Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as theyYou can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
can . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/They are panicking towards a dead end - Winston clearly knew to get
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they
can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas don't >want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got some >traction. They dragged you along did they not?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they
can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas don't >want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got some >traction. They dragged you along did they not?
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 02:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Sarcasm removed.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they
can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas don't >>want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a >>small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got some >>traction. They dragged you along did they not?
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 02:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they
can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas don't >>want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got some >>traction. They dragged you along did they not?
Yes they certainly have. We have an agreement to have a Bill
introduced to Parliament that is intended to define the principles of
the Treaty of Waitangi in a modern context. The actual Bill wording
is not known, the intent is that it will form the basis of a binding >referendum. There is no commitment from the largest party in
Parliament to pass said Bill.
Yet a small number amongst us oppose a Bill that has not yet beenas affected by the proposals as given above.
introduced based on their assessment of the political party advocating
the intent to present such a Bill.
From this we can logically deduce
that the opponents of the Bill are so fearful of a rational discourse
on an unknown entity that they wish to ensure the Bill is never
introduced. In doing so they concede they will never win an argument
against an undefined foe. A conclusion that the only way to oppose
the threat of reform is to remove the threat because rational debate
is unlikely to go your way.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 20:24:10 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 02:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they >>>>can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas don't >>>want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a >>>small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got some >>>traction. They dragged you along did they not?
Yes they certainly have. We have an agreement to have a Bill
introduced to Parliament that is intended to define the principles of
the Treaty of Waitangi in a modern context. The actual Bill wording
is not known, the intent is that it will form the basis of a binding >>referendum. There is no commitment from the largest party in
Parliament to pass said Bill.
We have been given a fairly good indication of the proposed wording of
the new "Principles" see >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/leaked-ministry-advice-suggests-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-highly-contentious/QIBNNLDMVZBK3HWNMJIGDJIZ6M/
and for a for on those
"Principles": >https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
Anybody who is opposed to the discussions that Seymour wants, like you are, is hiding their real agenda which is to promote elite tribal power and apartheid in NZ.Yet a small number amongst us oppose a Bill that has not yet been >>introduced based on their assessment of the political party advocatingas affected by the proposals as given above.
the intent to present such a Bill.
From this we can logically deduce
that the opponents of the Bill are so fearful of a rational discourse
on an unknown entity that they wish to ensure the Bill is never
introduced. In doing so they concede they will never win an argument >>against an undefined foe. A conclusion that the only way to oppose
the threat of reform is to remove the threat because rational debate
is unlikely to go your way.
The reaction to the disclosure of the proposed "principals" has been
for National to have Luxon move back from promising ACT the
opportunity to persuade MP's to support his proposals, to now saying
that National will absolutely and unequivocally vote against the
proposals - thereby understandably placing themselves in a position
where ACT can quite reasonably say that National are breaking the
"Good Faith" requirement in the coalition agreement.
ACT have not attempted to change their indicated proposed "Principles"
but are charging on and in the process causing considerable problems
for the National Party - NZ First is wisely staying well out of the
news on that subject.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 20:24:10 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Anybody who is opposed to the discussions that Seymour wants, like you are, is
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 02:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they >>>>>can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas don't >>>>want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a >>>>small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got some >>>>traction. They dragged you along did they not?
Yes they certainly have. We have an agreement to have a Bill
introduced to Parliament that is intended to define the principles of
the Treaty of Waitangi in a modern context. The actual Bill wording
is not known, the intent is that it will form the basis of a binding >>>referendum. There is no commitment from the largest party in
Parliament to pass said Bill.
We have been given a fairly good indication of the proposed wording of
the new "Principles" see >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/leaked-ministry-advice-suggests-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-highly-contentious/QIBNNLDMVZBK3HWNMJIGDJIZ6M/
and for a for on those
"Principles": >>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
Yet a small number amongst us oppose a Bill that has not yet been >>>introduced based on their assessment of the political party advocating >>>the intent to present such a Bill.as affected by the proposals as given above.
From this we can logically deduce
that the opponents of the Bill are so fearful of a rational discourse
on an unknown entity that they wish to ensure the Bill is never >>>introduced. In doing so they concede they will never win an argument >>>against an undefined foe. A conclusion that the only way to oppose
the threat of reform is to remove the threat because rational debate
is unlikely to go your way.
