A thorny problem has arisen over the unconactability of UKV, it is
totally dead;  both the published ukvoting address and the unpublished
ukvotetakers' internal list evoke mail delivery system error messages.
uk.glb's moderators' election from last summer remains unresolved
although UKV's website status page indicates it to be "in progress".

Since the Committee elections for 2008 were decided without any need for
a VT or UKV's participation, and since uk.glb's mods have continued
their term of service for a further year unchallenged, this has all lain
dormant...

However, uk.glb's charter does specify annual elections and their
moderators cannot continue indefintely without a mandate for they need
to act and be seen to act per charter.  Whilst an approach to a couple
of VTs to ask for their services will hopefully resolve the current UKV
situation for uk.glb (which we have made), the matter of other elections
and uk.* guidelines, procedures, references and charters remains:  in
the long term, if UKV are now uncontactable and disbanded, do the
various guidelines and references to UKV need revision?

-- 
 paul                                                (C) © 2008 is mine

At 19:47:28 on Tue, 22 Apr 2008, paul  wrote 
in :

>Since the Committee elections for 2008

2007

>were decided without any need for a VT or UKV's participation, and 
>since uk.glb's mods have continued their term of service for a further 
>year unchallenged, this has all lain dormant...

Indeed, but it cannot be allowed to remain so.  Whether or not there is 
any requirement for group creation, we still have the annual uk.glb mod 
elections, the annual Komite and Chocolate Hobnob elections, and (quite 
possibly) votes on group removals.

>the matter of other elections and uk.* guidelines, procedures, 
>references and charters remains:  in the long term, if UKV are now 
>uncontactable and disbanded, do the various guidelines and references 
>to UKV need revision?

The guidelines are, I think, the least of our problems, given that UKV 
are generally referred to as an example, not as a requirement.  The 
guidelines are also easily revised (although who, we wonders, preciouss, 
will take the vote, if a vote be necessary?).

The most crucial issue, however, is:  *what has happened to UKVoting?*
Why, when I attempted to contact a number of my ex-colleagues in that 
organisation at the start of Committee Elections last year, did I get a 
response from only one - and that response gave no information on what 
was happening, or not happening, in UKV?

I would really like to hear from any and all of the current cohort of 
votetakers.  Where are you, what has gone wrong, why are you silent? 
Will ye no come back again?  (OK, sorry, getting silly now.)

But if UKV remain, as an organisation, silent - then what is our next 
step?  To call for volunteers to form another independent votetaking 
organisation (there was actually a strong suggestion for such a move, 
four or five years ago)?  To draw it all on board to Committee and 
Control, and/or become a Benign Dictatorship?  UVV are no more, so we 
can hardly throw it across the pond.

What do *you* - the _demos_, the voters, the great well-washed - 
actually want?
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:47:28 +0100, paul 
wrote:

>Since the Committee elections for 2008 were decided without any need for
>a VT or UKV's participation, and since uk.glb's mods have continued
>their term of service for a further year unchallenged, this has all lain
>dormant...

In terms of the Committee Elections last year, there were numerous
attempts to contact UKV.  Initiated by Chris as Control in September,
followed by Molly when Chris didn't get any response, finally I,
writing for and on behalf of the Committee, contacted them with a
formal request for clarification and setting a deadline for some / any
response from them.

No formal response from UKV being received, the Committee prepared to
manage the elections 'in-house' should it prove necessary.  Luckily
the three vacant posts were not contended so an election wasn't
needed, however we, as you highlight, are in the same position as glb
mods - in that we'd ideally like to feel we truly have a mandate :-)

I should point out that following our attempts to contact UKV, Pedt
responded informally and in a personal capacity offering to help with
Committee elections if required, during a time when he had some rather
unpleasant issues to deal with in RL[tm], so thanks Pedt.

This has been discussed at length within the Committee and none of us
can recall having said or done anything to alienate UKV - basically we
don't know why they refuse to talk to us, or respond to any contacts.

I'd personally prefer to see a UKV reformation - perhaps with a new
lease of life.  As an organisation I can't really fault their record,
both in terms of handling (sometimes difficult) votes, and also
internal management.

Don't much like the idea of the Committee taking over the whole
process - unless we can have a new helicopter with a much better
stocked mini-bar.

