[Vision2020] Douglas Wilson's Rationale: Logos School {Rationalization in this case, not rationale}
Art Deco
deco@moscow.com
Sat, 10 May 2003 19:47:31 -0700
Re: Try to explain so-called Pastor Wilson's sophistry.
The explanation offered by Ted Moffett on behalf of Douglas Wilson for
discriminating against women is simply a long winded sophistry which says
that there are some things that men can do better by nature than women and
running a cult school appears to be one of them.
Do the leaders and members of the cult think that every man is better
equipped to run their cult school than any women or to do any other task? Is
even the smartest woman less qualified than the dumbest man? Just
understanding this last two statement makes a mockery of their arguments and
empirically false claim that women lack reason and prudence.
Here's another of their sleight of hand arguments: so-called Pastor Wilson
quotes scripture to the effect that his alleged god thinks than that women
should not be in positions of authority. In the next sentence says he is
not relying on that. Why quote it in the first place? The intended
audience for the scriptural quote are the sheep in the cult who will accept
that as the reason knowing that Wilson is just saying otherwise to disarm us
heathens despite the awfulness of the arguments used to support his apparent
secular position.
Here's another of their sleight of hand arguments: The cult claims they are
more at legal risk for having de facto discrimination on their board than
for discrimination by rule. What a silly-assed, ignorance based argument!
It is always easier to legally attack discrimination by rule than de facto
discrimination. With de facto discrimination the plaintiffs must
demonstrate by clear and cogent evidence that such discrimination exists.
No such proof is required for discrimination by rule. The rest of the legal
case is the same for both positions. I don't know who the cult is getting
their legal advice from (if anyone) but that person(s) is certainly inept
and/or possibly god struck.
An interesting study was publicized just in the last two weeks in the
business news in the Spokesman and on the internet: Businesses started and
managed by women have half the failure rate than those started and managed
by men. Suggestions that cult leaders and members have castration complexes
gain even more credibility in the light of this study. Perhaps they would
allow women on their board if the men could wear armor proof protective
cups.
Perhaps the cult is worried that women do not appear to be as susceptible as
men to being god struck, a phenomenon studied and reported by many
therapists. Besides the more serious pathology associated with being god
struck (think Jim Jones, David Koresh, perhaps Douglas Wilson) than that of
being stage struck, those who are god struck inflict much more pain,
anxiety, guilt, and do much more harm to others than themselves.
My personal ethic is that It is contrary to the basic ideals of freedom to
restrain and limit men or women from reaching their full non-criminal
potential and function in an open, free society. My arguments for this
position are heuristic, not religious.
It is clear that the Christ Church cult only believes in freedom so far as
it advances their religious ideals. I do not share these ideals; I think
they are based on pathology and delusion rather than evidence and good will.
I would guess that many on the Palouse who are familiar the cult's true
beliefs are repulsed rather than attracted by them. This ongoing
discussion, despite smoke screening by the cult, has opened many eyes. Even
some cult members are starting to question their adulation and unquestioning
belief of the cult leaders. Stay tuned!
For now let's work for a society where every person can work towards their
full potential unlimited by artificial and delusional barriers erected by
fear and superstition.
Wayne Fox
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
To: <dougwils@moscow.com>
Cc: <trgarfield@turbonet.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Douglas Wilson's Rationale: Logos School
>
> All:
>
> While I have not read the recent Daily News text that some are discussing
> regarding the Logos School/Christ Church controversies, the recent U of I
> Argonaut editorial and cartoon that satirized certain males associated
with
> Logos School also raised the issue of male representatives of Logos School
> not offering sufficient rationale for keeping women off the Logos' school
> board. I remember thinking that the editorial was not quite fair in it's
> judgment that there was a lack of rationale that was put forth by these
> Logo's males, or by Douglas Wilson, for the all male school board at
Logos.
>
> I thought that Wilson had indeed provided a rationale.
>
> Douglas Wilson has just posted to vision2020 that his rationale (or his
> church's rationale) on this issue has not been properly listened to or
> understood. And now we have another post on vision2020 aimed at Logos
> School men (or just Douglas Wilson?) querying them why women should not be
> just as involved as men in their children's education, so how is this
> consistent with keeping women off the Logos' school board? The writer
> implies Douglas Wilson is not properly utilizing his philosophy education.