The reaction to the disclosure of the proposed "principals" has been
for National to have Luxon move back from promising ACT the
opportunity to persuade MP's to support his proposals, to now saying
that National will absolutely and unequivocally vote against the
proposals - thereby understandably placing themselves in a position
where ACT can quite reasonably say that National are breaking the
"Good Faith" requirement in the coalition agreement.
ACT have not attempted to change their indicated proposed "Principles"
but are charging on and in the process causing considerable problems
for the National Party - NZ First is wisely staying well out of the
news on that subject.
hiding their real agenda which is to promote elite tribal power and apartheid in NZ.
On 2024-02-11, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 20:24:10 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Anybody who is opposed to the discussions that Seymour wants, like you are, is
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 02:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they >>>>>>can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas don't
want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a >>>>>small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got some
traction. They dragged you along did they not?
Yes they certainly have. We have an agreement to have a Bill >>>>introduced to Parliament that is intended to define the principles of >>>>the Treaty of Waitangi in a modern context. The actual Bill wording
is not known, the intent is that it will form the basis of a binding >>>>referendum. There is no commitment from the largest party in >>>>Parliament to pass said Bill.
We have been given a fairly good indication of the proposed wording of >>>the new "Principles" see >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/leaked-ministry-advice-suggests-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-highly-contentious/QIBNNLDMVZBK3HWNMJIGDJIZ6M/
and for a for on those
"Principles": >>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
Yet a small number amongst us oppose a Bill that has not yet been >>>>introduced based on their assessment of the political party advocating >>>>the intent to present such a Bill.as affected by the proposals as given above.
From this we can logically deduce
that the opponents of the Bill are so fearful of a rational discourse >>>>on an unknown entity that they wish to ensure the Bill is never >>>>introduced. In doing so they concede they will never win an argument >>>>against an undefined foe. A conclusion that the only way to oppose
the threat of reform is to remove the threat because rational debate
is unlikely to go your way.
The reaction to the disclosure of the proposed "principals" has been
for National to have Luxon move back from promising ACT the
opportunity to persuade MP's to support his proposals, to now saying
that National will absolutely and unequivocally vote against the >>>proposals - thereby understandably placing themselves in a position
where ACT can quite reasonably say that National are breaking the
"Good Faith" requirement in the coalition agreement.
ACT have not attempted to change their indicated proposed "Principles" >>>but are charging on and in the process causing considerable problems
for the National Party - NZ First is wisely staying well out of the
news on that subject.
hiding their real agenda which is to promote elite tribal power and apartheid
in NZ.
The answer to Luxon question in the cartoon is that now is the time to >challange/fight on this matter. It is the doing which is important. National >is having a bob each way. Let ACT die on the Treaty hill if they think it is >worth it.
Meanwhile the elitest army is launching an attack with Stuff looking for its >job description.
It may all come to a dead end, a stand still but it is part of the process. >The only failure is to not try, to try and pursuade the other view point >somewhat into a compromise.
On 11 Feb 2024 21:47:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie. They want to have a discussion and ask Ner Zealander's what they would like. Only then can a decision on the future be made.
On 2024-02-11, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 20:24:10 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Anybody who is opposed to the discussions that Seymour wants, like you are, >>>is
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 02:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> >>>>>wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they >>>>>>>can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas >>>>>>don't
want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a >>>>>>small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got >>>>>>some
traction. They dragged you along did they not?
Yes they certainly have. We have an agreement to have a Bill >>>>>introduced to Parliament that is intended to define the principles of >>>>>the Treaty of Waitangi in a modern context. The actual Bill wording >>>>>is not known, the intent is that it will form the basis of a binding >>>>>referendum. There is no commitment from the largest party in >>>>>Parliament to pass said Bill.
We have been given a fairly good indication of the proposed wording of >>>>the new "Principles" see >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/leaked-ministry-advice-suggests-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-highly-contentious/QIBNNLDMVZBK3HWNMJIGDJIZ6M/
and for a for on those
"Principles": >>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
Yet a small number amongst us oppose a Bill that has not yet been >>>>>introduced based on their assessment of the political party advocating >>>>>the intent to present such a Bill.as affected by the proposals as given above.
From this we can logically deduce
that the opponents of the Bill are so fearful of a rational discourse >>>>>on an unknown entity that they wish to ensure the Bill is never >>>>>introduced. In doing so they concede they will never win an argument >>>>>against an undefined foe. A conclusion that the only way to oppose >>>>>the threat of reform is to remove the threat because rational debate >>>>>is unlikely to go your way.
