Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN

From	dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	nl.politiek, nl.muziek, uk.legal, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.adventist
Subject	Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN
Date	2025-11-16 16:17 +0000
Message-ID	<mnubpkF68mtU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <hdaihkt8unc8hgvc6eccnq3aofjaatq8m1@ed.is.dead> <mnsp13Fsh27U1@mid.individual.net> <aicihkltp7ijrnm867uvqic8gr77oa9ddc@ed.is.dead> <mnt0k1Ft6b9U1@mid.individual.net> <iqkjhkdk9q89fphgo962i55010jln973k1@ed.is.dead>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> wrote:
> dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  
>> CORRECTION: The phrase GODVERDOMME KOTS is a better representation than 
>> GOTVERDOMME KOTS
> 
> No, GODVERDOMME KOTS and GOTVERDOMME KOTS are exactly the same.
> 
>> PANCHO SANZA @ 1311 HRS ON 16 NOVEMBER 2025 (GODVERDOMME KOTS): "Your 
>> message is a cascade of unrelated imagery -  sovereigns, raw meat 
>> dresses, Catholic entertainers, sanctioning me to silence, and a 
>> supposedly 500-page discussion - none of which addresses anything I 
>> actually said.
> 
>> You keep piling metaphors on top of each other, but you never produce a 
>> single clear claim that can be checked, nor any argument that follows 
>> from your own words. Pointing to an unspecified URL or invoking dramatic 
>> scenes doesn’t turn incoherence into evidence.
>> 
>> If you believe I made a false claim, then state which one, quote it, and 
>> explain why it; s false. Until you can do that, all this theatrical 
>> language is just noise - colourful, perhaps, but still noise."
>> 
>> DOLF: "Anyone who @ AEDT 0409 HRS ON 11 NOVEMBER 2025 starts a 
>> discussion with a question "Are you mad?" 
> 
> That was not a question but a probe. You should know the difference.
> 
>> which by cogent means has been 
>> refuted. Has no intention of reasoned discussion.
> 

COPILOT @ 2116 HRS ON 18 MAY 2025: "...  Your witty suggestion that perhaps
Zelenskyy should have stayed in Kiev to “watch the pope’s exorcist”
underscores the ironic interplay between the symbols of faith and the stark
realities of international diplomacy. Papal inaugurations are not just
religious ceremonies; they are elaborate platforms where symbolism,
politics, and personal leadership intersect, sometimes sending mixed
signals to the international community.

Historically, the Vatican has maintained a diplomatic neutrality that aims
to build bridges rather than deepen divides. While the attendance of
high-profile leaders can be seen as a call for unity, it also runs the risk
of alienating parties already poised against each other. In this case, the
absence of a Russian delegation might be read as a deliberate distancing,
while Zelenskyy’s presence is a reaffirmation of his commitment to a
peaceful resolution, even if the immediate effect is to further polarize
opinions.

There’s a lot to unpack here. If you’re interested, we could explore how
past papal inaugurations have balanced religious symbolism with global
political currents, or delve into the role that such events play in the
current international dialogue on peace and conflict."

YOUTUBE: "The Wizard of Oz: Pay No Attention"

<https://youtu.be/NZR64EF3OpA>

#82 = [#1, #81]

yīn (因): 1. because, 2. cause; reason, 3. to accord with, 4. to follow, 5.
to rely on, 6. via; through, 7.to continue, 8. to receive, 9. to continue
the same pattern; to imitate an existing model; to adapt, 10. to seize an
opportunity, 11. to be like, 12. from; because of, 13. thereupon; as a
result; consequently; thus; hence, 14. a standard; a criterion

NOTE : We would contend that the underlying #87 - INALIENABLE RIGHTS
PROTOCOL as the BABYLONIAN premise to the #1772 - PAPAL SEAT is inherently
TOTALITARIAN and antagonistic to the DEMOCRATIC RIGHT 

#1601 = shàng (上): SOVEREIGN; TIME + #20 - ADVANCE (進, #99 = [#9, #17, #18,
#20, #35]) v's #1772 - PAPAL SEAT corresponding to 24 AUGUST date of year
and ARTICLE 24 stipulates that there is kingship and that this kingship is
held by WILLIAM I (WILLEM FREDERIK; 24 AUGUST 1772 TO 12 DECEMBER 1843) of
the Netherlands and his lawful successors.