>
> What I understand the explanation previously offered by Douglas Wilson on
> this issue, at least in part is, as simply as I can state it, and put into
> my own words, which means I am probably getting it wrong:
>
> Women and men are different in ways that indicate they fulfill different
> roles in society. To ignore this and expect women and men to all serve in
> the same capacity in all roles in society is to ignore the facts of these
> differences. To define these roles clearly and institutionalize rules
that
> give men certain roles that exclude women and women certain roles that
> exclude men, is only to fulfill the natural order of things as God created
> them. This does not imply women are being demeaned or degraded. In fact
> Scripture indicates that misogyny is a sin, just as well as scripture
> instructs differing roles for women and men. There is also a legal
> vulnerability regarding the Logos school board that would be addressed by
> making an official policy of allowing only men to serve on the school
board.
>
> Below I quote Douglas Wilson in his own words from various vision2020
posts
> where he explains his position. The quotes "flesh out" the rationale
given
> above. I am in no way stating agreement with Douglas Wilson's position.
I
> am merely pointing out he has offered a rational for his views, which
given
> his religious assumptions, has an internal logic.
>
> If anyone wants to disagree with this logic, they should start with the
> fundamental assumptions underlying this world view, not in the "middle,"
as
> it were, of a belief system that logically follows from the fundamental
> assumptions in question.
>
> I briefly outline these quotes content:
>
> Quote 1: Legal concerns.
>
> Quote 2: He answers Bill London's question "What should we tell our
> daughters?" and outlines differing roles of women and men as God
indicates.
>
> Quote 3: He mentions the honored position women have in his world view,
> based on Scripture, in providing "Wisdom," and how much he has personally
> learned from women. He points out the first rate education his daughters'
> received.
>
> Quote 4: He asserts misogyny is a sin.
>
> Quote 5: He quotes a poem which I assume is meant to elucidate the
position
> that women and men are different (thus different roles in society?) but
> neither sex is "better."
>
> I include all these quotes below:
>
> Mon. April 7 2003, vision2020, Douglas Wilson:
>
> "But for those who really are interested, conservative Christians believe
> that the apostle Paul prohibits women from serving as elders or pastors of
> churches (1 Tim. 2:12-15). This is the nearest scriptural prohibition to
> our point of discussion, and it does not apply. The text is not addressing
> school boards but rather sessions of elders. The serious concern at Logos
> is whether our informal emphasis (encouraging men to be involved in the
> education of their children) has resulted in a de facto situation that
> leaves the school in a vulnerable position. Courts have regularly found de
> facto circumstances as evidence of illegal discrimination, and they have
> also had a regrettable tendency to not understand the distinction between
> private and public. So, this is one proposed precaution -- which hasn't
> even passed yet."
>
>
> Tues. April 8 2003, vision2020, Douglas Wilson:
>
> "Dear visionaries,
>
> Warren notes that Bill London's question has gone unanswered in the flurry
> of discussion. What should we tell our daughters? We should teach them
what
> we believe, which is that men are called by God to sacrifice, love, lead,
> provide, protect and honor, and women are called to answer this with
> respect, wisdom, counsel, nurture, and skillful management. I am aware of
> the fact that all this is perfectly appalling in our egalitarian era, but
> there it is."
>
> Tues. April 8 2003, vision2020, Douglas Wilson:
>
> "Given the rhetorical distance between our camps, this kind of assumption
is
> certainly a natural one, but I do want to do more than nuance it. If I
were
> to list the top three people I have learned the most from, living or dead,
> two of them would be women. I have three children, two of them women, and
> by the grace of God I saw to it that they all got the same (first-rate)
> education. One of them did her undergraduate thesis on how various forms
of
> mistreatment of women are reflections and applications of various
> Trinitarian heresies.
>
> And all this is consistent with what Scripture teaches. In the book of
> Proverbs, wisdom is a woman. The Christian church is a woman, the bride of
> Christ. In the book of Acts, Priscilla and Aquila take Apollos aside, and
> together they set him straight in his teaching. And if I began spouting
> some egalitarian nonsense, I know of a number of modern Christian women
who
> would be happy to do the same for me."
>
> Wed. April 9 2003, vision2020, Douglas Wilson:
>
> "Misogyny is a sin because God hates it, and He will judge
> those guilty of unrepentant continuance in this sin on the Last Day, along
> with those guilty of other sins against His Word."
>
> Wed. April 9 2003, vision2020, Douglas Wilson:
>
> John Danahy just simply assumes that such a practice would entail "second
> class citizenship for women." But this shows how wildly divergent our
> foundational assumptions are. I will simply seek to answer this with a
poem
> of Chesterton's called Comparisons.
>
> If I set the sun beside the moon,
> And if I set the land beside the sea,
> And if I set the town beside the country,
> And if I set the man beside the woman,
> I suppose some fool would talk about one being better.
