And speaking of Luddites. Just a thought: Yesterday there was a
discussion on NPR with and about MoveOn.com. One of the subjects that
came up is MoveOn's communication strategy with its members; and I was
interested in the argument made by MoveOn that they keep a close eye
on what medium the greatest number of people feel comfortable with,
and capitalize on that medium. For that reason they are using plain
vanilla e-mails almost exclusively. So the thought occurs to me that,
yes, we definitely need to plunge into the newer technologies (blogs,
social networks, etc) to the extent our resources allow; but we also
need not to abandon bread and butter mediums, such as paper and plain
e-mails, the latter, according to MoveOn is a good medium for the
greatest number of folks. Just thought I would pass this on.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:
Well, leave it to me to be clueless about these things. Thank you,
Rob, for still sending the postcards in deference to Luddites like me!Marcy
>
> Oh, it's the same thing. Same event. Same time/place/etc. Just
posted
> on two different companies' websites, for greater coverage. All
of the
> SF events on drinkingfreely.org (which really is just a redirect to
> Yahoo's Upcoming.org site) are just Rachel's events on Meetup.com.
(And
> now that we'll be adding them to Facebook.com as well, it will be
three
> social networking sites, plus the standard Yahoo Groups calendar,
for a
> total of four.) The problem is that not everybody uses the same
> company's social networking site, so we have to post one event to
> multiple sites in order to get the word out.
>
> Believe me -- I don't have the energy to try to do two of anything
> anymore.
>
> Now do you see why I'm asking for a volunteer whose only job it
will be
> to manage the LPSF social networking sites, crossposting events that
are
> on one to all of the others? It's a fair amount to keep track of.
It
> needs to be someone other than one of the current officers, I think.
> I'll see if I can't talk Rachel into doing it. But if anyone else is
> interested, please speak up.
>
> Rob
>
> Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > Great to merge the Events/Announce Lists and send invitations to
join
> > to everybody alive! However, I am wondering (and I might be dead
> > wrong on this) if given we do not have a huge libertarian-leaning
> > local population, we should get involved in two drinking groups, as
> > opposed to focusing on growing the Libertarian Meetup 370? But I am
> > fine with whatever you decide.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> LPSF-Events was created about a year and a half ago, before I
moved
> >> back, and Bryce is the only moderator.
> >>
> >> I've compared its member list with lpsf-announce, and everyone on
> >> lpsf-events is already on lpsf-announce, except for:
> >>
> >> firecracker_hb (Norm Westwell)
> >> harlandh5 (Harland Harrison)
> >> jeff11123
> >> jkac3
> >> mcfrandy (R.P. McCosker)
> >> ricochetboy (Phil Berg)
> >>
> >> Let's just manually add these 6 to LPSF-Announce and delete the
> >> LPSF-Events group.
> >>
> >> Bryce, can you handle that for us? Or, can you make me an owner
of the
> >> Events group, so I can do it?
> >>
> >> Once everyone is migrated from Events to Announce, I'll send one
mass
> >> email to Activists, Discuss, and Announce (as well to
BayAreaChairs for
> >> them to forward to the other counties' LP lists) asking people to
join
> >> the Meetup:
> >>
> >> http://libertarian.meetup.com/370/
> >>
> >> the Upcoming.org group:
> >>
> >> http://www.drinkingfreely.org/
> >>
> >> and the Facebook group:
> >>
> >> Facebook Public Group | Facebook
> >>
> >> Can anyone think of any other social networking sites where we
ought to
> >> have an LPSF presence?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >> Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
> >>
> >>> We dooooo??? I did not even know about it! I second Starchild's
> >>> suggestion.
> >>>
> >>> Marcy
> >>>
> >>> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> We also have a list LPSF-events@yahoogroups.com, which may be
> >>>> superfluous at this point. It only has 14 subscribers. I
suggest it
> >>>> be discontinued, and that its members be asked to join the LPSF
> >>>> Meetup list.