That other than empty rhetoric associated to subversive agency such as the
REICH's CONCORDAT of 20 JULY 1933 the term "build bridges" is a deceitful
assertion possessing no integrity after 1768 - 1775 and on that basis CATE
BLANCHETT using the term "HIS HOLINESS" is more about career aspirations
amongst the HOLLYWOOD catholic cabal than any fidelity to our DEMOCRACY.

Similarly it's a grubby act for CATE BLANCHETT to pass off a trinket as if
she's bartering trifles to rob indigenous peoples of their lands: "You are
likewise to observe the Genius, Temper, Disposition and Number of the
Natives, if there be any and endeavour by all proper means to cultivate a
Friendship and Alliance with them, making them presents of such Trifles as
they may Value inviting them to Traffick, and Shewing them every kind of
Civility and Regard; taking Care however not to suffer yourself to be
surprized by them, but to be always upon your guard against any Accidents.

You are also with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of
Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great
Britain: Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his
Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers
and possessors."

> My own Copilot told me dolf is not interested in discussion, only in
> expanding his private sand castle.
> 

<https://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/CoPilot%20Chat%20on%20Voluntatis%2020251021%20Part%202.pdf>

-- 

Check out our SAVVY module prototype that facilitates a movable / resizable
DIALOG and complex dropdown MENU interface deploying the third party d3
library.

 <http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?heuristic> 

 <http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/Savvy.zip> (Download resources)

