[Vision2020] More Jim
Phil Nisbet
pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 2 19:09:43 PST 2006
Jim
I have been carefully considering your post here. It will take some time to
get a full scale reply. Briefly, however, please look at your post.
If I or Pat Kraut or Jeff Harkin or Roger Falen or G Crabtree posted
political opinion pieces by Rush Limbaugh and then asked somebody on the
left why they did not agree with the 'facts' we were presenting, the
response would logically be for you to laugh your butt off. Its opinion,
not facts that pundits tend to spin.
Molly Ivins is a political pundit. She has a very long track record. Many
of the things I mention are related to her stances over the years and her
close association with EWG, including her support for the famous Hit list
Clearinghouse that was run to target people who disagreed with both her and
EWG's goals.
You have accused others here of being Pavlovian dogs that light up brain
sensors in slavish response to stimuli from one sided arguments. When you
present nothing except opinion pieces from Progressive journalists and
progressive think tanks, you might want to consider that the shoe might just
possibly be on the other foot.
On the Coal mines issue I presented data from MSHA, the University of
Kentucky, Wikipedia, and a number of less opinionated sources. They do not
concur with opinion writers like Ivins.
As for Ivins questions, "When did you stop beating your wife, Jim?” Her
'questions' were no more questions than the wife beating one is, they are a
device for creating damnation regardless of the circumstances.
I will get to the rest of your length post this weekend. Its deserves
analysis and discussion. I look forward to further talks with you on the
subject.
Phil Nisbet
>From: Jim Meyer <m1e2y3e4 at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] More
>Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:32:57 -0800
>
>Note to Phil Nisbet (reply follows):
>I considered not sending this to the list but reluctantly decided to
>publicly reply. As before, you astound me with your unwillingness to see
>more than one side--but it is your thoughts that interest me because I
>cannot understand your outlook coming from the rational being that I think
>that you could be. That is really the only reason I am communicating. I am
>trying to get more points of view. I am listening, learning, open. But it
>seems, well, shall we say, that you are clearly one-sided regardless of
>facts. It is not just you. I know a lot of people like you. It bothers me
>that there are so many people who let emotions run their lives, even
>without knowing it.. It seems at times some people are from another world,
>with different laws of physics and humanity. It makes me fear for our
>country when facts, logic, telling the truth, and putting 2 +2 together
>don't really count for a large percentage of our country. I think maybe the
>MRI study I mentioned really explains everything. What do you think? I read
>recently read an academic paper on the 70 years of politics in Idaho up
>until about 1980. One comment that stands out to me is that the political
>parties will change but only as the result of a massive upheaval.
>Apparently it is only major upheaval that will get people thinking and
>maybe even then you couldn't really define it as thinking, just reacting. I
>was hoping we had enough upheaval to get people thinking, but you prove me
>wrong. I guess we need a true catastrophe. How sad. How naive of me to
>think otherwise. Anyway, thanks for the time you spent on your responses.
>It was educational for me and I hope it was some benefit, however small,
>for you. I have and had no intent to attack you or annoy you. I apologize
>if I have. It is more like science to me--matter of fact--not personal. I
>learned what I wanted to learn. I don't think I will be continuing in this
>vein any longer, except my reply below.
>
>Jim
>===============================================================================
>Reply to Phil
>I was trying to be nice but still make a point, that is why I used no
>names. But since you ask--I will oblige.
>
>You said, "What Ivins said is that the government was responsible for a
>lightening strike’s ignition of methane gas that is an inherent part of any
>coal seam in the bituminous grade."
>
>On the contrary--she said no such thing. All she did was ask this, "a few
>reporters have enough sense to ask the obvious question: What is this
>mine's safety record? And when it turns out to be abysmal, a few more
>reporters have enough sense to ask: Who's in charge of doing something
>after a mine gets 205 safety violations in one year? Where's the Mine
>Safety and Health Administration? Who runs it? What's their background --
>are they professionals or mining industry stooges? Who's the Michael
>"Heckuvajob" Brown in this outfit? Why are so many jobs at MSHA just left
>completely unfilled? How much has MSHA's budget been cut since 2001 to pay
>for tax cuts for the rich?"