.mother wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:47:28 +0100, paul 
> wrote:
>
>> Since the Committee elections for 2008 were decided without any need
>> for a VT or UKV's participation, and since uk.glb's mods have
>> continued their term of service for a further year unchallenged,
>> this has all lain dormant...
>
> In terms of the Committee Elections last year, there were numerous
> attempts to contact UKV.  Initiated by Chris as Control in September,
> followed by Molly when Chris didn't get any response, finally I,
> writing for and on behalf of the Committee, contacted them with a
> formal request for clarification and setting a deadline for some / any
> response from them.
>
> No formal response from UKV being received, the Committee prepared to
> manage the elections 'in-house' should it prove necessary.  Luckily
> the three vacant posts were not contended so an election wasn't
> needed, however we, as you highlight, are in the same position as glb
> mods - in that we'd ideally like to feel we truly have a mandate :-)
>
> I should point out that following our attempts to contact UKV, Pedt
> responded informally and in a personal capacity offering to help with
> Committee elections if required, during a time when he had some rather
> unpleasant issues to deal with in RL[tm], so thanks Pedt.

Absolutely, it was good of him to offer.


>
> This has been discussed at length within the Committee and none of us
> can recall having said or done anything to alienate UKV - basically we
> don't know why they refuse to talk to us, or respond to any contacts.

Apart from taking 2 of their members? :-)

>
> I'd personally prefer to see a UKV reformation - perhaps with a new
> lease of life.  As an organisation I can't really fault their record,
> both in terms of handling (sometimes difficult) votes, and also
> internal management.
>
> Don't much like the idea of the Committee taking over the whole
> process - unless we can have a new helicopter with a much better
> stocked mini-bar.

Make that a maxi bar.  If this doesn't get sorted and we end up with 
something controversial to deal with - we'll need a lot of stiff drinks.

It might seem at the moment we don't really need to worry too much.   But if 
that awkward controversial vote does happen, it would be better if we knew 
that one way or another the electorate had agreed the method of dealing with 
it.


-- 
  kat
          >^..^<

On 2008-04-23, Molly Mockford  wrote:
> The guidelines are, I think, the least of our problems, given that UKV 
> are generally referred to as an example, not as a requirement.

Indeed.

> The most crucial issue, however, is:  *what has happened to UKVoting?*

I'm not sure. The mailing list is rather flakey due to currently being
on a rather flakey machine; I need to transfer the web site and
database across to the new one.

However last time I tried to contact people by manually cc'ing all
the list members by email I didn't get much of a response. On the
other hand, I have seen several of the members still contributing
regularly to Usenet.

Message-ID: <slrng0voo1.b10.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> from Jon
Ribbens contained the following:

>However last time I tried to contact people by manually cc'ing all
>the list members by email I didn't get much of a response. On the
>other hand, I have seen several of the members still contributing
>regularly to Usenet.

The question is - Do we have a voting organisation, or not?

-- 
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

On 2008-04-24, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2008-04-23, Molly Mockford  wrote:
>> The guidelines are, I think, the least of our problems, given that UKV 
>> are generally referred to as an example, not as a requirement.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> The most crucial issue, however, is:  *what has happened to UKVoting?*
>
> I'm not sure. The mailing list is rather flakey due to currently being
> on a rather flakey machine; I need to transfer the web site and
> database across to the new one.

A machine which seems to be running SSH, answers to ping, but attempts to
connect to port 25 just time out (they don't get rejected, like port 80, they
just sit there).  I just tried it again (having tried a week or so ago with
the same result).

ukvoting.org.uk.        3600    IN      MX      2 mx0.ukvoting.org.uk.
mx0.ukvoting.org.uk.    3600    IN      A       62.197.40.227

The web site seems to be fine, but that's on a different machine:

www.ukvoting.org.uk.    3355    IN      A       62.197.40.231

> However last time I tried to contact people by manually cc'ing all
> the list members by email I didn't get much of a response. On the
> other hand, I have seen several of the members still contributing
> regularly to Usenet.

If you can't get a response, and the Committee doesn't get a response, is
UKVoting dead?  Or just pining?

Chris C

Message-ID:  from Chris Croughton
contained the following:

>
>If you can't get a response, and the Committee doesn't get a response, is
>UKVoting dead?  Or just pining?

I already asked that.  I'm sure they don't expect a Spanish Inquisition.

-- 
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:41:22 +0100, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>I'm sure they don't expect a Spanish Inquisition.

(MUST RESIST)

Their chief weapon is...

... a broken mailserver - ?

When did Cummins join the ranks of UKV?

In <slrng0voo1.b10.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> writes:

>On 2008-04-23, Molly Mockford  wrote:
>> The guidelines are, I think, the least of our problems, given that UKV 
>> are generally referred to as an example, not as a requirement.

>Indeed.

