[fvc-wat-disc] Monsef ... Re: fvc-wat-disc Digest, Vol 89, Issue 4

Wed Aug 3 22:10:06 EDT 2016

Hi Eleanor,

There is no date set for the Minister's visit here nor is it certain she is
coming to WR.  Both Raj & Bardish has promised to try and get her here but
nothing, not a commitment let alone a date is confirmed.

Sharon

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Eleanor Grant <eleanor7000 at gmail.com> wrote:

> When did you say Monsef is coming?
>
> Eleanor
> On 3 Aug 2016 16:06, <fvc-wat-disc-request at listserv.thinkers.org> wrote:
>
>> Send fvc-wat-disc mailing list submissions to
>>         fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>
>> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         fvc-wat-disc-request at listserv.thinkers.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         fvc-wat-disc-owner at listserv.thinkers.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of fvc-wat-disc digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: The Government Wants To Know! (Jennifer Ross)
>>    2. Re: Sept 8: KPL presentation (Laurel L. Russwurm)
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Jennifer Ross <2jennross at gmail.com>
>> To: "Laurel L. Russwurm" <laurel.l at russwurm.org>
>> Cc: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion <fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org>
>> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:50:22 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] The Government Wants To Know!
>> Not at all.  The committee stuff goes to her.  We skip a step.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm <laurel.l at russwurm.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Maryam Monsef herself but no committee?? That SUCKS.  It is not the same
>>> thing at all.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> steamed Laurel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2016 03:43 PM, Jennifer Ross wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe that is because Maryam Monsef is going to do Waterloo Region
>>> herself.  Or so we keep being promised/threatened/dangled with.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm <
>>> laurel.l at russwurm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It certainly looks as though the ERRE Committee will NOT be stopping in
>>>> Waterloo Region:
>>>>
>>>> It was agreed, — That, in relation to the study of viable alternate
>>>> voting systems, mandatory voting and online voting, the following travel
>>>> budgets be adopted:
>>>>
>>>> • Regina (SK), St-Pierre Jolys (MB), Winnipeg (MB), Toronto (ON),
>>>> Québec (QC), and Joliette (QC): $ 137,111.80
>>>>
>>>> • Whitehorse (YT), Victoria (BC), Vancouver (BC), LeDuc (AB),
>>>> Yellowknife(NT): $ 162,667.05
>>>>
>>>> • Montréal (QC), St. John’s (NL), Halifax (NS), Charlottetown (PE),
>>>> Fredericton (NB) $ 130,711.80
>>>>
>>>> • Iqaluit ((NU) $ 109 517.50.
>>>>
>>>> It was agreed, — That, should the Board of Internal Economy adopt these
>>>> budgets, the Analysts and the Clerks, in consultation with the Chair,
>>>> prepare a news release for publication on the Committee’s website,
>>>> announcing the cities that will be visited.
>>>>
>>>> It was agreed, — That, the Committee hire two (2) research assistants
>>>> for the period of June 21 to December 1, 2016, for a total amount not to
>>>> exceed $ 58,300.00.
>>>>
>>>> It was agreed, — That, a proposed budget in the amount of $ 80,250.00
>>>> for the study of electoral reform be adopted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8396591
>>>>
>>>> If they were stopping once in each province & territory it would be
>>>> different, but the 17 stops include
>>>>
>>>> 3 in Quebec
>>>> 2 in Manitoba
>>>>
>>>> but only ONE in Ontario.
>>>>
>>>> What now?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Laurel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/01/2016 10:34 PM, Sharon Sommerville wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello FairVoting Friends,
>>>>
>>>> The Electoral Reform Committee wants to hear from Canadians, we have an
>>>> amazing opportunity to let our government know that we want PR and why.
>>>>
>>>> COMMUNITY DIALOGUES
>>>>
>>>> The Electoral Reform Committee is asking Canadians to participate in
>>>> community dialogues and submit reports to them on what is important in an
>>>> electoral system and why.