>
>These are reasonable questions to ask. They are merely questions. Are you
>afraid to face the answers? Can you engage in "ruthless self-reflection" ?
>
>As Mike Curley said, "I know you responded to Keely, but having had a
>minute today to look at email, I happened to have read both her post and
>yours, and I was puzzled. It seemed to me you saw something I didn't. So I
>re-read the Molly Ivins column that was part of Keely's post. It didn't say
>that the miners were bad guys, that they didn't love their jobs, that they
>weren't dedicated, weren't generous, or weren't well paid."
>
>Why do you make things up? I mean the emotional and unrelated wording--I
>assume your facts are correct such as they are. I really don't like to say
>this but you remind me of Dale Courtney. Do the ends justify the means for
>you also? Are the ends more important than squarely facing all the facts,
>including those that don't support your presuppositions? Dale's integrity
>is already in the sewer and he knows exactly what he is doing, but you, why
>do you do it? Isn't it time for some "ruthless self-reflection?" Perhaps
>the article that follows will give you some reason to question your
>asssumptions and look further.There is a lot more out there. You just have
>to open the other eye--the one that is looking but not seeing.
>Jim
>================================================================================
>
>MSHA and the Sago Mine Disaster
>*How Many Brownies are there in this Administration?*
>
>*by Scott Lilly
>January 6, 2006*
>
>The terrible story from West Virginia that blanketed the nation’s
>television screens this week should be a further reminder of the cost of
>corrupt and incompetent government. There is virtually no one who will
>argue that the Sago Mine was operating at an acceptable level of safety.
>/USA Today/
><http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-04-mine-violations_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA>
>this morning reports that the mine
>
>/“had been cited for hundreds of federal safety violations since it opened
>in 1999, government records show. Among the infractions were at least 16
>related to failures to prevent or adequately monitor the buildup of
>explosive gases in the mine.”/
>
>So why didn’t somebody do something? The answer to that is directly
>attributable to the individuals in whose hands the safety of miners and
>other workers has been placed by this administration and the prevailing
>mind set within the administration on any issue in which business interests
>differs from those of workers.
>
>A year ago last November, President Bush’s appointed head of the Mine
>Safety and Health Administration, David Lauriski, resigned his position
>citing family reasons. His resignation came shortly after a Labor
>Department Inspector General report
><http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2005/25-05-001-06-001b.pdf>
>confirmed a CBS “60 Minutes”
><http://www.jackspadaro.com/news_articles/2004/04_04_04/60min04_04_04.pdf>
>report that under his direction the agency had improperly awarded no-bid,
>single-source contracts. Two of those companies had ties to Lauriski and
>one of his assistants.
>
>But Lauriski is best remembered at MSHA for his attempt to push through a
>change in regulations governing coal dust levels that he proposed and
>lobbied on behalf of as a senior executive with Energy West Mining Company
>of Utah. Since the change uniquely benefited only his former employer, it
>was opposed by not only the Mine Workers but also mine operators other than
>Energy West. Lauriski was able to side with the other mine operators on a
>host of other regulatory changes detrimental to worker safety. According to
>the /New York Times
><http://www.theocracywatch.org/environment_coal_times_aug9_04.htm>/, MSHA
>under his direction
>
>/“rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners'
>jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals.
>One rule pushed by the agency would make it easier for companies to use
>diesel generators underground, which miners say could increase the risk of
>fire.”/
>
>It took a full ten months for the White House to even nominate a
>replacement for Lauriski and the Senate has yet to act on his confirmation
>leaving the agency without a permanent director now for 14 months.
>
>The administration’s efforts with respect to mine safety cannot be
>explained solely on the basis of relaxed regulation. The enforcement of the
>remaining regulations has also been under attack. As Carol Raulston, a
>spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, told the /Pittsburgh
>Post-Gazette <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06005/632959.stm>/ yesterday,
>/“What we have seen that is different with the Bush administration is that
>they put a little more emphasis on working with mining companies….”/
>
>One way of working with the mining companies is to cut fines. Peg Seminario
>of the AFL-CIO estimates that the average fine per violation levied against
>Anker Group Incorporated, the company that operated Sago Mine, was about
>$247—little more than a minor expense of doing business.