> >>>>
> >>>> Love & Liberty,
> >>>> ((( starchild )))
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> And also, I suggest that we include Rachel's group in
promotional
> >>>>> material we at LPSF generate. Today, 23 more letters (81
went out
> >>>>> July 21) inviting prospects to the LPSF meeting and the Meetup
Group
> >>>>> will go out (the extra 23 are still within the $60 budget
> >>>>>
> > approved at
> >
> >>>>> our last meeting). I made sure to say something in the letters
about
> >>>>> the Meetup group being a social gathering.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Marcy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Rachel's group (which we've been calling Drinking Freely)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> actually is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the LPSF Meetup Group. Its actual title is "The San Francisco
> >>>>>> Libertarian Party Meetup Group"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://libertarian.meetup.com/370/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So if you have any LPSF announcements or promotions, just post
> >>>>>>
> > them.
> >
> >>>>>> Rachel certainly won't mind. We just haven't had anything to
post,
> >>>>>> other than Root's visit during Pride weekend, which she did
post.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rob
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Rob,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Have a good trip to San Diego (thank you for going in our
behalf).
> >>>>>>> You pose some excellent questions, but I think the answers
all
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> boil
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> down to a simple one: people nowadays are very busy, and
only
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> engage
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> in activities that are really meaningful/satisfying to them,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> and we
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> offer none. I think the visit a couple of meetings ago of the
> >>>>>>> co-founder of Antiwar.com provided an insight when he
related
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> how the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> LPSF "did things" in the old days. I assumed enough things
were
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> done
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> to appeal to a lot of people.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Energizing ourselves to "do things" is essential before we can
> >>>>>>> energize others, but how do we do that? Beats me. Your idea
about
> >>>>>>> increasing the conversion rate from the Drinking Freely
group is
> >>>>>>> excellent. I will continue my snail-mail outreach to lapsed
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> members,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> prospects, etc. Ron Getty's initiative work will also
help. Phil
> >>>>>>> Berg's candidacy could serve as a rallying point for
tablings and
> >>>>>>> other political action. Starchild's initiative could be
another
> >>>>>>> rallying point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe once we get going a little, we could start an LPSF
Meetup
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> Group,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> which might serve as public announcement/promotion of LPSF
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> activities;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> that is, not a discussion group (we have the LPSF-discuss
for
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> that),
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> and not a private place (like our LPSF-activists).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Marcy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Rob Power <chair@>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I know the question of how to get $25 or $55 out of people
is an
> >>>>>>>> important question the Treasurer should ask. But I'm
frankly not
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> nearly
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> as concerned about the money as I am about the people.
Heck,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> member of the LPC Coffee Club, so I'm already paying the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> equivalent of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 10 full memberships a year. We can subsidize those who don't
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> want to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> give us their money. I just want their presence,
participation,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> time,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> and effort, not their cash. How do we get people to show up
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> and do
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> stuff? If it's totally free, and it's not a case of
"getting
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> one's
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> money's worth" then will people show up? I tend to think they
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> won't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's not the money. It's something else. We need to find a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> hook. The
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Drinking Freely Meetups are proof positive that there are
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> plenty of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Libertarians in town. They just have no interest
whatsoever in
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> boring
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> things like interviewing and vetting candidates for
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> recommendation and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> endorsement. So, we've got to find something that they
would be
> >>>>>>>> interested in.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> BTW, is 2005 when the meetings moved from Geary to 9th? How
many
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> did we lose just from that location change? Richard Winger
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> always used
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> to bike to the meetings on Geary before I moved away in 2004.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> I've not
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> seen him at a meeting on 9th since I moved back in 2007.
Lots of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> other
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> people in that category. Kelly Simpson. Mike Acree. Even the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> postcard
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> we tried to send to Sarosh bounced back as undeliverable.
What
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> happened
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> to everyone? Most are still on this list, and I
occasionally see
> >>>>>>>> something from one of them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Marcy, let's go through some of those old attendance sheets
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> that I
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> scanned in for the officers and burned to CDs for us. I'm
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> betting the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> list of former regulars who we don't see anymore is more than
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> twice as
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> long as the list I just mentioned. We should call them
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> directly and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> ask
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> what it would take to get them to come back to meetings.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I need someone to volunteer to be the Social
Networks
> >>>>>>>> Committee Chair. I think this is a separate function from
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> Outreach
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Director, because maintaining an LPSF group on all of the
various
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> social
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> networks will take a lot of work, and it's really more than
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> enough for
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> just one person all by itself. We need an LPSF Facebook
group, at
> >>>>>>>> minimum, but we also need someone who can get us into the
things
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've only heard about but never tried (like Twitter).
I'll also
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> do my
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> best to try to increase our "conversion" rate from the
Drinking
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> Freely
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Meetups.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And if there are any other ideas, I'd love to hear them.