>> The most crucial issue, however, is:  *what has happened to UKVoting?*

>I'm not sure. The mailing list is rather flakey due to currently being
>on a rather flakey machine; I need to transfer the web site and
>database across to the new one.

OK, the maintenance of that website, and of the software behind it, is the
crucial thing. So long as that is intact, it should be possible, in
principle, to to appoint new votetakers to replace those no longer willing
or able to serve.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:08: .mother  wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:41:22 +0100, Geoff Berrow
> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure they don't expect a Spanish Inquisition.
>
>(MUST RESIST)

Like Jaffa cakes, a tad too tempting...

>Their chief weapon is...
>
>... a broken mailserver - ?

 ... am sure they affjord a new one.

>When did Cummins join the ranks of UKV?

Che? </guffaw>  this is an attempt to reach a sensible outcome...

-- 
 paul                                                (C) © 2008 is mine

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:31: Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 2008-04-23, Molly Mockford  wrote:
>> The guidelines are, I think, the least of our problems, given that UKV 
>> are generally referred to as an example, not as a requirement.
>
>Indeed.
>
>> The most crucial issue, however, is:  *what has happened to UKVoting?*
>
>I'm not sure. The mailing list is rather flakey due to currently being
>on a rather flakey machine; I need to transfer the web site and
>database across to the new one.

Yes, but it's been like that for many months now - even during last
year's uk.glb mod elections there were various intermittent spates of
error messages.

>However last time I tried to contact people by manually cc'ing all
>the list members by email I didn't get much of a response. On the
>other hand, I have seen several of the members still contributing
>regularly to Usenet.

So are UKV in business then - if they are can a VT e-mail me please:)

No one has yet replied to our requests for a VT for our mod elections
for this year and it's really difficult to know if a human has actually
seen our various e-mail requests and ignored them, or never seen them
and so remain blissfully unaware - even though UKV's website states last
year's election to be "in progress".

-- 
 paul                                                (C) © 2008 is mine

On 2008-04-24, Charles Lindsey  wrote:
>>I'm not sure. The mailing list is rather flakey due to currently being
>>on a rather flakey machine; I need to transfer the web site and
>>database across to the new one.
>
> OK, the maintenance of that website, and of the software behind it, is the
> crucial thing. So long as that is intact, it should be possible, in
> principle, to to appoint new votetakers to replace those no longer willing
> or able to serve.

I've transferred the website, database, mail autoresponders, back-end
software and mailing lists across to the new machine. This should
hopefully result in things working properly again!

Please note though that any messages sent before now should probably
be regarded as Missing In Action, and should therefore be re-sent.

I'll see who wakes up on the list now it's working again ;-)

At 16:59:46 on Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Jon Ribbens 
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in 
<slrng19tqi.blg.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>:

>I've transferred the website, database, mail autoresponders, back-end
>software and mailing lists across to the new machine. This should
>hopefully result in things working properly again!

Way to go, Jon!

>Please note though that any messages sent before now should probably
>be regarded as Missing In Action, and should therefore be re-sent.

Understandable.  However, we probably won't trouble to re-send all the 
ones which related to the 2007 Committee Elections :-)
(I really miss my animated gif ROFL smiley from web forums)

>I'll see who wakes up on the list now it's working again ;-)

Let's hope that whoever wakes up is somebody who can handle the GLB mod 
elections.  (From what I laughingly call my memory, that generally used 
to be Richard.)

I reckon it would restore a lot of confidence around here if all the 
current members of UKV could just pop in and put their hands up.

No, no, I don't mean it like *that*!  No sawn-off shotguns pointed just 
below the belly;  just gentle murmurs of "Here, Miss!")

I'm reasonably sure that both Richard and Pedt are still alive, or were 
until recently - but is there anybody else awake and alert?  Or is it a 
matter of "there's nobody here but us chickens"?
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:50: Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 16:59:46 on Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Jon Ribbens 
><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in 
><slrng19tqi.blg.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>:
>
>>I've transferred the website, database, mail autoresponders, back-end
>>software and mailing lists across to the new machine. This should
>>hopefully result in things working properly again!
>
>Way to go, Jon!

That's most welcome news, many thanks Jon.

>>Please note though that any messages sent before now should probably
>>be regarded as Missing In Action, and should therefore be re-sent.
>[...]
>>I'll see who wakes up on the list now it's working again ;-)
>
>Let's hope that whoever wakes up is somebody who can handle the GLB mod 
>elections.  (From what I laughingly call my memory, that generally used 
>to be Richard.)
>I reckon it would restore a lot of confidence around here if all the 
>current members of UKV could just pop in and put their hands up.
>No, no, I don't mean it like *that*!  No sawn-off shotguns pointed just 
>below the belly;  just gentle murmurs of "Here, Miss!")
>I'm reasonably sure that both Richard and Pedt are still alive, or were 
>until recently - but is there anybody else awake and alert?  Or is it a 
>matter of "there's nobody here but us chickens"?