>
>A second means of cutting back on enforcement is cutting back on
>inspectors. Last February, President Bush asked the Congress to appropriate
>$280 million for MSHA, cutting the number of full time positions in the
>agency by 146. That proposal was approved by Congress just before Christmas
>on narrow votes in both Houses. Subsequently Congress approved a 1 percent
>across the board cut to all agencies, cutting the MSHA’s budget by an
>additional $2.8 million and leaving it about $10 million below the FY 2005
>funding level after adjusting for inflation. As a result of Congress’s
>action, the cut in mine inspections will be even deeper than the level
>proposed by the White House.
>
>What is even more disturbing is that this is not a problem that simply
>affects mining. At the time that David Lauriski was going out the door, a
>new Bush appointee to be acting director of the Occupational Safety and
>Health Administration, an agency responsible for the workplace safety of
>most Americans who don’t work in mines was coming in. Jonathan L. Snare
>brings credentials to OSHA that should give pause to any working family
>watching television coverage of the Sago Mine disaster.
>
>Before arriving at the Labor Department, Snare was a lawyer and lobbyist in
>the Texas-based firm of Jackson and Walker, LLP, a firm claiming
><http://www.jw.com/site/jsp/practiceinfo.jsp?id=30> to specialize in, among
>other things, “appropriate discipline of employees” and “union avoidance
>campaigns.” Among his clients
><http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/15/ephedra.investigatio/>
>was Metabolife International, the leading provider of the weight loss
>supplement Ephedra, which was eventually banned after the Food and Drug
>Administration received numerous reports of deaths linked to its ingestion.
>A criminal investigation of the company was launched following an FDA
>request to the Justice Department to determine if the company had made
>false statements regarding the supplement. Since then Metabolife and one of
>its cofounders has pleaded guilty to numerous counts of tax evasion. Twelve
>million Americans had been using the supplement before the FDA action.
>
>While Snare’s lobbying activity involved him in some health and safety
>issues—although rarely on the side of consumers or workers—he seems to have
>spent much of his time on politics. He served as Election Operations
>Vice-President of the Republican National Lawyers Committee, General
>Counsel to the Texas Senate Redistricting Committee and General Counsel to
>the Republican Party of Texas.
>
>There seems to be no end to the number of Michael Brown “act-a-likes” that
>can be found in the Bush administration. The corruption that is at the base
>of the remarkable fundraising machine assembled by this White Hose and
>their allies in Congress drives an ever increasing wedge between the
>interests of ordinary Americans, such as the miners who died this week in
>West Virginia, and the special interests that currently fuel the good life
>in Washington.
>
>Also, Read: Protecting the American People: A Progressive Alternative to
>the Bush Administration
><http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1360675>, by
>John Podesta and Reece Rushing
>
>/Scott Lilly is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress./
>
>------------------------------
>
>>Message: 3
>>Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:51:29 -0800
>>From: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] What I learned (aka thinking v.
>> self-deceipt)
>>To: m1e2y3e4 at moscow.com
>>Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Message-ID: <BAY108-F3360D776BAC62A4A4D69D1EA090 at phx.gbl>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>>
>>I need to reply to something that is obviously directed at me. It
>>interests me that Jim does not seem aware that I have been working in the
>>minerals industry, including a not inconsiderable few years spent
>>underground.
>>
>>Jim tells us;
>>
>>“Are you a thinking person? You know, the kind of person that is
>>introspective enough to test his/her own thoughts and prejudices when
>>confronted with a differing truth. Can you really THINK? “
>>
>>So Phil replies;
>>
>>Reading your response below I would have to question your ability to think
>>and not to act in a highly partisan fashion that makes little or no sense
>>when looking at facts objectively. As per your Emory study, your reward
>>center must be lit up like a Christmass Tree when you ead a Molly Ivins
>>article.
>>
>>Jim writes..