>>>>
>>>> Starting on Tuesday, August 9th and every Tuesday at 6:30 from till
>>>> October we will be at the Queen Street Commons (43 Queen Street South) in
>>>> Kitchener to facilitate conversations about electoral reform.  We will talk
>>>> together, record the conversation and submit it to the government.  Join us
>>>> for a coffee and a chat.
>>>>
>>>> PR IN THE BACKYARD
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, August 12th at 7 pm join Catherine Fife, MPP for Waterloo to
>>>> learn more about PR. There will be a presentation, comments from Catherine,
>>>> discussion groups and a Q & A. Learn, discuss and debate in a pleasant,
>>>> informal backyard setting.
>>>>
>>>> Hope to see you soon!,
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Sharon
>>>> for FVC-WR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Laurel L. Russwurm, Author <http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/> §
>>>> about.me <http://about.me/laurelrusswurm> § Libreleft Books
>>>> <http://libreleft.com>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No other Western democratic country concentrates as much political power in
>>> the hands of one person as Canada does with her Prime Minister.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Laurel L. Russwurm, Author <http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/> §
>>> about.me <http://about.me/laurelrusswurm> § Libreleft Books
>>> <http://libreleft.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No other Western democratic country concentrates as much political power in
>> the hands of one person as Canada does with her Prime Minister.
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Laurel L. Russwurm" <laurel.l at russwurm.org>
>> To: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>> Cc:
>> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:06:06 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Sept 8: KPL presentation
>> Paul says:
>>
>> I see no reason at all or Fair Vote Waterloo to invite a FPTP entity.
>> This is a part that will be contentious: the KPL wants this
>> >> presentation to lean towards impartiality, with an honest
>> >> discussion of pros in cons. They are not interested in having us
>> >> advocate for one electoral system in particular, because they do
>> >> not want to come across as being partisan in this issue. I warned
>> >> the KPL that FVC tends to be unkind to FPTP and AV, but promised
>> >> that I would try to steer the direction of the presentation more
>> >> towards public information (Here is what is happening! Here are
>> >> our options! Here are the advantages and disadvantages of each!)
>> >> and less towards sermonizing (Proportional Representation is
>> >> amazing and you are a stupidhead if you don't support it!). I
>> >> have not seen Byron's presentation in a while, but I think that
>> >> it is reasonably close to something that will make the KPL
>> >> happy.
>>
>> In both my Dennis Pilon videos (no, the 2nd isn't done) the first thing
>> he does is explain the different systems including FPTP.  Steve Dyck did
>> the same thing at the Guelph event.  This is reasonable.
>>
>> Fair Vote does not advocate for any specific system, it advocates for
>> fair outcomes, which can ONLY mean a system from the proportional family,
>> which is not the same thing at all.  The real point here is that if the
>> status quo is so easy, nobody should have to speak up for it.  FPTP is the
>> default.  It doesn't need FVCwrc's help
>>
>> In my experience in the interest of being evenhanded FVC folk agree that
>> FPTP is simple.  But it is not.
>>
>> What this should be is FVC presenting information.  Maybe holding mock
>> election for FPTP, STV and MMP
>>
>> I know people say FPTP is simple but I disagree.  It is no simpler for
>> voters to vote in FPTP than any PR system... unless you think 2 xes is
>> harder than one, or counting to twenty is too difficult.  Even then, if I'm
>> not mistaken EVERY PR system suggested for Canada would be flexible enough
>> to allow voters to continue making a single mark if they so choose.
>>
>> FPTP is not simpler, it is only FAMILIAR.
>>
>> Raj Saini complained about voters accidentally marking the Libertarian
>> candidate when seeing "Lib" rather than the Liberal candidate.
>>
>> And Dennis Pilon says we spoil more ballots here in Canada under FPTP
>> than under STV in Ireland (said to be the most difficult form of PR for
>> voters)
>>
>> I know I spent 30 years not understanding why my vote didn't ever count.
>> I was seriously on the verge of giving up on this futile faux democracy and
>> joined the ranks of non-voters but for the fact Paul introduced Fair Vote
>> Canada to Bob.