But I'd
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> go to sleep now. I've got a crazy early flight to
tomorrow's LPC
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ExCom
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> meeting in San Diego.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rob
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you, Rob, for the heartfelt words. I completely
agree with
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> your
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> assessment of the situation, but would like to add a
couple more
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> thoughts.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) Based on the information I see on the latest LPSF
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> membership list
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> we received, LPSF members paid-up-to-date total 47, with
23
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> of those
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> being life members, leaving only 24 as having felt it
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> worthwhile to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> renew their annual memberships. 79 on the list lapsed during
> >>>>>>>>> 2005-2007, which precludes our temptation to blame the
decline
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> on any
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron Paul poaching in our ranks. 2) I personally believe
that the
> >>>>>>>>> membership will continue to decline, since we core LPSF
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> activists have
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> not succeeded lately in providing any good reason for the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> average San
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Franciscan to fork over a hard-earned $25 or $50.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, I agree with you that our focus should be on working
to
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> increase
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the number of local folks who view themselves as
affiliated
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> with the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> LPSF, and who will be there for candidates nights, signature
> >>>>>>>>> gathering, tabling, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because we LPSF activists are blessed with such divergent
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> views of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> what our constituency should be, we have gone after none;
and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> maybe
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> that is a hurdle we need to overcome.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Marcy
> >>>>>>>>> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Rob Power <chair@>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I agree completely. But it was brought up at the last
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> meeting, and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> there wasn't enough interest, so it wasn't included in the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> postcard that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> went out this week.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In addition, given that we can barely get 1% of registered
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> libertarians
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> to sign a candidate's petition and return it to us, the
odds of
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> getting
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 10% of them to give up an evening to listen to candidates
seems
> >>>>>>>>>> unlikely. I hate to say it, but I think a majority of the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> people
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> registered as Libertarians in San Francisco actually
don't
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> know the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> meaning of the word. I think we really have to
concentrate
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> on paid
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> members of the LP (and there are still over 300 of
those), and
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> only once
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> we've exhausted that supply should we spend any real
money or
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> effort on
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> non-LP-member registered Libertarians.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I realize that we have a sort of chicken-and-egg
situation here
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (where
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> we can't do anything without numbers, and we won't gain
numbers
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> until we
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> start doing things) -- but given the slipping
attendance at
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> monthly
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> meetings among our core activists (consistently fewer
than 10
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> activists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> at every meeting this year, with only the occasional
guest
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> or two
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> getting us up to 10 in the room), we have to allocate our
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> time and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> effort toward activities that such a small core of
people can
> >>>>>>>>>> accomplish. A small group this size can do effective
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> outreach by
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> paper
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> mail and electronically and by having OPH booths and
such, but
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> whenever
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> an activity calls for filling a room, unless some major
advance
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> is made
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> in cloning real soon now, the 6 of us die-hards who are
at
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> every
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> event
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> will look awfully foolish.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If we can have 20 LPSF members in the room at the August 9
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> meeting, and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> get them to commit to attending a candidates night,
then I
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> think
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> we can
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> safely schedule a candidates night for the week before our
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> September
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> meeting, and get a second postcard out publicizing that one
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> event, as
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> you suggest, four weeks in advance of it. It's still
doable.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> But
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> unless we have the reliable core of activists regularly
showing
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> up at
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> meetings (20 or more of us at the 16th and Geary Round
Table
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pizza) that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> we had when we last did the big candidate nights, I'm
going to
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> vote "no"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> on doing it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, do you think you can get us more than double our usual
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> turnout of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> LPSF members at next Saturday's meeting? I've been
begging and
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> pleading
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> for people to show up (you know who you are -- you're all
still
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> on this
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> list), but attendance keeps dwindling. I'm at a loss
for how
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> to fix
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it. But I have to insist that bringing participation
back up
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> amongst
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> our core activists is a necessary condition before even
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> considering
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> putting on any event that requires us to fill a room to
not
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> look
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> foolish, and candidate night would qualify as such an
event.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Rob
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ron Getty wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If candidate nights were highly publicized among all
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> registered
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Libertarians with enough advance notice and there was a
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> turnout
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> of at
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> least 10% of all registered Libertarians ( 150-200 )
then this
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> have more meaning. Then any endorsement or
recommendation