> > should lead to exclude from organization those people that will not<br>
> > kill their egos in favour of the whole group. Of course, that<br>
> > doesn't mean to invalidate feelings or values from people, I'm<br>
> > talking about trolling and we all know how it works.<br>
> ><br>
> > Regards,<br>
> ><br>
> > Matías<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:32:08 +0200<br>
> > Zbigniew Łukasiak <<a href="mailto:zzbbyy@gmail.com">zzbbyy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> That language problem sounds difficult. We'll need translation and<br>
> >> until machine translation is good enough for this - this means that<br>
> >> someone will have to translate the stuff for the local parties. If<br>
> >> we designate people to do that - what we eventually get is some<br>
> >> kind of representative system - where the translators represent<br>
> >> the local parties.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Personally I don't see this as a problem - but I guess it depends<br>
> >> on what is your goal.<br>
> >><br>
> >> My goal is to have some communication structure linking all the<br>
> >> pirate parties that works. The current one does not work - because<br>
> >> not many people use this mailing list or even the leaders maling<br>
> >> list (read and write).<br>
> >><br>
> >> For that goal we need a communication channel that:<br>
> >><br>
> >> 1. Matters. Taking part in the discussions requires some effort -<br>
> >> so people will only do that if they feel that this effort leads to<br>
> >> somewhere.<br>
> >><br>
> >> 2. Is fair - democratic and self-governed.<br>
> >><br>
> >> 3. Is efficient - the effort for reading it and writing is not too<br>
> >> big.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Cheers,<br>
> >> Zbigniew<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Betiel <<a href="mailto:betielix@gmail.com">betielix@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> > that´s a good point. the other problem I see is language. Not all<br>
> >> > pirates feel comfortable writting english and for sure many<br>
> >> > doesn´t understand English at all and that can discourage many<br>
> >> > pirates to participate. Regarding the first problem, well nobody<br>
> >> > said participating would be super easy. There always be the<br>
> >> > issue of having to read lot of emails, and many of them won´t<br>
> >> > say any usefull but I think it worth the try. What makes me<br>
> >> > doubt about using this list for a consensus, is the language<br>
> >> > issue. Perhaps we can think all together how to solve it. The<br>
> >> > first step should be to ensure all the pirate parties arround<br>
> >> > the world are aware on this tentative change, specially the ones<br>
> >> > we don´t hear here much so they can participate and tell us how<br>
> >> > they would like to proceed..<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > Betiel<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > 2014-04-18 0:32 GMT-05:00 Zbigniew Łukasiak <<a href="mailto:zzbbyy@gmail.com">zzbbyy@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> >> That was very thoughtful!<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> For now I have just one comment about using this mailing list<br>
> >> >> for anything serious. The problem with this is that not many<br>
> >> >> people read this mailing list any more - there were too many<br>
> >> >> flamewars and people got tired of that. This is not unfixable -<br>
> >> >> but for some ideological reasons it was decided that this<br>
> >> >> mailing list has no rules. Nobody would propose something like<br>
> >> >> that for an in-person meeting - but somehow any way of limiting<br>
> >> >> the individual expression on-line is considered censorship.<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> Cheers,<br>
> >> >> Zbigniew<br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:31 PM, seykron<br>
> >> >> <<a href="mailto:seykron@partidopirata.com.ar">seykron@partidopirata.com.ar</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> >> > Online consensus practice in easy enough with our existing<br>
> >> >> > tools, even applying quite adapted versions of classical<br>
> >> >> > techniques. For example, the Permanent Assembly might be this<br>
> >> >> > mailist. Usually no everyone is interested in all topics (for<br>
> >> >> > example, only you answered to my email about consensus). The<br>
> >> >> > advantage of the mailist is that no everyone MUST to be<br>
> >> >> > present physically on the same location to get involved in a<br>
> >> >> > decision making, so it promotes participation. The mechanism<br>
> >> >> > is very very simple:<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > 1) You propose a topic to the Permanent Assembly. If someone<br>
> >> >> > is interested in this topic (usually about a specific issue or<br>
> >> >> > activity) will get involved in the discussion to enrich the<br>
> >> >> > whole perspective and make an agreement. In the PPAr we<br>
> >> >> > consider consensus when three persons agree on a topic.<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > 2) If there's Relevant Dissent, the decision is blocked until<br>
> >> >> > dissent is resolved ("Difficulties in Reaching Consensus"<br>