>
> Ted
>
> >From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
> >To: vision2020@moscow.com
> >CC: trgarfield@turbonet.com
> >Subject: [Vision2020] Logos School
> >Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:12:12 -0700
> >
> >Dear visionaries,
> >
> >A brief response to Bill London. The reason Tom Garfield's response did
not
> >interact with the controversy and criticism is that from the very
beginning
> >(Vera's comments) the facts have been consistently misrepresented. Logos
> >School found itself in an editorial inkbath created by journalistic
> >ineptitude, and in contrast to this, Tom simply stated what our history
has
> >been, and what our mission actually is.
> >
> >With regard to the "denial of leadership opportunities to women," Bill's
> >formulation *again* misrepresents what actually happened. Why should we
> >continue to explain this when the explanations are not heard? I suggest
> >that Bill formulate what we have already said in this regard. When he can
> >state accurately what we have already said, then perhaps we could debate
> >the question itself. But until he knows what the question is, we should
> >best save our breath for cooling our porridge.
> >
> >The Civil War: Logos School teaches the history of that war, the causes
of
> >it, the sin on both sides, and the nobility on both sides. It was not a
> >battle between light and darkness, elves and orcs. If you believe
> >otherwise, in that simplistic, progressivist kind of way, the best we can
> >do is leave you with your daily Orwellian two minutes of hate. The kind
of
> >mind that cannot see nobility in slave-owners like George Washington,
> >Thomas Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee is the kind of mind that cannot see
> >nobility anywhere. The kind of mind that cannot see fanaticism in the
> >abolitionists and the Carolingian fire-eaters is the kind of mind that is
> >content with its own fanaticism.
> >
> >Cordially,
> >
> >
> >Douglas Wilson
> >
> >Bill London said:
> >I could take the administration of the Logos School much more seriously
> >if they were more straightforward in their public pronouncements.
> >For example, the editorial Friday in the Daily News by the Logos
> >principal.
> >That "editorial" did not respond to, or refer to, the published
> >contraversies surrounding that school, like their denial of leadership
> >opportunities to women or their honoring of the slave-holding American
> >Confederacy.
> >Instead, we were treated to a piece of pure fluff, a pat-on-the-back
> >kind of feature that would have been more appropriately an
> >advertisement.
> >BL
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> >communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
> All:
>
> When I put on my hat of philosophical detachment, a most soothing and
> comfortable hat that alientates the wearer from 99.9 percent of the human
> race while also incurring their enmity, I can play hop-scotch with
> ideological systems of all kinds, attempting to inhabit from the inside
> these differing logical belief systems. If only most people on earth
would
> sincerely attempt this exercise: I am idealistic enough (or is it naive?)
> to imagine much hatred and suffering and war would thereby be eliminated.
> My problem is keeping the hat on! It is knocked off rather easily, by my
> own passions or contradictions or weaknesses, or the external demands of
a
> world hell bent on tribal war with the loyalties demanded to fullfill
these
> hatred inducing ideologies.
>
> While I have not read the Daily News
> I read the recent U of I Argonaut editorial and cartoon that satirized
> certain males associated with Logos School. I remember thinking that the
> editorial was not quite fair in it's judgement that there was a lack of
> rationale that was put forth by these Logo's males, one of whom I assume
is
> Douglas Wilson, for the all male school board at Logos. I indeed thought
> that Wilson had provided a rationale.
>
> Douglas Wilson has just posted to vision2020 that his rationale (or his
> church's rationale) on this issue has not been properly listened to or
> understood. And now we have another post on vision2020 aimed at Logo's
men
> querrying why women should not be just as involved as men in their
> children's education, so how is this consistent with keeping women off
the
> Logos' school board, and furthermore implying Douglas Wilson is not
properly
> utilizing his philosophy education.
>
> What I understand the explanation by Douglas Wilson to be is, as simply as
I
> can state it:
>
>
>
>
> >From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
> >To: vision2020@moscow.com
> >CC: trgarfield@turbonet.com
> >Subject: [Vision2020] Logos School
> >Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:12:12 -0700
> >
> >Dear visionaries,
> >
> >A brief response to Bill London. The reason Tom Garfield's response did
not
> >interact with the controversy and criticism is that from the very
beginning
> >(Vera's comments) the facts have been consistently misrepresented. Logos
> >School found itself in an editorial inkbath created by journalistic
> >ineptitude, and in contrast to this, Tom simply stated what our history
has
> >been, and what our mission actually is.
> >
> >With regard to the "denial of leadership opportunities to women," Bill's
> >formulation *again* misrepresents what actually happened. Why should we
> >continue to explain this when the explanations are not heard? I suggest
> >that Bill formulate what we have already said in this regard. When he can
> >state accurately what we have already said, then perhaps we could debate
> >the question itself. But until he knows what the question is, we should
> >best save our breath for cooling our porridge.
