Good Morning, Juho
re: I'd encourage maintaining some separation of the political
and business segments of the society.
How would you go about accomplishing that?
re: The triads and other low level approaches may do good job in
at least waking up some potential leaders. It is
--- On Sat, 28/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: I'd encourage maintaining some separation of the
political
and business segments of the
society..
How would you go about accomplishing that?
I think there are many options. One
could start for
Good Morning, Juho
re: (Btw, I think there are interesting prospects also in the
other hierarchies.)
Given the extraordinary morass our political system has bestowed upon us
... to the extreme disadvantage of our progeny ... it would be well to
select the most practical parts of those
--- On Wed, 25/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/soldoutreport.htm
It describes how the financial sector bribed our
representatives to produce the monstrosity that now engulfs
us. The article provides a link to the full report (a
3MB
--- On Sun, 22/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Our political systems do have serious problems but on
the
other hand we are somewhat above
'the laws of jungle'.
We may be ... somewhat above 'the laws of the jungle',
but that's no testament
Good Morning, Terry
Thanks for joining in. I hope more people will show an interest.
re: I suspect part of the differences are that you place such
an overwhelming focus on political parties as the center of
control and corruption, while others may view parties as
virtually
Good Morning, Juho
I've been on the fence about whether or not it is appropriate for me to
respond to your last message on this thread. Since I'm aware you ...
value many of the political systems of today higher than ... I do, and
since we've exchanged many thoughts over the past year, I
of party officials, and can assure
you they are not in control of things.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning
--- On Wed, 18/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
I've been on the fence about whether or not it is
appropriate for me to respond to your last message on this
thread. Since I'm aware you ... value many of the
political systems of today higher than ... I
Good Morning, Juho
re: ... I wondered at what level in the society the discussions
yield best results and where they will stimulate new
discussion.
At all levels!
At the very first level, when three people discuss their local
ordinances and budget, they will be talking about matters
--- On Sat, 14/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: ... I wondered at what level in the society the
discussions
yield best results and where they
will stimulate new
discussion.
At all levels!
At the very first level, when three people
Good Morning, Juho
re: (Exchange of ideas could be also weak in many triads.)
I wonder why you think the point worth mentioning? Is it not
self-evident? The intensity with which ideas are exchanged among humans
varies infinitely. Practical Democracy creates a setting in which ideas
can be
--- On Tue, 10/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: (Exchange of ideas could be also weak in many
triads.)
I wonder why you think the point worth mentioning? Is
it not self-evident?
Yes, quite self-evident. I just
noted it since I wondered at what
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Political parties have controlled our existence for 200 years.
During that period, we have seen incredible advances in technology,
but, instead of those changes redounding to the benefit of the
people, they have empowered a few at the expense of the rest of us
...
150
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Yes, that method reduces campaigning since all decisions are
very local. The answer in this case seems to be to reduce
the number of candidates that each voter can vote.
The purpose of the method is not to reduce the number of candidates
that each voter can
--- On Sun, 8/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Yes, that method reduces campaigning since all
decisions are
very local. The answer in
this case seems to be to reduce
the number of candidates that each
voter can vote.
The purpose of
Good Afternoon, David
re: Your quote sounds like part of a thought I would have
expressed - be nice if you tied it back to: Tue, 03 Mar
2009 15:43:34 -0500
My real question then was what label you would be willing to
use for what many of us call campaigning, since you seem
Good Morning, Juho
re: [my comment] If we design a process that does not require
campaigning, the evils of campaigning will be avoided.
[you asked] How will you do that?
The method outlined in my February 4, 2008 post, Selecting Leaders From
The People does not require campaigning.
Good Afternoon, James
re: The person 'they want' may well not want the job.
That is not a flaw, it is a fact of political life. However, we have no
right to assume people don't want the job. We must give everyone an
opportunity to seek it. Those who do not want it will make the fact
--- On Fri, 6/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: [my comment] If we design a process that does not
require
campaigning, the evils of campaigning will be
avoided.
[you asked] How will you do that?
The method outlined in my February 4, 2008
Good Morning, David
re: Suppose I take an interest in becoming mayor of Owego.
This will require my neighbors learning this, and something
of what I might do as mayor.
