[Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?

[J Ford]

think it's amazing and a bit disconcerting that when an argument is going in 
a direction that SOME people can't seem to make headway on, they resort to 
base and ridiculously vulgar language and name-calling.  Seems to be a 
pattern here.

I don't see why questions asked can't be handled in a mature and adult-like 
manner and simply answered.  If someone does not have an answer - SAY THAT, 
but lay off this kinda juvenile retort.

And to make things PERFECTLY CLEAR, this is addressed to anyone not to any 
ONE person.



J  :]





>From: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>To: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:46:02 -0800
>
>Joe,
>
>It seems to me that since you couldn't make much of a case against your
>favorite boogiemen in this latest discussion, you're mincing away with a
>major case of panty wad. Again. Might I suggest a little baby powder and
>loose trousers till the condition shows improvement?
>
>gc
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:50 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?
>
>
>Gary,
>
>It is not a logical stretch to note that your explanation is a bunch of
>evasive b-s. Imagine if everyone were to apply such reasoning to every law!
>What a wonderful world that would be!
>
>It cracks me up when conservatives like you pretend to be men of principle,
>accusing others of hypocrisy, and then use such slippery rhetoric to allow
>their friends to get off the hook!
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>=============
>Joe.
>
>Your kindness in offering me another chance to respond to your speculative
>questions is quite touching. As I said in my previous post, I've got no
>problem with you drawing what ever conclusions make you the happiest. That
>said...
>
>My understanding of what is and isn't a boarder remains unchanged.
>
>NSA "students" would not be violating any pertinent city code regardless.
>
>I am in favor of fair and equal application of sound law. Even the City
>realizes that it's codes concerning this matter are confused and
>unenforceable. Why should I criticize anyone for a hypothetical
>transgression when the governing body can't tell me precisely what the
>transgression is or how it differs from several other group living
>arraignments.
>
>Having said this, conclude what you will. To make the assertion that 
>because
>I won't join you in a hypothetical condemnation, I must therefore "believe
>that (my) friends are above the law and beyond contempt." seems like quite
>the logical stretch.
>
>gc
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?
>
>
>Gary,
>
>I asked you a few questions and you ignored all of them. Instead, you
>offered your all too usual array of insults and evasions. Given this, I 
>drew
>my own conclusions. Perhaps this was rash, so I'll give you another chance.
>
>Now that you have a clearer understanding of what is and is not a boarder,
>after your recent extensive research on the subject, in the event that 
>there
>are actual violations by NSA students of the city code, will you join me in
>condemning such violations?
>
>If you are unable to criticize your friends for even hypothetical 
>violations
>of the law, it seems reasonable for me to determine that you believe that
>your friends are above the law and beyond contempt. Which is precisely what
>I concluded in my previous posts.
>
>Does my chain of reasoning make sense now?
>
>Best, Joe
>
>---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>=============
>Joe, you are a panic. Your ability to reach a silly conclusion based on 
>what
>you think you know is second to none. If I had your special ability to read
>what isn't there into other peoples posts I'd be able to look at "J.
>O'Ford's" online lunacy and see At Swim-Two-Birds.
>
>Take from my response whatever will meet your expectations. It's clear that
>if you don't see what you "thought" you would, you'll create it. This must
>be a useful talent to possess when it comes to maintaining your hysterical,
>self-righteousness. If you need to assign someone to fulfill one of the
>antihero roles in your little mental melodrama, I'm only to happy to be of
>service.
>
>You're welcome,
>gc
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:16 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?
>
>
>So the short answer to at least one of my questions is that if someone is a
>friend of yours and he breaks the law, then we should ignore it. To do
>otherwise would be to engage in "incessant carping."
>
>Even though this recent round of "incessant carping" began with a post by
>your friend, Dale Courtney, and that some of us were just responding to his
>misleading analogies and false accusations, that is all beside the point
>because, after all, Dale is your friend and he gets to do whatever he 
>wants.