>>
>> Fair Vote Canada is an advocate for Proportional Representation.  It is a
>> LOBBY group for citizens... this is my understanding of why FVC has not
>> been invited to speak to the ERRE committee.
>>
>> [Note: EVERY FVC member who can talk about PR with accuracy and authority
>> ought to be submitting themselves as committee expert witnesses.
>>
>> From the press release:
>> —REQUESTS TO APPEAR: Requests to appear may be sent to the Committee by
>> email (erre at parl.gc.ca) or by using the appropriate button on the
>> Committee’s website. Please note that the Committee clerks will contact
>> only those who are selected by the Committee members to appear. Requests to
>> appear must be submitted to the Committee no later than October 7, 2016, at
>> 11:59 p.m. (EDT).
>>
>> <http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=0&Ses=0&DocId=8385844>
>> http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=0&Ses=0&DocId=8385844
>> Presumably every committee member who worked on the presentation would be
>> suitable to argue "why Proportional Representation", as well as Anita,
>> Jennifer, Sharon, Steve Dyck from Guelph, Pat from FairVote Peel, Larry
>> Gordon, Wayne Smith, Kelly Carmichael and many more.
>>
>> I am not saying to pretend not to be FVC folk, it should be clear you
>> are.  If a ton of Fair Vote people request to appear I can't see them being
>> able to justify ignoring you all]
>>
>> That's my two bits.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Laurel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/01/2016 03:27 PM, Sharon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I took some deliberate time off over the past few days, to re-charge and
>> have not been a part of this discussion but it is Monday afternoon and time
>> to get back at.
>>
>> First, so many thanks to Paul for taking this on, we would not have
>> something cooking with the library if he hadn't.  Thank you Paul.
>>
>> The format needs to honour both the need for even handedness by the
>> library and our work to promote PR.  Our power point presentation was
>> designed to be as fair as is possible given our mandate ( it was put
>> together by a multipartisan committee - 2 Liberals, 1 NDP, 1 Conservative
>> and 1 non aligned voter) and with additional adaptation could be more so.
>> Specifically, the last slide which calls for PR could be removed.
>>
>> My personal preference would be to deliver our presentation followed by a
>> robust Q & A and discussion. We could invite a number of folks that
>> represent as spectrum political views to participate in the Q & A. I am not
>> keen to organize a panel and invite someone from Keep Voting Simple as they
>> will be getting lots of media attention due to the interest of the MSM
>> to encourage controversy but to maintain the educational focus on electoral
>> systems in general  & promote dialogue in the community.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Sharon
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 6:47 PM, arthurd23 arthurd23 <
>> <arthurd23 at bell.net>arthurd23 at bell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob, you're correct but to the majority of voters, voting in FPTP is
>>> simple and therefore preferred.
>>>
>>> Their concern is not fairness or democracy.
>>>
>>> Paul, your comments on other pros os FPTP are valid if democracy is not
>>> important.
>>>
>>> My stance is that FPTP is not democratic unless the purpose of democracy
>>> is to eliminate fair representation for most Canadians.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, for some Canadians, that is a pro for FPTP. In any
>>> discussion Fairvote would not need to call it a pro.
>>>
>>> The geographic balance that FPTP can provide can also be provided and
>>> even enhanced in a system such as MMP where the non-constituency MPs can be
>>> awarded with adjustments for geographic and diversity factors considered.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>> From: Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com>
>>> Date: July 29, 2016 at 12:39 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Dave Arthur wrote:
>>> > The only pro for FPTP that I am aware of is that it is simple.
>>>
>>> But it's not. Try to explain how 39% of the vote results in 54% of the
>>> seats in parliament. Why 57% of the votes cast in Kitchener
>>> South-Hespeler did not contribute to sending anyone to parliament.
>>> That Elizabeth May does not represent 600,000 voters across Canada,
>>> but only 104,000 people in Saanich-Gulf Islands (and maybe only the
>>> 37,000 people who voted for her).