>>
>>”What I learned recently is that two die-hard Republicans on V2020 believe
>>Molly Ivins is an idiot--as is anyone who would even consider her thoughts
>>is an idiot, as evidenced by both their initial comments--"Are you
>>kidding?" and then by their avoidance of addressing the questions Molly
>>asks, and one of them even going so far as to put words in her mouth she
>>didn't say and then discounting them.”
>>
>>And I reply;
>>
>>Molly is a partisan who does not care for inconvenient truths. And I do
>>have a name Jim, you can use it. And you would have nothing to write the
>>rest of the post with had I not address the issue of Molly not dealing
>>with the facts. Now care to tell us all what words were placed in Molly
>>Ivins mouth?
>>
>>Jim then presents things he thinks are facts;
>>
>>”Well, here here are the facts about mine safety as I can discern them.”
>>
>>I reply;
>>
>>Yes Jim, you have very little knowledge of mines or mine safety, which
>>makes your discernment of the subject pretty weak and based upon research
>>that is not very detailed.
>>
>>Jim Fact #1
>>
>>”--Under the Bush Administration, since 2001, fines have been routinely
>>dismissed or diminished--one example is $450,000 being reduced to $3000.”
>>
>>And the real fact
>>
>>Mine safety violation fines were reduced under Clinton as well Companies
>>have often pitched such fines to their Senators, the most powerful of whom
>>is Sen. Byrd of West Virginia. Total fines and violations have not
>>decreased between the two administration What has changed is that under
>>Clinton, the US Bureau of Mines was destroyed and the $100,000,000 a year
>>in funding for mine safety research was taken with it. The USBM was the
>>agency which came up with new mine safety devices and also with new mine
>>safety regulations, MSHA was and is solely the enforcement group. So
>>since 1996, there have been no new ideas in Mine Safety. St Molly of Fort
>>Worth was the person who lead the charge to do in the US Bureau of Mines,
>>something you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
>>
>>Jim Fact 2
>>
>>”--Under the Bush Administration, the requirement to have two shafts, one
>>for the miners ventilation and one for the coal conveyor has been
>>unenforced.”
>>
>>The real facts
>>
>>First, please provide any evidence for your statement there. The
>>requirement for a separate man way is standard. Care to provide any proof
>>that MSHA did not enforce that requirement? If you are referencing the
>>most recent mine fire, the conveyor was in a separate drift and there were
>>numerous other manways. Frankly I doubt you would know a shaft from an
>>adit from a decline from a drift or a crosscut or be able to tell stopes
>>from longwall cuts. Further, ventilation is not something that shafts
>>provide, shafts are the means of enterence and exit from a mine working
>>and ventilation is provided most often by ducting in the various adits and
>>shafts of a mine.
>>
>>Jim Facts 3, 4, 5 ect
>>
>>”--That it is considerably cheaper to pay for a dead miner than pay for
>>all miner's safety. It costs $20 each for a personal pager sized device
>>that can locate a miner in the mine. It is made in Australia, by the way.
>>It costs about $800 for a text messaging device that can allow those
>>outside the mine to communicate with trapped miners. These items were not
>>in use at the Sago mine. The company owning the Sago Mine paid for the
>>equivalent of pine box funeral and made Cobra insurance payments for, I
>>believe 1 & 1/2 years for the family members of killed miners. The family
>>members also receive $150,000 or $300,000 in life insurance payments. That
>>is it. If you do the math, you can see that it is less costly to pay for
>>killed miners than it is to pay for their safety.”
>>
>>Line of sight devices do not work underground. You can equip every single
>>miner with a pager and it will do absolutely nothing for locating them if
>>they are not within your line of sight. Transmission of signals
>>communication through hundreds to thousands of feet of solid rock using a
>>tiny device is simply not going to happen. The US Bureau of Mines was
>>working on devices that could do that kind of job, but the scrapping of
>>the complete Agency did tend to do in the potential to get devices
>>designed and tested.
>>
>>As for the Australian device that you reference, it is brand new. The PED
>>and Tracker system requires more than simply putting a pager on each
>>miner. Frankly it’s a good idea, but it was not even approved for use in
>>the US until about a month prior to the Sago Mine disaster and it is not
>>mandated by MSHA or required by the UMW. The Australians are just now
>>installing all the equipment as are the New Zealanders and the company
>>involved in the systems design is now looking at selling it into Japan.