>
>Thanks, Gary! That's exactly what I thought. It explains your role in the
>NSA saga perfectly!
>
>Best, Joe
>
>---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>=============
>I didn't miss your point Joe, I dismissed it. The long and the short of 
>this
>topic is this. I did not accuse anyone of violating any laws. If you go 
>back
>and actually read the exchange between  Ms. Mix and myself you will find
>that I wished the students success in finding a local home to stay in and
>that their stay should be as pleasant as possible. In my previous posts I
>made exactly two points. The first was that the situation that Ms. Mix
>described in her original request could very easily be construed to meet 
>the
>city's definition for a boarding house (Ord. 2006-1, 08/07/06) and that I
>found that amusing and ironic. No amount of sophistry on your part can
>change this fact. It does and I was. Period. No matter how many, if's,
>perhaps, maybes, and might have's you throw in.
>
>The second point was that there was nothing about the topic which would 
>give
>it some sort of special dispensation from being fair game for comment and
>discussion, either on Dale Courtney's web site or any other. Once again, I
>don't see any room for discussion or disagreement.
>
>Everything else you drone on about is simply an exercise in arguing with
>yourself. (or some here to fore unintroduced third party, with your debate
>style it's difficult to tell) I do find your remark "The “weekly or 
>longer”
>phrase here refers to, for instance, an exchange of room and board for some
>kind of monetary compensation paid, by the boarder, on a WEEKLY, or 
>monthly,
>or yearly, etc. basis." to be interesting. Does this mean that by some
>modification of the payment schedule the folks who "host" NSA students can
>get you and your tolerance club to cease your incessant carping? I didn't
>think so.
>
>I hope you're enjoying the election,
>gc
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 10:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?
>
>
>Gary,
>
>Not surprisingly, you missed the point. Let me slow things down for you.
>
>I said nothing about there being something in "the city code that
>distinguishes between one month or four years." I said that there was
>something in the city code that distinguished between a guest who might 
>stay
>a month or longer from a boarder who is "housed or fed for compensation on 
>a
>weekly or longer basis."
>
>The “weekly or longer” phrase here refers to, for instance, an exchange 
>of
>room and board for some kind of monetary compensation paid, by the boarder,
>on a WEEKLY, or monthly, or yearly, etc. basis.
>
>Can you admit this much? If so, then there are CLEAR differences between 
>the
>situation with regard to Keely's friends and the situation with regard to
>NSA boarders.
>
>First, Keely's friends have VIOLATED NO LAWS. There are, as of yet, no
>Korean student boarders in Moscow and there has not, as of yet, been any
>WEEKLY (or longer) compensation paid by these non-existent boarders. In the
>case of NSA students, the allegation, at least, is that there have been
>violations of the very code you note below, and that there are, as we 
>speak,
>continued violations of that code. The complaint by folks like myself is
>that this is part of a general pattern of disregard for city law and
>disrespect for folks who do not adopt Doug Wilson's narrow worldview.
>
>Second, Keely's original post requested that if anyone was "interested in
>hosting for a few weeks, with compensation, please e-mail" her friend. My
>point was that compensation for a few weeks was not the same thing as 
>WEEKLY
>compensation. I could have stated this more clearly, I admit, but I was in 
>a
>rush to get to my day job.
>
>Third, there was nothing in Keely’s original post suggesting what form 
>this
>compensation should take. If it is to take the form of food or odd jobs, as
>Tom suggests, then I’m not sure how it could be construed as a violation 
>of
>the city code.
>
>Overall, Dale's comparison between the situation involving Keely's friends
>and the ones involving NSA students is like the comparison between apples
>and oranges.
>
>Let me close with a few questions. Since we now have a clearer 
>understanding
>of what is and is not a boarder, in the event that there are actual
>violations by NSA students of the city code, will you join me in condemning
>such violations? If not, what should be done? Why is it that you rush to
>post about potential violations of the city code when it concerns Keely and
>her friends yet ignore the allegations of actual violations of the city 
>code
>when it concerns your friends? Is there something about someone's being 
>your
>friend that makes him above the law and beyond contempt?
>
>Joe
>
>---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>=============
>Joe asks...