The essence of democracy is not what you want, it is what the people of
Owego want.
The only way we can find out
Fred Gohlke Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:24 PM
The essence of democracy is not what you want, it is what the
people of Owego want.
The only way we can find out who the people of Owego want to be their
mayor is to ask them. Our present electoral methods do not ask the
people who
You do not change the basics but, anyhow:
A smaller group could decide. HOW did they get the authority.
I suspect many will agree that lot is unacceptable except for resolving
ties when there is nothing better available.
Anyway, whoever is deciding has the same learning need that I
Your quote sounds like part of a thought I would have expressed - be nice
if you tied it back to: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:43:34 -0500
My real question then was what label you would be willing to use for what
many of us call campaigning, since you seem to use a different meaning
for that word.
Good Morning, Juho
re: In this case there are also opportunities in campaigning
before nomination.
In which case? In the case of the present system, where campaigning is
used to 'sell' corrupt politicians to the people?
re: [my comment] As you said to Kristofer Munsterhjelm on this
Good Morning, David
re: ... this is campaigning, and I do not understand your
apparent fear of that word.
Fear is not quite the right word, I find campaigning repugnant.
Campaigning is a rabble-rousing technique. It does not appeal to the
voter's reason, it is designed by professionals
So, you do not like the word campaign.
Suppose I take an interest in becoming mayor of Owego.
This will require my neighbors learning this, and something of what I might
do as mayor.
What shall we call this getting the word out, if not campaigning?
Because parties are usually involved,
Dave Ketchum wrote:
So, you do not like the word campaign.
Suppose I take an interest in becoming mayor of Owego.
This will require my neighbors learning this, and something of what I
might do as mayor.
What shall we call this getting the word out, if not campaigning?
Because parties are
Good Morning, Juho
re: [my comment] There is no reason why [the people] must, or
should, let self-interested groups arrogate the selection of
candidates to themselves. We have the means to let the
people make their own choices and ... if we believe in
democratic government ...
Juho Laatu wrote:
--- On Tue, 17/2/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Whether or not the US is a democracy is a semantic
question.
I use this term roughly so that a country
is democratic if people are able to make
change x if they are determined to make
x happen. There should be
--- On Thu, 26/2/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
--- On Tue, 17/2/09, Fred Gohlke
fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Whether or not the US is a democracy is a semantic
question.
I use this term roughly so that a country
is democratic if
--- On Wed, 25/2/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Probably one can not avoid formation of some kind
of
groupings or parties, and of course they may also
contribute
positively. Just need to avoid the numerous common
pitfalls
/
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Probably one can not avoid formation of some kind of
groupings or parties, and of course they may also contribute
positively. Just need to avoid the numerous common pitfalls
/ problems.
If we are to avoid the numerous common pitfalls / problems, is not
--- On Tue, 17/2/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Whether or not the US is a democracy is a semantic
question.
I use this term roughly so that a country
is democratic if people are able to make
change x if they are determined to make
x happen. There should be no fear of coup,
--- On Fri, 13/2/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
re: I meant that it is typically easier to build on
what one has
than to tear down the existing system and replace it
with
some new system that is meant to be ideal.
That is unquestionably true. However, the attempt
Good Morning, Juho
re: (In response to my comment that: If the systems supposed to
support sincere discussions and wise decision making are
implemented without provision to insure the people elected
to public office are people of intellect and integrity, we
should not be
--- On Sat, 31/1/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: People are not always good at reason based free
discussions.
How could they be? What, in our political systems,
encourages reason based discussions? The method
I've outlined cultivates such
Good Morning, Juho
re: People are not always good at reason based free discussions.
How could they be? What, in our political systems, encourages reason
based discussions? The method I've outlined cultivates such discussion
among the electorate. Not the pseudo-discussion of campaign-based
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Would that I had the wit and wisdom to enthuse others to make our political
infrastructures more democratic ... and more amenable to the dynamics
MacIntyre describes. We would all benefit.