>>Of course the Aussies were just following through with the ideas and the
>>preliminary work that the US Bureau of Mines had going back in 1993-6 and
>>all of the Sago Miners would have had a US made device had the R & D on it
>>not been wiped out by the Clinton Administration, but who the heck is
>>counting. You can send a nice thank you letter to Molly Ivins for being
>>such a big supporter of doing in the USBM’s on that one.
>>
>>As for the pay outs from the International Coal Group, you are totally all
>>wet. First, they have a policy for $5,000 in funeral expenses, which is
>>considerably more than a pine box. Next, in addition to the $300,000 in
>>life insurance, each family is getting over $300,000 from the company for
>>education of their minor children and support for their widows. The
>>company is also paying the families the lost miner’s wages for a two years
>>readjustment period and is honoring the pension clauses that the men had
>>in their contracts, so that the widows will get a retirement income. You
>>do the math, because it’s considerably more than the sum you suggest.
>>
>>ICG lost 12 men with a lot of experience, had a mine hit by lightening
>>that blew up, lost infrastructure and a lot of production capacity. They
>>also sprang a lot of money for the mine rescue operation. All told, they
>>are out tens of millions of dollars. Now please try to convince me that
>>they were not interested in seeing the mine operated such that it would
>>not blow up and that they would not lose money by the ream. Having your
>>mine blown to kingdom come is something any company wants to avoid, yet
>>you are suggesting that somehow they would allow it to be liable to
>>explode at the drop of a hat. Ideological blinders and your reward sensor
>>hitting overload have to be at play on that one.
>>
>>Jim strange facts;
>>
>>”--Although mine deaths have gone down over 30 years, it needs to be taken
>>into account that the numbers of underground miners has gone done
>>dramatically also, probably by more than 1/2.”
>>
>>And this is a bad thing? If there had been a dramatic increase in Mine
>>related fatalities since the Bush Administration came into office you
>>might have something to talk about, but the fatality rate has been steady
>>state for close to a decade. It might have fallen further had the US
>>Bureau of Mines not been wiped off the map.
>>
>>Jim yet stranger factoid;
>>
>>“--That since 2001, federal mine safety regulators emphasized getting
>>along with the company--not miner safety.”
>>
>>Are you totally unaware that this policy was put in place under Clinton?
>>As a matter of fact, the numbers of mine health and safety violations and
>>citations has not decreased, so they are still inspecting as much as under
>>Clinton/Gore, they are simply resolving the issues, working for compliance
>>rather than working to increase the fines. Is the objective in your eyes
>>to have miners get a safer work place? Or is it to collect money?
>>Because collecting lots of fines does not make for a safer work place, but
>>demanding compliance does.
>>
>>And then Jim has this strange “fact”;
>>
>>”--That like Katrina, some questionable people, closely related to
>>industry, were in positions affecting mine safety, one of those being an
>>OSHA head.”
>>
>>Name one person appointed by Bush who actually has anything to do with
>>MINE safety that you think is questionable. You see OSHA has nothing to
>>do with underground mine safety and not one regulator at MSHA fits your
>>supposed bill of indictment. It’s extremely disingenuous to suggest that
>>an unrelated agency head with no authority for underground mine safety
>>might be conflicted in the Sago Mine disaster.
>>
>>
>>Then Jim Notes;
>>
>>”In other words, Molly Ivins asked perfectly reasonable questions and
>>these were entirely dismissed by some of you on V2020. I guess your reward
>>center must be just glowing.”
>>
>>I can only reply;
>>
>>No Jim, in other words your knee jerk support for the kinds of falsehoods
>>that Molly spreads has your little pleasure centers humming and lighting
>>up the boards.
>>
>>And then Jim gives us advice;
>>
>>”By the way, the CSPAN website has the Senate Appropriations Mine Safety
>>subcommittee hearings on it. Do what I did, listen to that and then do a
>>little research on your own. And then think (without the usual emotion).”
