>>247119
could it just be the wrong date on the e-mail? like i have an old computer (not this one) where files are dated 1970 and so on. like the computer messed up its perception of time.
>>247149
no i dont know i just tried to come up with some explanation because when i started working on this earlier in the thread they said it was already checked and was nothing. and now you show that the mail is written years before the organisation officially existed which is so strange and should make people react. but noone cares. i dont know. maybe you can get something more on it?