You probably do, in measure with the rest of us. But the
infrastructure you
Good Morning, Juho
Let me start by apologizing for my tardy response. Although it was not
the only cause, there was an extenuating circumstance: We were invaded
... by our offspring. My wife and I celebrated our 57th wedding
anniversary and, for some reason, our family thought that worthy
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: The first thing in my mind would not be to limit contacts
between legislators and lobbyists but to limit too heavy
bindings, maybe most notably monetary dependencies. One
could limit e.g. second jobs, right to move to some
commercial position,
--- On Tue, 13/1/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: The first thing in my mind would not be to limit
contacts
between legislators and lobbyists but to limit too
heavy
bindings, maybe most notably monetary dependencies.
One
could limit
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
Thank you very much for the link to the Mother Jones article describing
efforts to curtail the utter domination corporations exert over our
existence. Perhaps, in time, reason will triumph.
[snip]
Again, I don't have much to comment on, but I
Good Morning, Kristofer
Thank you very much for the link to the Mother Jones article describing
efforts to curtail the utter domination corporations exert over our
existence. Perhaps, in time, reason will triumph.
re: Practical Democracy really then has two parts - the
selection phase
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: I agree with your first point [that extending the rights of
humans to non-human entities is a flawed concept], but the
precedent seems to go all the way back to 1886.
Precedent has a place in our lives but it ought not, and need not, be
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
[The following relates to the corruption of elected officials after they
take office.]
re: ... make the system so competitive that the pressure to be
honest is greater than that to become corrupt. I don't think
it can be done by the
Good Afternoon, Dave
Your recitation of the history of the Green Party in New York is typical
of efforts to create political alternatives. In my view, we will be
better served when we forget labels like Left and Right and Green and
Liberal and Conservative and devote our energy to seeking
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: You may say that parties, wanting to be re-elected, would
stay in center ...
I think parties are more inclined to keep one foot in the center while
stretching as far as they can toward the extreme with the other. That's
why we so often
Good Afternoon, Dave
I fear there is a great difference in our views. You seem to feel
parties have a rightful place in our political infrastructure.
I don't.
I have no objection to the existence of parties. I consider them a
vital part of society. However, I deny, vehemently, that they
Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: I use the term 'selected', since elected doesn't really fit.
There's no public election, there's simply a whole lot of
mini-elections that come together.
Again, I agree. I've been using 'elected' out of deference to the site,
but I vastly prefer the concept
While I see value in parties, the purpose of my post was to describe what
happens in New York State - parties here are not permitted the power you
had described - or do describe below.
The Greens are, in one sense, a world wide party. A few years ago they
owned no elective power in NY -
COMMENTS ON AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES
Political parties are quasi-official institutions designed to acquire
the reins of government. They sponsor candidates for public office by
providing the resources needed to conduct a campaign for election. As a
condition of their sponsorship, they
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:34:01 -0500 Fred Gohlke wrote:
COMMENTS ON AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES
...
OLIGARCHIC PARTY STRUCTURE
The political parties that control all political activity in the United
States are in no sense democratic. The American people do not elect
those who control the
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: You may say that parties, wanting to be re-elected, would
stay in center ...
I think parties are more inclined to keep one foot in the center while
stretching as far as they can toward the extreme with the other. That's
why we so often hear that the
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
I'm finding steadily less to comment on; we seem to be reaching a
convergence of sorts, where we either agree, or we disagree but have
found that the only real way to find out which of us is right is to run
this thing in practice. Thus, I've been a
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: ... would be good for the petition to include information
about the level of the person who originated it.
My initial reaction to this suggestion was unfavorable, oddly, for the
very reason you thought it worthwhile; fear that petitions coming from
the lower
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: Even without rigid monitoring, there should be a
counteracting measure. After all, the councilmembers work
on behalf of the people, so if they start consistently
diverging from what the people want, there should be a way
of
Good Afternoon, Kristofer
re: ... the process we're describing is an exponential one.
That's where it gains its power, but that also means that
the views a candidate has to integrate rises very quickly.
Thus it may not only be corruption that limits the
representation, but
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: So, in essence, the pyramid structure remains even after
selection?
Yes. We have the capability of retaining the information and it should
be used to enhance the role of those elected to act as spokesperson for
a segment of the electorate.
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: So, in essence, the pyramid structure remains even after
selection?