>>
>>Good advice, you really should start to do research and not rely on
>>propaganda so much. Try starting with basic references like what a mine
>>is and work your way up to reading what MSHA had to actually say about why
>>the accident occurred. You might just find out a little something that
>>does not fit into your ideology driven agenda. In the mean time try not
>>to think you can teach your grandma how to suck eggs.
>>
>>Phil Nisbet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Jim Meyer <m1e2y3e4 at moscow.com>
>>>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>Subject: [Vision2020] What I learned (aka thinking v. self-deceipt)
>>>Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:27:44 -0800
>>>
>>>Are you a thinking person? You know, the kind of person that is
>>>introspective enough to test his/her own thoughts and prejudices when
>>>confronted with a differing truth. Can you really THINK?
>>>
>>>"Emory University psychologist Drew Weston has found that our brains have
>>>a convenient way of processing facts that challenge our political
>>>convictions. Using MRI scanners, Weston found that when committed
>>>Republicans and Democrats were confronted with negative information about
>>>politicians they supported, the parts of the brain responsible for
>>>reasoning essentially shut down--and "emotion circuits" lit up. As the
>>>subjects dealt with their inner conflict by discounting the new
>>>information, the brains "reward centers" lit up--a response similar to
>>>what addicts experience when they get a fix. Biases can be overcome,
>>>Weston tells The New York Times, but only if people are willing to engage
>>>in "ruthless self-reflection"--a quality , he notes, that's "rarely
>>>talked about in politics." Nor is it likely to be. It's so much more
>>>rewarding to close our minds" The Week, Feb 3rd 2006.
>>>
>>>What I learned recently is that two die-hard Republicans on V2020 believe
>>>Molly Ivins is an idiot--as is anyone who would even consider her
>>>thoughts is an idiot, as evidenced by both their initial comments--"Are
>>>you kidding?" and then by their avoidance of addressing the questions
>>>Molly asks, and one of them even going so far as to put words in her
>>>mouth she didn't say and then discounting them.
>>>
>>>Well, here here are the facts about mine safety as I can discern them.
>>>--Under the Bush Administration, since 2001, fines have been routinely
>>>dismissed or diminished--one example is $450,000 being reduced to $3000.
>>>
>>>--Under the Bush Administration, the requirement to have two shafts, one
>>>for the miners ventilation and one for the coal conveyor has been
>>>unenforced.
>>>
>>>--That it is considerably cheaper to pay for a dead miner than pay for
>>>all miner's safety. It costs $20 each for a personal pager sized device
>>>that can locate a miner in the mine. It is made in Australia, by the way.
>>>It costs about $800 for a text messaging device that can allow those
>>>outside the mine to communicate with trapped miners. These items were not
>>>in use at the Sago mine. The company owning the Sago Mine paid for the
>>>equivalent of pine box funeral and made Cobra insurance payments for, I
>>>believe 1 & 1/2 years for the family members of killed miners. The family
>>>members also receive $150,000 or $300,000 in life insurance payments.
>>>That is it. If you do the math, you can see that it is less costly to pay
>>>for killed miners than it is to pay for their safety.
>>>
>>>--Although mine deaths have gone down over 30 years, it needs to be taken
>>>into account that the numbers of underground miners has gone done
>>>dramatically also, probably by more than 1/2.
>>>
>>>--That since 2001, federal mine safety regulators emphasized getting
>>>along with the company--not miner safety.
>>>
>>>--That like Katrina, some questionable people, closely related to
>>>industry, were in positions affecting mine safety, one of those being an
>>>OSHA head..
>>>
>>>In other words, Molly Ivins asked perfectly reasonable questions and
>>>these were entirely dismissed by some of you on V2020. I guess your
>>>reward center must be just glowing.
>>>
>>>By the way, the CSPAN website has the Senate Appropriations Mine Safety
>>>subcommittee hearings on it. Do what I did, listen to that and then do a
>>>little research on your own. And then think (without the usual emotion).
>>>
>>>Jim Meyer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_____________________________________________________
>>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 20, Issue 380
>>*******************************************
>>
>>.
>>
>>
>>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list