[Vision2020] LMT 8/25/04 Moscow Chamber Rumors Denied

[Tami Stinebaugh]

Melynda,

>From my perspective, I can really see both sides of this.  I try to keep out of most of the arguing that takes place on vision 2020 because it seems rather pointless most of the time, and nothing really gets accomplished.  I am a person who considers herself an independent but I typically lean to the left.  However, even though I usually agree with what is being said by the majority of vision 2020 posters, I tend to feel the need to be defensive of people on the right, even though I don't agree with what they are saying!  The point is that it seems that anybody who posts something from a religious/ conservative perspective, typically gets several emails quickly posted back that slams the door shut on what they are trying to say.  I personally like to hear from both sides because sometimes I don't understand AT ALL where they are coming from.  When vision 2020 gets a post with a perspective not typical of most active list members, I LIKE to read it.  It doesn't mean I agree w
ith it, but appreciate the insight and feel it gives more information about where both sides are coming from.  I don't typically agree with Pat Kraut for example, but hope she doesn't go away because I like to hear her perspective.  Does it mean I am a religious/right wing conservative?  Far from it!  I just enjoy the different point of view and the insight it gives me, and feel like she absolutely has the right to express her concerns and thoughts on all topics.  (That is not to say that I feel all right wing conservatives are represented by Pat Kraut either, she was the first one to come to mind)

My fear is that other vision 2020 members who lurk, and do not agree with the majority of the posts on this listserve, do not feel comfortable to speak their minds because of what generally happens to people who speak out against the majority.  Just like I said, I feel like I need to be defensive, and I don't even agree with "the other side"!  Most of the time, it is not typically the argument that is certain to come from list members that is most troubling, but the way in which the message is delivered.  It slams the door on any sort of discussion, conversation, or experience sharing and delivers the message that you either agree with us, or you shut up.  That is what I totally disagree with about this list.  

If somebody posted a message about women being less than equal to men, or black people or gay people somehow being less than white or straight people, then I would emphatically disagree and certainly understand why people would respond in force, but I still respect their right to say so and actually would like to hear the reasoning behind such things.  Understanding the basis for such ideas is the only way we will ever learn, and perhaps make things better.  Insulting, name-calling, and belittling (even if "they" started it) is as childish as it sounds, does nothing to help the matter, and only makes the separation on vision 2020, and citizens of Moscow that much harder to overcome.  Sometimes the posters who squeak the loudest are the primary ones who get heard, and that is probably where the comments you posted below, came from.  Unfortunately, those who are the most brutal, insulting, and belittling with their posts, are the ones who are remembered and reflected in that a
rticle.  That's my opinion anyway;)

Tami Stinebaugh 

----- Original Message -----
From: Melynda Huskey <mghuskey at msn.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:21 pm
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] LMT 8/25/04 Moscow Chamber Rumors Denied

> 
> I think the Tribune did a slightly better job assembling all the 
> facts than 
> the Daily News did, but I think there's still some confusion--and 
> some 
> unfair generalizations or allegations about us, the members of 
> Vision 2020.
> 
> For example, "McMillan blasted Vision 2020 as something that's 
> gone from a 
> potentially helpful local forum of ideas to "garbage" spouted by 
> about a 
> dozen contributors who give a totally wrong impression of what 
> Moscow is all 
> about.  'Vision 2020 was a great idea when it came out,' said 
> McMillan, 'but 
> it has just been taken over by a group of, I don't know how to say 
> this ... 
> I would call them almost destructive.' "
> 
> Is Ms. McMillan a member of Vision 2020? Her name doesn't appear 
> in any 
> recognizable form on the list of 516 subscribers maintained by 
> First Step.  
> And while she may not like what people have to say on the list 
> (sometimes I 
> don't either!), I'd hesitate to qualify it as "garbage."
> 
> I'm also disturbed by this statement:
> 
> >Kimmell defended his use of Lee in his recent presentation, 
> saying it
> >had nothing to do with the promotion of slavery.  "It was not 
> intended>to be about anything but the leadership skills of a 
> leader," said
> >Kimmell.
> 
> There was no response from anyone on the Board to the 
> presentation, nor any 
> comment from Chamber members not on the Board, which I think was a 
> weakness 
> in the article.  And I still think the use of a Confederate 
> general as a 
> role model given recent controversies was a peculiar one:  I have 
> yet to 
> hear or read an explanation for the choice, which would have been 
> a helpful 
> addition to any of the articles.
> 
> I was also particularly troubled by this paragraph in Alexis 
> Bachrach's 
> article in the Daily News last night:
> 
> "Many who have long disagreed with the pastor's views, took their 
> protest 
> against Wilson and applied it to the entire church.  Those same 
> community 
> members have attacked Kimmell's membership in the church on local 
> Internet 
> listservs and other public forums."
> 
> This is editorializing unsupported by evidence.  What protest?  
> How, and by 
> whom, was a protest applied to the entire church?  And who are 
> these "many" 
> community members?  As someone who *has* commented here on what I 
> see as 
> conflict of interest, poor judgement, and preferential treatment 
> of church 
> members in Paul Kimmell's work as a commissioner and as the 
> Director of the 
> Chamber, I strongly object to the notion that I am protesting an 
> entire 
> church, or attacking someone's church membership.  That's just not 
> accurate 
> at all.  My concerns are very focused on a particular person's 
> actions in 
> his role as a public figure.  His church membership is a part of 
> that 
> concern *only* insofar as it appears to be implicated in his 
> public role.
> 
> Melynda Huskey
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>