The reaction to the disclosure of the proposed "principals" has been >>>>for National to have Luxon move back from promising ACT the
opportunity to persuade MP's to support his proposals, to now saying >>>>that National will absolutely and unequivocally vote against the >>>>proposals - thereby understandably placing themselves in a position >>>>where ACT can quite reasonably say that National are breaking the
"Good Faith" requirement in the coalition agreement.
ACT have not attempted to change their indicated proposed "Principles" >>>>but are charging on and in the process causing considerable problems >>>>for the National Party - NZ First is wisely staying well out of the >>>>news on that subject.
hiding their real agenda which is to promote elite tribal power and >>>apartheid
in NZ.
The answer to Luxon question in the cartoon is that now is the time to >>challange/fight on this matter. It is the doing which is important. National >>is having a bob each way. Let ACT die on the Treaty hill if they think it is >>worth it.
Meanwhile the elitest army is launching an attack with Stuff looking for its >>job description.
It may all come to a dead end, a stand still but it is part of the process. >>The only failure is to not try, to try and pursuade the other view point >>somewhat into a compromise.
ACT is trying to modify a contract through a referendum. That is
wrong.
For the three political parties that considered themselvesYou are afraid, terrified even, of what the thinking folk in this country believe - you don't want to know the truth.
defenders of the rule of law and sanctity of contract, they are
wasting time and money with an offensive proposal that could well be
taken by a NActFirst as a license to change all sorts of other
contracts without compensation or redress.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2024 21:47:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie. They want to have a discussion and ask Ner Zealander's what >they would like. Only then can a decision on the future be made.
On 2024-02-11, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 20:24:10 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Anybody who is opposed to the discussions that Seymour wants, like you are,
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 02:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> >>>>>>wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they >>>>>>>>can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas >>>>>>>don't
want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of a
small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got >>>>>>>some
traction. They dragged you along did they not?
Yes they certainly have. We have an agreement to have a Bill >>>>>>introduced to Parliament that is intended to define the principles of >>>>>>the Treaty of Waitangi in a modern context. The actual Bill wording >>>>>>is not known, the intent is that it will form the basis of a binding >>>>>>referendum. There is no commitment from the largest party in >>>>>>Parliament to pass said Bill.
We have been given a fairly good indication of the proposed wording of >>>>>the new "Principles" see >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/leaked-ministry-advice-suggests-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-highly-contentious/QIBNNLDMVZBK3HWNMJIGDJIZ6M/
and for a for on those
"Principles": >>>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
Yet a small number amongst us oppose a Bill that has not yet been >>>>>>introduced based on their assessment of the political party advocating >>>>>>the intent to present such a Bill.as affected by the proposals as given above.
From this we can logically deduce
that the opponents of the Bill are so fearful of a rational discourse >>>>>>on an unknown entity that they wish to ensure the Bill is never >>>>>>introduced. In doing so they concede they will never win an argument >>>>>>against an undefined foe. A conclusion that the only way to oppose >>>>>>the threat of reform is to remove the threat because rational debate >>>>>>is unlikely to go your way.
The reaction to the disclosure of the proposed "principals" has been >>>>>for National to have Luxon move back from promising ACT the >>>>>opportunity to persuade MP's to support his proposals, to now saying >>>>>that National will absolutely and unequivocally vote against the >>>>>proposals - thereby understandably placing themselves in a position >>>>>where ACT can quite reasonably say that National are breaking the >>>>>"Good Faith" requirement in the coalition agreement.
ACT have not attempted to change their indicated proposed "Principles" >>>>>but are charging on and in the process causing considerable problems >>>>>for the National Party - NZ First is wisely staying well out of the >>>>>news on that subject.
is
hiding their real agenda which is to promote elite tribal power and >>>>apartheid
in NZ.
The answer to Luxon question in the cartoon is that now is the time to >>>challange/fight on this matter. It is the doing which is important. National >>>is having a bob each way. Let ACT die on the Treaty hill if they think it is >>>worth it.
Meanwhile the elitest army is launching an attack with Stuff looking for its >>>job description.
It may all come to a dead end, a stand still but it is part of the process. >>>The only failure is to not try, to try and pursuade the other view point >>>somewhat into a compromise.