>>>
>>> While it is simple to fill in an FPTP ballot, the election results are
>>> baffling. And it is just as simple to fill in an MMP ballot (Two X
>>> marks! Twice as hard!) or an STV ballot (counting from 1 to 5 is
>>> pretty simple), and the election results from any proportional system
>>> are much easier to understand.
>>>
>>> - --Bob.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/29/16 08:25, arthurd23 arthurd23 wrote:
>>> > Thanks Paul.
>>> >
>>> > If we attempt to be impartial, it shouldn't be difficult to have PR
>>> > pros vastly outnumber FPTP and AV pros.
>>> >
>>> > The only pro for FPTP that I am aware of is that it is simple. Are
>>> > there any others?
>>> >
>>> > The only advantage of AV is that the winning candidate accumulates
>>> > 50% support when you include enough second place and third place
>>> > supporters who don't really favour the winning candidate.
>>> >
>>> > PR has by far the most pros.
>>> >
>>> > Dave
>>> >
>>> >> ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Paul Nijjar
>>> >> <paul_nijjar at yahoo.ca> Date: July 29, 2016 at 3:18 AM
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> (CCing to fvc-wat-disc. I do not know whether it will get
>>> >> through because I do not know if the mailing list has been
>>> >> configured to work with Yahoo. But I will try.)
>>> >>
>>> >> Okay, we are booked for a presentation at the Kitchener Public
>>> >> Library.
>>> >>
>>> >> I talked with the programming manager at the KPL over the phone
>>> >> today. She said that if I got a blurb to her by tomorrow then it
>>> >> could be included in the In Touch magazine. I just sent that
>>> >> blurb to her now (unfortunately in addition to being lazy my
>>> >> stomach started acting up this evening, and I have spent a lot of
>>> >> time lying low). Here is the blurb:
>>> >>
>>> >> ----
>>> >>
>>> >> Prime Minister Trudeau has promised to make "every vote count"
>>> >> in future elections, and the process of electoral reform is
>>> >> currently underway. Why might the current electoral system
>>> >> benefit from reform? What electoral reforms are being considered?
>>> >> What are their advantages and disadvantages? How is this
>>> >> electoral reform process structured? How can we participate in
>>> >> this process? Representatives from Fair Vote Canada will address
>>> >> these issues and take your questions.
>>> >>
>>> >> ----
>>> >>
>>> >> I also made a bunch of other promises and decisions that the
>>> >> Executive might not like. Here is a summary:
>>> >>
>>> >> - The event will be held at the central branch of the library on
>>> >> Thursday, Sept 8, from 7:00pm-8:30pm. (We also had the option of
>>> >> Sept 1 or Sept 22, and I may have made the wrong choice.)
>>> >>
>>> >> - We were originally booked for Meeting Room A, which holds 60
>>> >> people. I implied that we could get over 60 people to the event,
>>> >> so we are rebooked for a bigger room (maybe the auditorium? It is
>>> >> not clear). Now we have to keep that promise. If only 20 people
>>> >> show up we will look pretty bad.
>>> >>
>>> >> - It sounds as if the KPL is more interested in a discussion of
>>> >> different electoral systems, as well as non-electoral system
>>> >> options including mandatory voting and electronic voting.
>>> >> However, we should still cover the electoral reform process (the
>>> >> committee, Monsef's five principles, etc)
>>> >>
>>> >> - This is a part that will be contentious: the KPL wants this
>>> >> presentation to lean towards impartiality, with an honest
>>> >> discussion of pros in cons. They are not interested in having us
>>> >> advocate for one electoral system in particular, because they do
>>> >> not want to come across as being partisan in this issue. I warned
>>> >> the KPL that FVC tends to be unkind to FPTP and AV, but promised
>>> >> that I would try to steer the direction of the presentation more
>>> >> towards public information (Here is what is happening! Here are
>>> >> our options! Here are the advantages and disadvantages of each!)
>>> >> and less towards sermonizing (Proportional Representation is
>>> >> amazing and you are a stupidhead if you don't support it!). I
>>> >> have not seen Byron's presentation in a while, but I think that
>>> >> it is reasonably close to something that will make the KPL
>>> >> happy.