Back to nl.politiek | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilgöz ’die feeks van de VVD’ Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-14 17:19 +0100
  Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilgöz ’die feeks van de VVD’ Omnibus <zozozo@fakeadressnomail.be> - 2025-11-14 19:20 +0100
    Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilgöz ’die feeks van de VVD’ pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-15 08:39 +0100
      CDA rules supreme ! Jos Bergervoet <Jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2025-11-15 09:15 +0100
        Re: CDA rules supreme ! pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-15 09:45 +0100
  Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg�z �die feeks van de VVD� Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 21:40 +0100
    Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg�z �die feeks van de VVD� Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-15 08:05 +0100
      Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-15 08:41 +0100
        Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-15 08:25 +0000
          Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-15 09:47 +0100
            Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-15 10:27 +0100
              Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-16 09:16 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Barokino <barokino@upcmail.nl> - 2025-11-16 10:41 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-16 12:38 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Number51 <x@x.xx> - 2025-11-16 14:26 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Den Oude <Baron@Den-Oude.xx> - 2025-11-16 14:56 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-16 15:04 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Den Oude <Baron@Den-Oude.xx> - 2025-11-16 15:22 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-16 14:57 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Number51 <x@x.xx> - 2025-11-16 15:10 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Den Oude <Baron@Den-Oude.xx> - 2025-11-16 15:17 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-16 16:41 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Den Oude <Baron@Den-Oude.xx> - 2025-11-16 16:45 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-16 10:52 +0100
          CDA rules supreme ! Jos Bergervoet <Jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2025-11-15 09:49 +0100
            Re: CDA rules supreme ! Jos Bergervoet <Jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2025-11-15 10:18 +0100
              Re: CDA rules supreme ! pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-15 10:27 +0100
              Re: CDA rules supreme ! Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-15 10:33 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Henk <IngridenHenk@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-15 11:25 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-15 12:55 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Henk <IngridenHenk@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-15 17:41 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-15 18:52 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:03 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Henk <IngridenHenk@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-15 19:23 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-15 19:28 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! paai <hari@seldon.un> - 2025-11-15 21:20 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Barokino <barokino@upcmail.nl> - 2025-11-16 10:43 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Henk <IngridenHenk@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-16 12:27 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-16 17:21 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Omnibus <zozozo@fakeadressnomail.be> - 2025-11-16 19:35 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-16 09:25 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Cees Camphuis <CeesCamphuis@ziggo.nl> - 2025-11-16 11:12 +0100
                Re: CDA rules supreme ! Jos Bergervoet <Jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2025-11-15 14:57 +0100
        Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Omnibus <zozozo@fakeadressnomail.be> - 2025-11-15 16:44 +0100
      Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:23 +0100
      Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg�z �die feeks van de VVD� Omnibus <zozozo@fakeadressnomail.be> - 2025-11-15 16:43 +0100
        Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 18:14 +0100
          Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Omnibus <zozozo@fakeadressnomail.be> - 2025-11-15 22:40 +0100
            Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 22:58 +0100
        Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 18:18 +0100
          Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Henk <IngridenHenk@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-15 19:29 +0100
            Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 21:52 +0100
              Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Henk <IngridenHenk@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-16 11:43 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:33 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Henk <IngridenHenk@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-16 17:36 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 19:20 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Den Oude <Baron@Den-Oude.xx> - 2025-11-16 19:29 +0100
          Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 08:31 +1100
          Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 08:40 +1100
            Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 23:15 +0100
              Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 09:21 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 23:43 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:15 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:18 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 00:35 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:10 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:13 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 01:29 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 12:01 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 02:35 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 12:51 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 03:11 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Den Oude <Baron@Den-Oude.xx> - 2025-11-16 10:44 +0100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:41 +0100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 16:17 +0000
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 19:25 +0100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 19:30 +0000
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:44 +0100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:16 +0000
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 23:18 +0100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:32 +0000
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:57 +1100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:19 +1100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:35 +1100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:47 +1100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-17 20:00 +1100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN Rin Stowleigh <swallowyourear@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-01 06:22 -0600
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-02 15:02 +0000
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-02 15:28 +0000
                Re: -- SWEDISH COOK (DIEU ET MON DROIT TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERSESSION: #87 - INALIENABLE RIGHT / #1751 - SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE) Miss Piggy <misspiggy@muppets.tv> - 2025-12-03 00:21 +0100
                Re: -- SWEDISH COOK (DIEU ET MON DROIT TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERSESSION: #87 - INALIENABLE RIGHT / #1751 - SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE) Lin Stowlay <swallowyourear@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-02 17:44 -0600
                Re: -- SWEDISH COOK (DIEU ET MON DROIT TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERSESSION: #87 - INALIENABLE RIGHT / #1751 - SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE) Lin Stowlay <swallowyourear@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-02 18:57 -0600
                Re: -- SWEDISH COOK (DIEU ET MON DROIT TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERSESSION: #87 - INALIENABLE RIGHT / #1751 - SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE) Lin Stowlay <swallowyourear@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-03 03:17 -0600
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN Kees van den Doel <kwakende@kulketlekkel.nl> - 2025-11-16 09:39 -0800
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN Kees van den Doel <kwakende@kulketlekkel.nl> - 2025-11-16 09:35 -0800
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-17 04:37 +1100
                Re: -- NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE DUTCH SOVEREIGN dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:00 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-16 12:54 +1100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Rink <rink.haalditweg.hof@invalid.com> - 2025-11-16 16:24 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 16:57 +0100
                Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Rink <rink.haalditweg.hof@invalid.com> - 2025-12-09 11:24 +0100
          Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Omnibus <zozozo@fakeadressnomail.be> - 2025-11-15 22:42 +0100
            Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?z ?die feeks van de VVD? Pancho Sanza <spansanza@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 23:05 +0100
    Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg?die feeks van de VVD? pieterw <pieterw4809@live.nl> - 2025-11-15 08:36 +0100
    Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilg�z �die feeks van de VVD� Jos Bergervoet <Jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2025-11-15 09:23 +0100
  Re: D66-informateur Wijers treedt toch terug, noemde Yesilgöz ’die feeks van de VVD’ Barokino <barokino@upcmail.nl> - 2025-11-15 11:42 +0100

csiph-web