ACT is trying to modify a contract through a referendum. That is
wrong.
Your insufferable deceit gets worse.
For the three political parties that considered themselvesYou are afraid, terrified even, of what the thinking folk in this country >believe - you don't want to know the truth.
defenders of the rule of law and sanctity of contract, they are
wasting time and money with an offensive proposal that could well be
taken by a NActFirst as a license to change all sorts of other
contracts without compensation or redress.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 03:21:44 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2024 21:47:56 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie. They want to have a discussion and ask Ner Zealander's what >>they would like. Only then can a decision on the future be made.
On 2024-02-11, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 20:24:10 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:Anybody who is opposed to the discussions that Seymour wants, like you >>>>>are,
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 02:16:04 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> >>>>>>>wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rod-emmersons-cartoons-week-of-february-5-11/P24ECC2QO5BW7FJT3NA3TOMGIY/
You can't wait to see stuff hidden can you?
Doubtless The Herald will get this behind the paywall as soon as they >>>>>>>>>can . . .
Fact is, the debate is worthwhile and only people with hidden agendas >>>>>>>>don't
want to have the conversation. In this regard you are in the company of >>>>>>>>a
small
number of elite and radical people who have lied to the public and got >>>>>>>>some
traction. They dragged you along did they not?
Yes they certainly have. We have an agreement to have a Bill >>>>>>>introduced to Parliament that is intended to define the principles of >>>>>>>the Treaty of Waitangi in a modern context. The actual Bill wording >>>>>>>is not known, the intent is that it will form the basis of a binding >>>>>>>referendum. There is no commitment from the largest party in >>>>>>>Parliament to pass said Bill.
We have been given a fairly good indication of the proposed wording of >>>>>>the new "Principles" see >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/leaked-ministry-advice-suggests-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-highly-contentious/QIBNNLDMVZBK3HWNMJIGDJIZ6M/
and for a for on those
"Principles": >>>>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
Yet a small number amongst us oppose a Bill that has not yet been >>>>>>>introduced based on their assessment of the political party advocating >>>>>>>the intent to present such a Bill.as affected by the proposals as given above.
From this we can logically deduce
that the opponents of the Bill are so fearful of a rational discourse >>>>>>>on an unknown entity that they wish to ensure the Bill is never >>>>>>>introduced. In doing so they concede they will never win an argument >>>>>>>against an undefined foe. A conclusion that the only way to oppose >>>>>>>the threat of reform is to remove the threat because rational debate >>>>>>>is unlikely to go your way.
The reaction to the disclosure of the proposed "principals" has been >>>>>>for National to have Luxon move back from promising ACT the >>>>>>opportunity to persuade MP's to support his proposals, to now saying >>>>>>that National will absolutely and unequivocally vote against the >>>>>>proposals - thereby understandably placing themselves in a position >>>>>>where ACT can quite reasonably say that National are breaking the >>>>>>"Good Faith" requirement in the coalition agreement.
ACT have not attempted to change their indicated proposed "Principles" >>>>>>but are charging on and in the process causing considerable problems >>>>>>for the National Party - NZ First is wisely staying well out of the >>>>>>news on that subject.
is
hiding their real agenda which is to promote elite tribal power and >>>>>apartheid
in NZ.
The answer to Luxon question in the cartoon is that now is the time to >>>>challange/fight on this matter. It is the doing which is important. National
is having a bob each way. Let ACT die on the Treaty hill if they think it is
worth it.
Meanwhile the elitest army is launching an attack with Stuff looking for its
job description.
It may all come to a dead end, a stand still but it is part of the process. >>>>The only failure is to not try, to try and pursuade the other view point >>>>somewhat into a compromise.
ACT is trying to modify a contract through a referendum. That is
wrong.
Your insufferable deceit gets worse.
Well put Tony. We will not know the detail until the government
introduces the Bill. This has been made clear to Rich several times
but he persists anyway in opposing something that does not exist in
detail.
For the three political parties that considered themselvesYou are afraid, terrified even, of what the thinking folk in this country >>believe - you don't want to know the truth.
defenders of the rule of law and sanctity of contract, they are
wasting time and money with an offensive proposal that could well be >>>taken by a NActFirst as a license to change all sorts of other
contracts without compensation or redress.
He is not the only one Tony. Those that seek to suppress debate do so >because they fear they might lose that debate.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 118:25:40 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,300 |