<cough>  Yes, well, you do have a way with words Molly ... many thanks
indeed for your help;  have re-sent the uk.glb VT request on to UKV and
look forward to a happy outcome.

-- 
 paul                                                (C) © 2008 is mine

Molly Mockford wrote in uk.net.news.management on Mon, 28 Apr 2008
01:50:54 +0100 MID<06mwYpTu9RFIFwG2@molly.mockford>:

>I reckon it would restore a lot of confidence around here if all the 
>current members of UKV could just pop in and put their hands up.

*waves*

(then promptly disappears again for three weeks - which is, in
essence, why I've been inactive around these parts).

Dave

Molly Mockford wrote:

> I reckon it would restore a lot of confidence around here if all the 
> current members of UKV could just pop in and put their hands up.
> 

UKV ain't dead, we were just restin'! (Apologies to Monty Python)

Anyway, I'm here, though working all sorts of odd hours at work (yay for 
working for the railways).

Cheers,

Barry

In uk.net.news.management on Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:50:54 +0100, Molly
Mockford  wrote:

}I reckon it would restore a lot of confidence around here if all the 
}current members of UKV could just pop in and put their hands up.

:)

{R}

On 2008-04-28, paul  wrote:
><cough>  Yes, well, you do have a way with words Molly ... many thanks
> indeed for your help;  have re-sent the uk.glb VT request on to UKV and
> look forward to a happy outcome.

Unfortunately it hasn't come through. I know the list is working
though, because I'm being deluged with spam again :-/

Can you try again, or check your mail logs as to exactly when it was
sent please?

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:21 Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 2008-04-28, paul  wrote:
>><cough>  Yes, well, you do have a way with words Molly ... many thanks
>> indeed for your help;  have re-sent the uk.glb VT request on to UKV and
>> look forward to a happy outcome.
>
>Unfortunately it hasn't come through. I know the list is working
>though, because I'm being deluged with spam again :-/
>Can you try again, or check your mail logs as to exactly when it was
>sent please?

Will do Jon.  'Twas sent this morning: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:44:21 +0100
and re-sent just now to the usual address.

-- 
 paul                                                (C) © 2008 is mine

On 2008-04-28, paul  wrote:
> Will do Jon.

Got it now.

> 'Twas sent this morning: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:44:21 +0100
> and re-sent just now to the usual address.

Interesting. It looks like Claranet's mail server is rather broken:

Apr 28 06:44:17 snowy postfix/smtpd[5361]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from relay1.mail.uk.clara.net[80.168.70.181]: 450 4.7.1 : Recipient address rejected: Greylisted, see http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/postgrey/help/ukvoting.org.uk.html; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=<relay1.mail.uk.clara.net>

My server is using 'greylisting' to filter out spam. The above log
shows it temporarily rejecting your mail, in the expectation that
the sender will re-try if it is a real mail coming from a real
mail system.

Most mail systems will re-try within a few minutes, causing only
a small delay to the mail delivery. Unfortunately it seems that
Claranet's mail server didn't re-try at all! That's very strange
behaviour for a mail server.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:38:Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 2008-04-28, paul  wrote:
>> Will do Jon.
>
>Got it now.

Good.  Many thanks.  We seem to be under sail again.

>> 'Twas sent this morning: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:44:21 +0100
>> and re-sent just now to the usual address.
>
>Interesting. It looks like Claranet's mail server is rather broken:
>
>Apr 28 06:44:17 snowy postfix/smtpd[5361]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from relay1.mail.uk.clara.net[80.168.70.181]: 450 4.7.1 : Recipient address rejected: Greylisted, see http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/postgrey/help/ukvoting.org.uk.html; from= to= proto=ESMTP helo=<relay1.mail.uk.clara.net>
>
>My server is using 'greylisting' to filter out spam. The above log
>shows it temporarily rejecting your mail, in the expectation that
>the sender will re-try if it is a real mail coming from a real
>mail system.

What can I say - UKV has had an annual request for a VT from me from
that address for many years now ...
 
>Most mail systems will re-try within a few minutes, causing only
>a small delay to the mail delivery. Unfortunately it seems that
>Claranet's mail server didn't re-try at all! That's very strange
>behaviour for a mail server.

