It’s not true fir any of the meds she is in record as taking. But the bigger point had to do with reproductive control. The US has a horrid history of trying to prevent “undesirables” from reproducing, and in response a body of law has developed making it very hard for the state to insert itself into this. Roe v Wade depends on this tradition, and while that is in shaky ground with the current court, the underlying foundation is not.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:44 AM Melissa P <[email protected]> wrote: > I certainly have no medical expertise, but somehow I know that > dermatologists won't prescribe a certain acne medication to women unless > they're on birth control. > > Perhaps that's also true of one or more of the medications Britney is > taking, and a judge has ordered her to take that medication. > > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 1:31 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> That may or may not be the best medical advice; we have lots of >> psychiatric pts who get pregnant, and there are ways around that, including >> taking a 9 month drug holiday. But regardless of whether it may not be a >> good idea for her to get pregnant, it is certainly her decision to make. I >> can’t imagine any court approving an order to force her not to get >> pregnant, based on psychiatric symptoms or medication. >> >> >> >> On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 10:07 AM Melissa P <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, essentially she's already supporting Federline's 6 children, only >>> two of which are hers. >>> >>> But what makes most sense to me is that she shouldn't get pregnant >>> because of the psychotropic medications she's probably taking, which could >>> harm unborn children. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:15 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> And just in the interest of a complete historical record, here is a >>>> relevant NYT piece from a few days ago expanding in what Spears claim that >>>> she is somehow being prevented from removing her IUD is so shocking. >>>> >>>> This claim is shocking enough that I continue to lean towards not >>>> believing it is literally true. If it is true, then this alone would >>>> justify all the fan site histrionics. >>>> >>>> But what I found particularly interesting is the speculation here as to >>>> why Jamie Spears might be trying to prevent his daughter from getting >>>> pregnant: he may be trying to prevent her BF and the likely father of any >>>> baby from gaining a claim to control some or all of Brittany’s assets. This >>>> is interesting because this worry about Brittany being vulnerable to “undue >>>> influence” seems to be at the heart of the justification for the PC in the >>>> first place. >>>> >>>> Again, it strikes me as unbelievable that in 21st century California >>>> any court would stand for forced sterilization (even a temporary kind); >>>> more likely Jamie is making something else Brittany wants contingent on her >>>> having IUD in place (perhaps, in conjunction with their father, who would >>>> have a similar self-interest, access to her children). >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/health/britney-spears-forced-IUD.html?referringSource=articleShare >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 10:19 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> LAT has a good analysis article this morning. Their conservation >>>>> expert (Leslie Salzman, a clinical professor of law at the Cardozo >>>>> School of Law) articulates several of the concerns I have been focusing >>>>> on. >>>>> The story also points out how cozy the relations are between the different >>>>> players in this process, and there really isn’t an independent, objective >>>>> advocate for the conservatee. But they still don’t explain how a >>>>> psychiatric dx qualifies someone for this kind of Conservatorship. >>>>> >>>>> I used to do forensic evaluations for the state of California >>>>> (Competency to Stand Trial and Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). One of >>>>> the most common things we would say in our reports is something like: >>>>> “Yes, >>>>> this subject does have a mental illness, but no, it does not make them >>>>> incompetent to stand trial.” I suspect I would say something similar about >>>>> Spears if I were evaluating her, unless there is some huge deficit or >>>>> pathology that has just not come out publicly. >>>>> >>>>> “According to the New York Times, which reviewed an internal 2016 >>>>> report, Spears told her probate investigator that the conservatorship was >>>>> oppressive and that she wanted out. The investigator said it should >>>>> continue because of her “complex finances, susceptibility to undue >>>>> influence and ‘intermittent’ drug issues, yet called for ‘a pathway to >>>>> independence and the eventual termination of the conservatorship.’ >>>>> >>>>> Salzman was troubled by several aspects of the proceedings from the >>>>> beginning. One, the judge didn’t allow Spears to hire her own attorney. >>>>> Two, her court-appointed attorney, according to Spears’ testimony >>>>> Wednesday, never told her that she could file a petition to terminate the >>>>> conservancy. And three, against Spears’ objections, the judge did not >>>>> appoint a neutral conservator but selected her father, with whom she was >>>>> known to have a rocky relationship.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-26/britney-spears-conservatorship-claims-raise-serious-concerns >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 8:28 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Under California law a conservatorship justified for a “person who >>>>>> is unable to provide properly for his or her personal needs for physical >>>>>> health, food, clothing, or shelter,” or for someone who is >>>>>> “substantially unable to manage his or her own financial resources or >>>>>> resist fraud or undue influence.” >>>>>> >>>>>> https://apnews.com/article/6a484c43ce6c5ff1e73af0dfd97d948a >>>>>> >>>>>> The standard Kevin invokes is for temporary involuntary >>>>>> hospitalization (in California often referred to as a 5150). >>>>>> >>>>>> Spears is not being conserved because of tabloid rumors or raunchy >>>>>> behavior. She is being conserved because a Court found that she can not >>>>>> be >>>>>> trusted to care for herself. Almost always this is done because an older >>>>>> person is in full on Alzheimer’s, or a younger person suffered serious >>>>>> brain damage, or something else from which folks don’t recover. In Spears >>>>>> case it appears to be because of a psychiatric disorder, probably >>>>>> bipolar, >>>>>> which is unusual. It is possible she did something to injure her brain >>>>>> (trauma or drugs) that we don’t know about. >>>>>> >>>>>> The AP article says the Conservatorship specifically makes medical >>>>>> decisions for her, which I guess explains the IUD, but that still is the >>>>>> most shocking example of how unusual this is to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> The article also points out what may be obvious but is worth keeping >>>>>> in mind, which is that it is almost impossible that the court will simply >>>>>> grant her request to be released from Conservatorship. Legally. One >>>>>> someone >>>>>> is conserved, the burden of proof shifts to them to demonstrate that they >>>>>> are competent; the state does not have to continue to show that they are >>>>>> incompetent. This is why, even though one predicate for her being >>>>>> conserved >>>>>> is bipolar disorder, in my view it almost certainly can not be the only >>>>>> reason. I can’t think of a single purely psychiatric (as opposed to >>>>>> clearly >>>>>> neurological) condition that could be assumed to be so unchangingly >>>>>> active >>>>>> and severe as to justify the presumption a person is perpetually >>>>>> incompetent (including something like schizophrenia). >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not to say she can never be released from the >>>>>> Conservatorship, but it means it will take more than her outrage (or >>>>>> public >>>>>> outrage) to do it. She will need proper medical judgement that whatever >>>>>> previous condition led her to be incompetent is now clearly resolved. >>>>>> >>>>>> One more thing; if I wanted to fan the conspiracy flames, I would >>>>>> focus on the allegation she made yesterday that her lawyer had never told >>>>>> her over all these years that she could or should formally request to >>>>>> have >>>>>> the Conservatorship removed. This raises the question of whose interest >>>>>> the >>>>>> lawyer is acting in. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 8:50 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> To reiterate my prior comments, I only had brief encounters with her >>>>>>> when I worked in the industry. While she was odd, so are most in the >>>>>>> industry, including me. What the public saw most certainly is not “the >>>>>>> real >>>>>>> Britney,” but — again — that’s indicative of Hollywood. Your experience >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> good at framing the key issues, but ultimately we can only speculate. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> public argument for keeping her in someone else’s care is that she is >>>>>>> incapable of making sane, sober life choices… see previous sentence >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> being indicative of Hollywood. To me, the only reason to legally deny >>>>>>> her >>>>>>> access to what she has earned (for better or worse) is that she is a >>>>>>> danger >>>>>>> to herself or others. She has publicly abused substances, but that alone >>>>>>> doesn’t seem to be a deal breaker in re sanity. My conclusion therefore >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> there is a giant chunk of the puzzle which we are not aware. I don’t >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> we are entitled to be aware, but that’s a different argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding her dad being in charge of her… yeah, that needs to be >>>>>>> changed. That’s ten levels of wrong, morally and ethically. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:11 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BS had another hearing today, and for first time formally requested >>>>>>>> to have conservatorship terminated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brief quote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “ I feel ganged up on, I feel bullied and I feel left out and >>>>>>>> alone," Spears said. "And I'm tired of feeling alone." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> She detailed parts of her life that had been unknown. She said that >>>>>>>> she was being exploited and that she can't sleep, is depressed and >>>>>>>> cries >>>>>>>> every day. She stated that she wants another baby but is forced to >>>>>>>> keep an >>>>>>>> IUD in place. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "All I want is to own my money and for this to end.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> She asked that her opening statement be made in public, most of the >>>>>>>> rest that transpired was closed (as it ought to be). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While the claims made by Spears have to be taken serious and >>>>>>>> investigated, they can not be assumed to be true, or complete, as they >>>>>>>> stand. Presumably she is in this situation due do a Dx psychiatric >>>>>>>> condition, and I can testify to the fact that for a number of reasons >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> everything people in that situation say can be assumed to be accurate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Several questions remain unanswered (as far as I can tell, I only >>>>>>>> read this story about today’s events): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Why is she on a Probate Conservatorship (rare for a young >>>>>>>> person who obviously can take care of her basic ADLs)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. What harm is the court trying to protect Spears from? This >>>>>>>> is basically another way of asking Q1. Presumably part of the answer is >>>>>>>> damage to her large estate, and future earning potential, but I have to >>>>>>>> think there is more than just financial interest at play here. I >>>>>>>> continue >>>>>>>> to suspect that A) She is seen as being unduly influenced by a >>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>> unreliable source and B) there is concern that the physical, >>>>>>>> psychological >>>>>>>> and financial well being of her children is threatened. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Why does the Court continue to allow her father to be part >>>>>>>> of the Conservatorship, given his questionable history with her and >>>>>>>> conflict of interest? There are objective, professional Conservators >>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>> could do this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Is it really possible for a Conservator to require the use >>>>>>>> of an IUD? I suspect this is a question that does not come up very >>>>>>>> often, >>>>>>>> as the large majority of people under PC are past child bearing age, >>>>>>>> or are >>>>>>>> men. I am trying to think of a justification for this requirement. I >>>>>>>> recently had a patient whose OB-GYN had documented in clear terms that >>>>>>>> her >>>>>>>> postpartum depression and psychosis was so bad, increasingly, with >>>>>>>> first 4 >>>>>>>> pregnancies that under no circumstances should she get pregnant again >>>>>>>> (I >>>>>>>> was seeing her because she was pregnant again). I guess if that pt has >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> conserved she could have been forced to have an IUD inserted, though >>>>>>>> for an >>>>>>>> outpatient it seems like a difficult requirement to enforce. It seems >>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>> likely to me that somehow her father was able to use some financial >>>>>>>> leverage to get her to agree to not getting pregnant again (I can’t >>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>> believe that any conservator could make a decision specifically about >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> IUD – even very disturbed women would have the right to select their >>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>> contraceptive method, or at least have it made for them by their >>>>>>>> physician). >>>>>>>> The Rolling Stone story confirms that she has been on Lithium, >>>>>>>> which almost certainly confirms that she has been diagnosed with >>>>>>>> Bipolar >>>>>>>> Disorder, which is consistent with my hypothesis about her. I have >>>>>>>> treated >>>>>>>> hundreds of pts with this disorder, and never seen one on PC - but >>>>>>>> again, >>>>>>>> none of them had $50 Million. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-jamie-conservatorship-hearing-1186966/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 11:15 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Okay, I watched the “Framing Britney Spears” “documentary” on >>>>>>>>> Hulu. Yikes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. How did the NYT let its name be attached to this? It looks and >>>>>>>>> smells more like TMZ. It is little more than a summary of what has >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> said and reported by people on social media, with little or no actual >>>>>>>>> independent reporting from the NYT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. One of the most basic things missing is an explanation of what >>>>>>>>> it means to be on conservatorship in CA (there are several different >>>>>>>>> kinds) >>>>>>>>> and what a judge had to have found to be true to put her on one. I am >>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>> familiar with LPS Conservators, who do have the power to commit >>>>>>>>> people to >>>>>>>>> psychiatric hospitalization. It appears that Spears has a Probate >>>>>>>>> (not LPS) >>>>>>>>> Conservatorship, for both Person and Estate. These conservators (even >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> Person) can not hospitalize the conservatee against their will. So, if >>>>>>>>> Spears was hospitalized against her will, it would have had to have >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> because doctors found her to be a danger to herself or others, or >>>>>>>>> (much >>>>>>>>> less likely) gravely disabled. We know she was hospitalized on a 5150 >>>>>>>>> back >>>>>>>>> in the 2008 period, but I don’t think we know what the status was of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> most recent hospitalization. Her father could have coerced her into >>>>>>>>> accepting hospitalization, since he controls her finances and many >>>>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>>>> of her person, but again we don’t know (and again, the NYT offers no >>>>>>>>> original reporting about this). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. There is always the possibility of gross corruption (the father >>>>>>>>> pays off the judges and others to rule in his favor), but to assume >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> without evidence is the definition of a conspiracy theory. More >>>>>>>>> likely is >>>>>>>>> that, whatever else is going on, Spears suffers from a serious >>>>>>>>> psychiatric >>>>>>>>> disorder. I am surprised that for all the histrionic “Leave Brittany >>>>>>>>> Alone!” Type Fan groups cited in the Doc, there seemed to be little >>>>>>>>> recognition of or care about this basic fact by people who claim to >>>>>>>>> love >>>>>>>>> her. The court has to be primarily concerned with the mental health >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> well-being of Spears, and the fact she is still conserved suggests >>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>> court has evidence that she continues to have significant problems. >>>>>>>>> Whatever else is going on, she likely continues to be a very >>>>>>>>> disordered and >>>>>>>>> unhappy person. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. While I am not as familiar with probate Conservatorship, what I >>>>>>>>> do know leaves me surprised and somewhat suspicious that it is being >>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>> in Spears case, at least for Person. What the documentary does not >>>>>>>>> tell us >>>>>>>>> is why the court settled on Conservatorship, when, as I understand >>>>>>>>> it, to >>>>>>>>> do so they have to first consider and reject several other less >>>>>>>>> restrictive >>>>>>>>> arrangements. I have never treated anyone as wealthy as Spears, but >>>>>>>>> it does >>>>>>>>> smell like this entire scheme was designed with the well-being of her >>>>>>>>> estate (and perhaps the financial interests of record and other >>>>>>>>> corporations) in mind, rather than of Spears herself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5. My guess is that at the heart of all this is the judgement that >>>>>>>>> Spears was found to be pathologically vulnerable to influence by >>>>>>>>> suspicious >>>>>>>>> people, like Sam Lutfi. This is alluded to in the documentary, but >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> very little actual reporting. As suspicious as I am of her father, by >>>>>>>>> relying on tabloid and social media memes the documentary is probably >>>>>>>>> unfair to him. More likely the courts have repeatedly found that >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> the Conservatorship, Spears would fall under the control of Lutfi and >>>>>>>>> people like him who would be more harmful to her than her father. If >>>>>>>>> something like this is true, I can see why the courts would be >>>>>>>>> reluctant to >>>>>>>>> eliminate the Conservatorship, or even to name someone as Conservator >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> Spears own choosing. It is actually possible that the current >>>>>>>>> arrangement >>>>>>>>> gives Spears as much freedom as is consistent with her own >>>>>>>>> well-being, and >>>>>>>>> that of her children, by limiting the ability of unsavory influencers >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> manipulate her to drain her resources and harm others. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The reason we know so little about this is that most of it is not >>>>>>>>> properly our business. The Courts are there to review the case and >>>>>>>>> protect >>>>>>>>> her interests, not Instagrammers. Still, with so much money at stake, >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> may be appropriate for the press to ensure that the courts are acting >>>>>>>>> properly. I just wish the press in this case was doing a better job. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 2:48 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ok, sounds like maybe I will check out the doc. My take on her >>>>>>>>>> around that time was that she needed a conservator, but it should >>>>>>>>>> not have >>>>>>>>>> been her father, or anyone who stood to profit from commodifying her. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 1:00 PM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM Kevin M. < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, yesterday Diane Sawyer trended because people suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>> decided her interview of Spears from nearly two decades ago was >>>>>>>>>>>> bad, which >>>>>>>>>>>> is a bit like people only just now realizing Geraldo is really bad >>>>>>>>>>>> at his >>>>>>>>>>>> job. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I miss Ferguson on late night. I understand why he got out when >>>>>>>>>>>> he did, but I still wish he’d have stayed through Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to watch the Britney doc on Hulu before responding so I >>>>>>>>>>> could avoid hot takes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have taken to watching documentaries about bands from when I >>>>>>>>>>> grew up, usually on YouTube. There are two types: movie length >>>>>>>>>>> promotions >>>>>>>>>>> made for fans where the band is awesome, all their music is >>>>>>>>>>> awesome, and >>>>>>>>>>> they'll be beloved until the end of time. And then there are more >>>>>>>>>>> reflective documentaries, made a couple of decades after the band >>>>>>>>>>> broke up, >>>>>>>>>>> where the musicians, managers, record company executives, etc talk >>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> the rise of the band, what life was like at the top, and why it >>>>>>>>>>> fell apart. >>>>>>>>>>> Those are the documentaries I watch. I'll even watch if it's about >>>>>>>>>>> a band >>>>>>>>>>> or an artist who was very popular but I didn't follow at the time. >>>>>>>>>>> I figure >>>>>>>>>>> I can put my biases aside and see if I missed out on any good music. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Britney documentary was not about her music. The frame is a >>>>>>>>>>> legal battle over conservatorship, a status she entered into in >>>>>>>>>>> 2008. The >>>>>>>>>>> first half of the doc is about her life up to 2008 and the second >>>>>>>>>>> half is >>>>>>>>>>> about the conservatorship, the legal situation, and a movement from >>>>>>>>>>> her >>>>>>>>>>> fans to end the conservatorship. The first half is tough to watch >>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>> though it happened in recent enough memory. The tabloids saw dollar >>>>>>>>>>> signs >>>>>>>>>>> in covering her and they had no conscience about any damage they >>>>>>>>>>> might be >>>>>>>>>>> doing to her and certainly no restraint. And the attitude >>>>>>>>>>> infiltrated into >>>>>>>>>>> mainstream celebrity coverage like the Diane Sawyer interview. It >>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>> at least as much of a relief for me to know that she gives up music >>>>>>>>>>> altogether and goes to live a quiet life somewhere raising her kids >>>>>>>>>>> (and >>>>>>>>>>> there's no sign of that happening) as hearing she is recording a >>>>>>>>>>> new album. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As for Craig Ferguson he brought his own vulnerability into his >>>>>>>>>>> monologues and the show and it was really refreshing to see him so >>>>>>>>>>> fearless >>>>>>>>>>> talking about his past. He had an empathy for his guests and I miss >>>>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>>>> too. In the late stages of his show he burned out and stopped >>>>>>>>>>> putting any >>>>>>>>>>> effort into it. I really liked the show during his peak, but I'm >>>>>>>>>>> glad he >>>>>>>>>>> got out of it in time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>>>>>> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPxfhnQdzWqgGNtb6Yqp5Qb29rFt%3DMnQzwQJw4eZ%3D-n3Fw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPxfhnQdzWqgGNtb6Yqp5Qb29rFt%3DMnQzwQJw4eZ%3D-n3Fw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2Bvj8811_mhr88mAqfaBcpHEkvX02hBA4OyUkCUOzAwWA%40mail.gmail.com.