> >
> >The Civil War: Logos School teaches the history of that war, the causes
of
> >it, the sin on both sides, and the nobility on both sides. It was not a
> >battle between light and darkness, elves and orcs. If you believe
> >otherwise, in that simplistic, progressivist kind of way, the best we can
> >do is leave you with your daily Orwellian two minutes of hate. The kind
of
> >mind that cannot see nobility in slave-owners like George Washington,
> >Thomas Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee is the kind of mind that cannot see
> >nobility anywhere. The kind of mind that cannot see fanaticism in the
> >abolitionists and the Carolingian fire-eaters is the kind of mind that is
> >content with its own fanaticism.
> >
> >Cordially,
> >
> >
> >Douglas Wilson
> >
> >Bill London said:
> >I could take the administration of the Logos School much more seriously
> >if they were more straightforward in their public pronouncements.
> >For example, the editorial Friday in the Daily News by the Logos
> >principal.
> >That "editorial" did not respond to, or refer to, the published
> >contraversies surrounding that school, like their denial of leadership
> >opportunities to women or their honoring of the slave-holding American
> >Confederacy.
> >Instead, we were treated to a piece of pure fluff, a pat-on-the-back
> >kind of feature that would have been more appropriately an
> >advertisement.
> >BL
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> >communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
> All:
>
> When I put on my hat of philosophical detachment, a most soothing and
> comfortable hat that alientates the wearer from 99.9 percent of the human
> race while also incurring their enmity, I can play hop-scotch with
> ideological systems of all kinds, attempting to inhabit from the inside
> these differing logical belief systems. If only most people on earth
would
> sincerely attempt this exercise: I am idealistic enough (or is it naive?)
> to imagine much hatred and suffering and war would thereby be eliminated.
> My problem is keeping the hat on! It is knocked off rather easily, by my
> own passions or contradictions or weaknesses, or the external demands of
a
> world hell bent on tribal war with the loyalties demanded to fullfill
these
> hatred inducing ideologies.
>
> While I have not read the Daily News
> I read the recent U of I Argonaut editorial and cartoon that satirized
> certain males associated with Logos School. I remember thinking that the
> editorial was not quite fair in it's judgement that there was a lack of
> rationale that was put forth by these Logo's males, one of whom I assume
is
> Douglas Wilson, for the all male school board at Logos. I indeed thought
> that Wilson had provided a rationale.
>
> Douglas Wilson has just posted to vision2020 that his rationale (or his
> church's rationale) on this issue has not been properly listened to or
> understood. And now we have another post on vision2020 aimed at Logo's
men
> querrying why women should not be just as involved as men in their
> children's education, so how is this consistent with keeping women off
the
> Logos' school board, and furthermore implying Douglas Wilson is not
properly
> utilizing his philosophy education.
>
> What I understand the explanation by Douglas Wilson to be is, as simply as
I
> can state it:
>
>
>
>
> >From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
> >To: vision2020@moscow.com
> >CC: trgarfield@turbonet.com
> >Subject: [Vision2020] Logos School
> >Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:12:12 -0700
> >
> >Dear visionaries,
> >
> >A brief response to Bill London. The reason Tom Garfield's response did
not
> >interact with the controversy and criticism is that from the very
beginning
> >(Vera's comments) the facts have been consistently misrepresented. Logos
> >School found itself in an editorial inkbath created by journalistic
> >ineptitude, and in contrast to this, Tom simply stated what our history
has
> >been, and what our mission actually is.
> >
> >With regard to the "denial of leadership opportunities to women," Bill's
> >formulation *again* misrepresents what actually happened. Why should we
> >continue to explain this when the explanations are not heard? I suggest
> >that Bill formulate what we have already said in this regard. When he can
> >state accurately what we have already said, then perhaps we could debate
> >the question itself. But until he knows what the question is, we should
> >best save our breath for cooling our porridge.
> >
> >The Civil War: Logos School teaches the history of that war, the causes
of
> >it, the sin on both sides, and the nobility on both sides. It was not a
> >battle between light and darkness, elves and orcs. If you believe
> >otherwise, in that simplistic, progressivist kind of way, the best we can
> >do is leave you with your daily Orwellian two minutes of hate. The kind
of
> >mind that cannot see nobility in slave-owners like George Washington,
> >Thomas Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee is the kind of mind that cannot see
> >nobility anywhere. The kind of mind that cannot see fanaticism in the
> >abolitionists and the Carolingian fire-eaters is the kind of mind that is
> >content with its own fanaticism.