Yes. We have the capability of retaining the information and it should
be used to enhance the role of those elected to act as spokesperson for
a segment of the electorate. In this
Fred Gohlke wrote:
The proposed electoral method uses computers to maintain a database of
the electorate, generate random groupings, and record the selections
made at each level, This makes the process inherently bi-directional.
Each elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, so
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
There is so much good material in your message that, instead of
responding to all of it, I'm going to select bits and pieces and comment
on them, one at a time, until I've responded to all of them. I hope
this will help us focus on specific parts
Good Morning, Kristofer
There is so much good material in your message that, instead of
responding to all of it, I'm going to select bits and pieces and comment
on them, one at a time, until I've responded to all of them. I hope
this will help us focus on specific parts of the complex topic
Good Morning, Kristofer
In this message, I'll respond on the topic of accountability. I'll also
attach a copy of the original draft of the concept which may make my
ideas a bit clearer.
(Items from your letter, so I can see which ones I've answered.)
re: Yes. I think recall and the likes
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Evening, Kristofer
Before responding to your most recent letter, I'd like to revisit a
topic mentioned in your letter of Fri, 26 Sep. In discussing the way a
group of three people might resolve a traffic question involving three
alternatives, each championed by a
Good Morning, Raph
re: The principle is that if you can't advance (best case
scenario), then just make sure nobody else advances (2nd
best scenario).
Fortunately, people who would pursue such a course are rare. The
majority of humans are rational, reasonable people. They have to
On 9/23/08, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good Morning, Raph
re: The principle is that if you can't advance (best case
scenario), then just make sure nobody else advances (2nd
best scenario).
Fortunately, people who would pursue such a course are rare. The majority
of
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
re: (About explaining the worst case, where all except a minority
gets removed), Ahh, I did with the religious minority?
As I said in my response to that explanation, the reasoning is seriously
flawed. It is based on
Good Morning, Raph
re: My concern would be that their opinions would be dismissed
out of hand. If there is nobody pushing them at a national
level, then that is an almost instinctive reaction to weird
ideas (including 'good' weird ideas).
Any opinion that can be dismissed
On 9/17/08, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good Afternoon, Raph
re: However, under your system, they (minority views) do get
represented in the level 1 triads. What they lose is the
having high level representatives.
Ah. Now we're at the crux of the matter ...
Good Afternoon, Raph
re: However, under your system, they (minority views) do get
represented in the level 1 triads. What they lose is the
having high level representatives.
Ah. Now we're at the crux of the matter ...
Whether or not a minority view retains high level
Good Afternoon, Kristofer
re: The rationale (for protecting an opinion not held by the
majority of the electorate) is that it enables compromise.
I submit that the essence of the Practical Democracy concept is
compromise. Three people, exchanging views on a variety of public
issues and
On 9/15/08, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good Morning, Raph
re: (With regard to the suggestion that the process 'Have one
triad judge the other'):
Well, the person can still try to convince the judges, the
point is that he doesn't act as judge of his own fitness.
On 9/15/08, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Holders of minority views who wish their view to gain ascendancy have an
obligation to persuade the majority of their compatriots that their
(currently minority) view is advantageous for all the people. If they can
not do so, they have no
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
Thanks for the link. I'll check it as soon as I can.
re: If the council is of size 7, no opinion that holds less than
1/7 of the voters can be represented, so if the opinion is
spread too thin, it'll be removed from the system; but if
Good Morning, Raph
re: (With regard to the suggestion that the process 'Have one
triad judge the other'):
Well, the person can still try to convince the judges, the
point is that he doesn't act as judge of his own fitness.
Basically, the six people would meet up and then
Good Morning, Kristofer
Thanks for the link. I'll check it as soon as I can.
re: If the council is of size 7, no opinion that holds less than
1/7 of the voters can be represented, so if the opinion is
spread too thin, it'll be removed from the system; but if
you have an extreme
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Kristofer
re: This sounds a lot like what I've previously referred to as
'council democracy'.
I hadn't heard that term before or seen the proposal. I wonder if the
concepts can be merged, perhaps by an analytical critique of the processes.
I first
Good Afternoon, again, Kristofer
Here is an analysis of the question of group size. Alternative views
are welcome.