>>> >>
>>> >> - The current format is looking like a 45-minute presentation
>>> >> followed by abundant Q&A. This format is not set in stone. In
>>> >> particular, if we wanted to put together a panel (with some
>>> >> representatives from Keep Voting Simple?) then that would be okay
>>> >> with the KPL too.
>>> >>
>>> >> Managing Q&A is going to be tricky, because events like this
>>> >> attract people who like to ramble instead of asking questions.
>>> >> Maybe written questions are the way to go?
>>> >>
>>> >> - The KPL can provide a projector. We will provide laptops and
>>> >> other equipment.
>>> >>
>>> >> - We are allowed to have a booth outside the presentation if we
>>> >> want. (The KPL told us they will not give us their registration
>>> >> list, but that's fine and we were not expecting that anyways.) I
>>> >> am guessing we could invite LeadNow and other groups (Keep Voting
>>> >> Simple?) to have booths as well, but I do not know for sure.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Next Steps ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> - Figure out what format the presentation will take. It seems to
>>> >> me that Byron's presentation is adaptable if we use a
>>> >> presentation. If we want to put together a panel then FVC can be
>>> >> less even-handed, but the other panellists might be better at
>>> >> convincing people than we are.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Figure out who will present. My guess is that the natural
>>> >> choice is Byron or Sean, since they have done this presentation
>>> >> before. There might be other good presenters available as well. I
>>> >> am also open to doing the presenting in the worst case. (Really?
>>> >> I am too anxious to staff a booth but I can present to a big
>>> >> audience? I guess my ego is really that huge.)
>>> >>
>>> >> - Work towards getting a good turnout, especially amongst people
>>> >> who are not already voting nerds. KPL marketing will definitely
>>> >> help but we have work to do as well:
>>> >>
>>> >> + If FVC makes some tweets or Facebook posts, can the rest of us
>>> >> retweet/like/promote those items? (Sean says that Anita has a
>>> >> good social network, so maybe we can exploit that.) + Can we
>>> >> personally invite friends, family and enemies to attend the
>>> >> presentation? + We should let LeadNow know that this presentation
>>> >> is happening. I can probably email Sylvie if she is not already
>>> >> on this list. + We can let people know this is happening via the
>>> >> announcement list.
>>> >>
>>> >> I am sure there are other promotional ideas as well. We should
>>> >> not rest on our laurels about this.
>>> >>
>>> >> - We should not stop here. Having one prominent organization
>>> >> agree to host a talk is good leverage for convincing others. We
>>> >> should reach out to the libraries again. It would also be great
>>> >> to hit up service clubs (Rotarians, Lions Club), co-ops (we have
>>> >> had good success with housing co-ops in the past), church groups,
>>> >> and maybe even the remaining electoral district associations
>>> >> (even the Conservatives!).
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________ This is the
>>> >> fvc-wat-disc mailing list Post a message:
>>> >> fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Unsubscribe:
>>> >>
>>> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________ This is the
>>> > fvc-wat-disc mailing list Post a message:
>>> > fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Unsubscribe:
>>> >
>>> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>> - --
>>>
>>>
>>> - --
>>> Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> Phone: +1-519-635-9413
>>> SOBAC Microcomputer Services <http://sobac.com/sobac/>
>>> http://sobac.com/sobac/
>>> Software --- Office & Business Automation --- Consulting
>>> GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v2
>>> Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability
>>>
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAlebhscACgkQuRKJsNLM5eoxCACg1zyOgF14OwAqhMYnMN+ckb7h
>>> m2UAnA0TDSzycmSgEmdUH8cV/iZa8bTo
>>> =H9i1
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laurel L. Russwurm, Author <http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/> § about.me
>> <http://about.me/laurelrusswurm> § Libreleft Books <http://libreleft.com>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>> Unsubscribe:
>> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe:
> http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20160803/6f0ecac0/attachment-0002.htm>