> >
> >Cordially,
> >
> >
> >Douglas Wilson
> >
> >Bill London said:
> >I could take the administration of the Logos School much more seriously
> >if they were more straightforward in their public pronouncements.
> >For example, the editorial Friday in the Daily News by the Logos
> >principal.
> >That "editorial" did not respond to, or refer to, the published
> >contraversies surrounding that school, like their denial of leadership
> >opportunities to women or their honoring of the slave-holding American
> >Confederacy.
> >Instead, we were treated to a piece of pure fluff, a pat-on-the-back
> >kind of feature that would have been more appropriately an
> >advertisement.
> >BL
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> >communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
> All:
>
> When I put on my hat of philosophical detachment, a most soothing and
> comfortable hat that alientates the wearer from 99.9 percent of the human
> race while also incurring their enmity, I can play hop-scotch with
> ideological systems of all kinds, attempting to inhabit from the inside
> these differing logical belief systems. If only most people on earth
would
> sincerely attempt this exercise: I am idealistic enough (or is it naive?)
> to imagine much hatred and suffering and war would thereby be eliminated.
> My problem is keeping the hat on! It is knocked off rather easily, by my
> own passions or contradictions or weaknesses, or the external demands of
a
> world hell bent on tribal war with the loyalties demanded to fullfill
these
> hatred inducing ideologies.
>
> While I have not read the Daily News
> I read the recent U of I Argonaut editorial and cartoon that satirized
> certain males associated with Logos School. I remember thinking that the
> editorial was not quite fair in it's judgement that there was a lack of
> rationale that was put forth by these Logo's males, one of whom I assume
is
> Douglas Wilson, for the all male school board at Logos. I indeed thought
> that Wilson had provided a rationale.
>
> Douglas Wilson has just posted to vision2020 that his rationale (or his
> church's rationale) on this issue has not been properly listened to or
> understood. And now we have another post on vision2020 aimed at Logo's
men
> querrying why women should not be just as involved as men in their
> children's education, so how is this consistent with keeping women off
the
> Logos' school board, and furthermore implying Douglas Wilson is not
properly
> utilizing his philosophy education.
>
> What I understand the explanation by Douglas Wilson to be is, as simply as
I
> can state it:
>
>
>
>
> >From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
> >To: vision2020@moscow.com
> >CC: trgarfield@turbonet.com
> >Subject: [Vision2020] Logos School
> >Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:12:12 -0700
> >
> >Dear visionaries,
> >
> >A brief response to Bill London. The reason Tom Garfield's response did
not
> >interact with the controversy and criticism is that from the very
beginning
> >(Vera's comments) the facts have been consistently misrepresented. Logos
> >School found itself in an editorial inkbath created by journalistic
> >ineptitude, and in contrast to this, Tom simply stated what our history
has
> >been, and what our mission actually is.
> >
> >With regard to the "denial of leadership opportunities to women," Bill's
> >formulation *again* misrepresents what actually happened. Why should we
> >continue to explain this when the explanations are not heard? I suggest
> >that Bill formulate what we have already said in this regard. When he can
> >state accurately what we have already said, then perhaps we could debate
> >the question itself. But until he knows what the question is, we should
> >best save our breath for cooling our porridge.
> >
> >The Civil War: Logos School teaches the history of that war, the causes
of
> >it, the sin on both sides, and the nobility on both sides. It was not a
> >battle between light and darkness, elves and orcs. If you believe
> >otherwise, in that simplistic, progressivist kind of way, the best we can
> >do is leave you with your daily Orwellian two minutes of hate. The kind
of
> >mind that cannot see nobility in slave-owners like George Washington,
> >Thomas Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee is the kind of mind that cannot see
> >nobility anywhere. The kind of mind that cannot see fanaticism in the
> >abolitionists and the Carolingian fire-eaters is the kind of mind that is
> >content with its own fanaticism.
> >
> >Cordially,
> >
> >
> >Douglas Wilson
> >
> >Bill London said:
> >I could take the administration of the Logos School much more seriously
> >if they were more straightforward in their public pronouncements.
> >For example, the editorial Friday in the Daily News by the Logos
> >principal.
> >That "editorial" did not respond to, or refer to, the published
> >contraversies surrounding that school, like their denial of leadership
> >opportunities to women or their honoring of the slave-holding American
> >Confederacy.
> >Instead, we were treated to a piece of pure fluff, a pat-on-the-back
> >kind of feature that would have been more appropriately an
> >advertisement.
> >BL
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> >List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> >communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>