Fred
DELIBERATIVE GROUP SIZE and PERSUASION
At the initial level, when the entire electorate meets for the first
time to select one member of a triad to represent
Good Afternoon, Raph
re: A person who wants to be selected would try to convince the
other 2 to support him, even if he thinks one of them would
be better.
This is the conflict of interests.
Of course a person who wants to be selected will try to attract the
support of the
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good Afternoon, Raph
re: A person who wants to be selected would try to convince the
other 2 to support him, even if he thinks one of them would
be better.
This is the conflict of interests.
Of course a
Good Morning, Raph
re: You have created a conflict of interests here. People who don't
set aside their own ambition are favoured.
Can you supply a rationale to support this statement?
Since the human dynamics are the most important aspect of any electoral
process, I'd like to understand
On 9/12/08, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
re: You have created a conflict of interests here. People who don't set
aside their own ambition are favoured.
Can you supply a rationale to support this statement?
A person who wants to be selected would try to convince the other 2 to
Good Morning, Raph
When I offered to send you a draft of the petition outlining a method of
selecting candidates for public office, I planned to send it privately.
After seeing your response, I asked the author's permission to post it
publicly and he agreed. Here's the draft in its current
Good Morning, Terry Bouricius
re: ... I have long advocated a greater use of sortition (the selection
by lot) to select legislators ...
It seems to me the problem with picking people by lot is that it
provides no means of examining them. I understand that it produces a
random sample of the
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:50 AM
I was looking at their BC-STV proposal. What is the
difference from normal PR-STV (or is calling it BC-STV just a
'marketing ploy' :) )?
Depends what you mean by normal. There are at least six different sets of
rules for STV-PR now
On 9/10/08, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:50 AM
I was looking at their BC-STV proposal. What is the
difference from normal PR-STV (or is calling it BC-STV just a
'marketing ploy' :) )?
Depends what you mean by normal. There
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:49 AM
Depends what you mean by normal. There are at least six different
sets of rules for STV-PR now in use for public elections around the
world.
Fair enough. So they are just giving an official name to one
of them then?
I would
to authorize them to represent it.
--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
To: Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED],
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 4:00 PM
On 9/10/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If duplicate votes don't count, then there'll be a natural incentive to
pick friends instead of central party figures. All campaigning would do
would be to give whichever candidate's being promoted a lot of votes, which
is no better
On 9/10/08, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I would rather a friend got it than someone famous who I
didn't know.
The exception might be someone who did well in the previous term in
office. Current legislators would count as 'famous' and in a good
way.
Election-Methods
Raph Frank wrote:
The US (and many other countries') founders had to base their new
structure on something. Ideas are not as irrelevant as you seem to
make out.
PR-STV wouldn't have been implemented if nobody bothered to suggest it.
True. I like how Max Weber qualifies it:
Not ideas,
--- On Wed, 9/10/08, Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 10:20 AM
Aaron makes a fundamental point about
Good Morning, Raph
Thank you for posting my letter.
I suspect we are seeing the process differently. In my view, candidates
can only stand for election in a single district and the only candidates
the electorate will consider are those seeking election from their
district: I'm Honest Joe,
Good Morning, Raph
I think that description is close to a sound system. Something not too
different may be proposed in a community in England later this year. I
have a draft of the petition I can send you, if you'd like to see it.
Fred
Election-Methods mailing list - see
On 9/9/08, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot take any of you seriously. Are you all suspending disbelief
for the sake of the argument? I agree with your ideals, but there's
an element of unreality in proposing to restructure a legislature by
design. Like in Brian's
On 9/9/08, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect we are seeing the process differently. In my view, candidates
can only stand for election in a single district and the only candidates the
electorate will consider are those seeking election from their district:
I'm Honest Joe, and
Whoops!
It was your entire post of Mon Sep 8 03:44:51 PDT 2008
I didn't cite it because I was responding to the entire post, which follows:
(clip)
One option is to select the legislature at random. Stratified random
sampling would yield a highly representative legislature. The
population
that elections may not be the key to genuinely
representative democracy.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Whoops
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Fred Gohlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoops!
It was your entire post of Mon Sep 8 03:44:51 PDT 2008
I didn't cite it because I was responding to the entire post, which follows:
Ahh, no problem.
The issue is that I have made various suggestions in recent
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