 ... first I've heard of this;  <befuddled>  am handling over thirty
business e-mails daily for some time now and never one of them dropped
or lost or bounced (ever, that is, which is why I use Clara, except to
UKV's server in times past) ... seems odd no error notice or bounce or
whatnot but will raise now with Clara's techy bods for clarification.

-- 
 paul                                                (C) © 2008 is mine

On 2008-04-29, paul  wrote:
>>My server is using 'greylisting' to filter out spam. The above log
>>shows it temporarily rejecting your mail, in the expectation that
>>the sender will re-try if it is a real mail coming from a real
>>mail system.
>
> What can I say - UKV has had an annual request for a VT from me from
> that address for many years now ...

It may be from and to the same address, but everything at this end has
changed, and most likely quite a lot at Clara's end has changed too
over the years.

>  ... first I've heard of this;  <befuddled>  am handling over thirty
> business e-mails daily for some time now and never one of them dropped
> or lost or bounced (ever, that is, which is why I use Clara, except to
> UKV's server in times past) ... seems odd no error notice or bounce or
> whatnot but will raise now with Clara's techy bods for clarification.

Super, let me know what they say.

At 17:08:44 on Tue, 29 Apr 2008, paul  wrote 
in :

>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:38:Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>wrote:

>>My server is using 'greylisting' to filter out spam. The above log
>>shows it temporarily rejecting your mail, in the expectation that
>>the sender will re-try if it is a real mail coming from a real
>>mail system.
>
>What can I say - UKV has had an annual request for a VT from me from
>that address for many years now ...

Greylisting doesn't apply to the sender of the actual e-mail - it 
applies to the mail servers which attempt to hand it over to the 
receiving mail servers.  If a mail server which is configured to run 
greylisting gets a lot of mail from Clara.net, Clara's mail servers 
would be whitelisted;  but if only an occasional one turns up, there is 
the challenge of a temporary rejection.  Servers relaying spam don't 
re-try;  all well-configured mail servers, however, ought to do so in 
response to a temporary rejection.  Some take ages;  I've known mail 
from BTInternet to be delayed for 24+ hours before re-trying, which is 
bad.  However, not even they give up entirely at the first attempt.  I'd 
be pretty surprised if Clara had been getting this wrong for very long, 
or some of their customers would have shouted!
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On 2008-04-29, Molly Mockford  wrote:
> I'd be pretty surprised if Clara had been getting this wrong for
> very long, or some of their customers would have shouted!

Indeed. It's possible perhaps that they have some cached DNS data and
have been re-trying at the wrong server (which is no longer accepting
mail connections) - in which case it is a temporary problem which will
fix itself automatically given a few days.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:08: paul  wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:38:Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2008-04-28, paul  wrote:
>>> Will do Jon.
>>
>>Got it now.
>
>Good.  Many thanks.  We seem to be under sail again.

Just to follow up:  I asked Jon if he could draw a line under the 2007
mods' election so we could move forward on this year's, which he did.
Had a lovely e-mail from Pedt, then Jon's circular thingy to UKV's list
(which now appears to be well again) and then Barry appeared to have
drawn the short straw for our annual kludge a.k.a. mods' elections, so
normal service is in and we're very happy indeed.

Very many thanks to everybody for their responses, input and help.

Regards,
paul


-- 
 paul                                                (C) © 2008 is mine

At 01:37:03 on Thu, 1 May 2008, paul  wrote 
in :

>Just to follow up:  I asked Jon if he could draw a line under the 2007
>mods' election so we could move forward on this year's, which he did.
>Had a lovely e-mail from Pedt, then Jon's circular thingy to UKV's list
>(which now appears to be well again) and then Barry appeared to have
>drawn the short straw for our annual kludge a.k.a. mods' elections, so
>normal service is in and we're very happy indeed.
>
>Very many thanks to everybody for their responses, input and help.

This is really excellent news.  <voice="Young Mr Grace"> You've all done 
very well! </voice>
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

In message <06mwYpTu9RFIFwG2@molly.mockford>, at 01:50:54 on Mon, 28 Apr 
2008, Molly Mockford  wibbled

>I reckon it would restore a lot of confidence around here if all the 
>current members of UKV could just pop in and put their hands up.
>
!
-- 
Pedt

At 13:42:41 on Mon, 5 May 2008, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> 
wrote in :

>In message <06mwYpTu9RFIFwG2@molly.mockford>, at 01:50:54 on Mon, 28 
>Apr 2008, Molly Mockford  wibbled
>
>>I reckon it would restore a lot of confidence around here if all the 
>>current members of UKV could just pop in and put their hands up.

>!

Hands, Pedt, hands!!!
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.