> >> >> > section of the Starhawk's article is a good reference to<br>
> >> >> > identify dissent). For the PPAr, Relevant Dissent means that<br>
> >> >> > at least 10% of people involved in a discussion disagree. This<br>
> >> >> > mechanism helps to avoid the "dictatorship of the<br>
> >> >> > majority" (or the so called 50%+1 factor) and it also avoids<br>
> >> >> > blockings from a single person.<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > 3) If there's Relevant Dissent, it is a warning sign. Usually<br>
> >> >> > in a group like pirate parties, personal values involved in a<br>
> >> >> > decision finally can get closer (or some concessions can be<br>
> >> >> > easily made from all sides). If it does not happen, it may<br>
> >> >> > means that something in the organization is declining. I also<br>
> >> >> > could mean that the topic is very controversial -like<br>
> >> >> > abortion, to mention an example-, or even simpler: there're<br>
> >> >> > misunderstandings on what someone is trying to say (sometimes<br>
> >> >> > it's very hard to express yourself). In any case, if there's<br>
> >> >> > Relevant Dissent the decision is blocked and the discussion<br>
> >> >> > must be taken away from keyboard. For example, it could be<br>
> >> >> > discussed in a conference room with Mumble, or if it is<br>
> >> >> > possible in a bar drinking a beer :). If it does not work,<br>
> >> >> > there're several unlocking techniques, but I will not extend<br>
> >> >> > myself on this (some good techniques are explained in "Tools<br>
> >> >> > for Consensus Process" section of Starhawk's article).<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > The key point is: we are all human beings, we make mistakes,<br>
> >> >> > and we act with good faith. Of course, I'm aware of what<br>
> >> >> > "power" means in a capitalist, post-industrial society. But<br>
> >> >> > the key question for PPI to answer is:<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > What *power* means for pirates?<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > In the PPAr it is always under discussion, however we have<br>
> >> >> > consensus in this point: power means to build a strong human<br>
> >> >> > organization which distributes its power between all<br>
> >> >> > participants. And these "pieces" of power is what legitimates<br>
> >> >> > any decision. If an organization grows with this kind of<br>
> >> >> > legitimation, it is very difficult to take it down, it is very<br>
> >> >> > consistent on its decisions (which is essential to manage<br>
> >> >> > outer press and public opinion), and it is very strong despite<br>
> >> >> > personal problems between people within the organization.<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > How to take a decision is the answer to the question "who has<br>
> >> >> > the power". A decision may imply a lot of economic resources,<br>
> >> >> > and we all know how we behave when there's money in the<br>
> >> >> > middle (in the PPAr we work very hard to decentralize money,<br>
> >> >> > for example). From here to a political party is just a little<br>
> >> >> > step, but "why a political party instead another kind of<br>
> >> >> > organization" is out of the scope.<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > If you reached the bottom of this message, I encourage you to<br>
> >> >> > think about power, how people is involved on it in the real<br>
> >> >> > world, and how conflicts rise and are resolved by people when<br>
> >> >> > there's power in the middle.<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > Regards,<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > Matías<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:37:33 +0200<br>
> >> >> > Zbigniew Łukasiak <<a href="mailto:zzbbyy@gmail.com">zzbbyy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> >> ><br>
> >> >> >> Hi there,<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> seykron - good point about consensus.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> Any ideas how we could translate<br>
> >> >> >> <a href="http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus.html" target="_blank">http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus.html</a><br>
> >> >> >> into on-line circumstances?<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> It is possible that we are already a group too large for a<br>
> >> >> >> traditional consensus decision making - but who knows? We<br>
> >> >> >> cannot tell if we have not tried.<br>
> >> >> >><br>
> >> >> >> Z.<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>
> >> >> ><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>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >><br>
> >> >> --<br>
> >> >> Zbigniew Lukasiak<br>
> >> >> <a href="http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/</a><br>
> >> >> <a href="http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/</a><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>
> >> ><br>
> >> ><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>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> ><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>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></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></div>