>
>Isn't Keely talking about folks who are visiting for a month or so, not
>folks who are intending to attend and then graduate from some local
>four-year school?
>
>And I reply that I'm sure that she is. The fact that you "would not 
>classify
>putting someone up for a month or so as housing or feeding someone "for
>compensation on a weekly or longer basis." (a phrase that defies logic, but
>I'll assume to take your meaning) makes no difference. There is nothing in
>the city code that distinguishes between one month or four years. Any
>difference that has been discussed so far on this forum has been opinion
>based on personnel feelings, not law. I find it funny and ironic that folks
>who would use this issue to attack one group and then turn around and
>advocate the same thing, all the while claiming a difference based on some
>arbitrary duration and their subjective opinion. The fact that Mr. Courtney
>or anyone else might happen to have an opinion and elect to comment on it
>seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
>gc
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 7:11 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?
>
>
> > Isn't Keely talking about folks who are visiting for a month or so, not
> > folks who are intending to attend and then graduate from some local
> > four-year school? I would not classify putting someone up for a month or
> > so as housing or feeding someone "for compensation on a weekly or longer
> > basis." It doesn't say housing or feeding "for a week or more."
> >
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > =============
> > For the last couple of days posting to this forum has been a bit screwy
> > from my computer. I hope this only shows up once.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, as usual. City code quite clearly defines boarding house's as
> > 12. Boarding House.
> >
> > A building occupied by its owner in which not more than six (6) roomers,
> > lodgersand/or boarders are housed or fed for compensation on a weekly or
> > longer basis. Ord. 2006-11, 08/07/06)With this in mind, I fail to see 
>how
> > the situation that Ms. Mix is suggesting, and the previous boarding 
>house
> > issue that you have decried with such vigor in the not so distant past, 
>is
> > any different -- aside from the players, of  course. It  seems that you
> > would hold  Ms. Mix and friends to a different  standard than certain
> > "others" that you do not hold in the same high regard.  I can't for the
> > life of me see how it could be inappropriate for Dale to suggest that 
>some
> > small measure of consistency enter into the equation.
> >
> > gc
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: Tom Hansen
> >  To: 'g. crabtree' ; 'Vision 2020'
> >  Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 8:10 AM
> >  Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?
> >
> >
> >  Applying the quotation marks (") to my statement was merely meant to
> > serve as my distinction of the two concepts, not to reflect any specific
> > legal boundary, ok?
> >
> >
> >
> >  Although the city code does not (in writing) define a "boarding house", 
>a
> > session (not that long ago) of the city council verbally defined 
>"boarding
> > houses".  I could dig through my repository of audio files of City 
>Council
> > sessions, but I would consider that to be time and effort poorly spent 
>as
> > I am certain that you can recall these sessions on your own.
> >
> >
> >
> >  And lastly, Comb-Over's inappropriateness was apparent in his 
>implication
> > at:
> >
> >
> >
> >  "I'm sure that everyone she recommends will have their conditional use
> > permits thru the City, approved and paid for - just like every other
> > international student's host family in Moscow has."
> >
> >
> >
> >  Enough said.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Tom Hansen
> >
> >  Moscow, Idaho
> >
> >  Intolerista Sergeant-at-Arms
> >
> >   "Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover 
>them
> > up, at least a little bit."
> >  - Edward R. Murrow
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >  From: g. crabtree [mailto:jampot at adelphia.net]
> >  Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:02 AM
> >  To: Tom Hansen; Vision 2020
> >  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guests or Tenants?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  After having glanced at the Moscow city code definition of a boarding
> > house, could you please explain how providing accommodations to guests 
>for
> > a couple of weeks for compensation fails to meet the afore mentioned
> > definition? Just exactly where in the code does it distinguish between  
>a
> > "resident guest" and a "resident tenant"? And lastly, why would it be
> > "inappropriate commentary" to discuss this type of topic on Dale's
> > personal blog and yet be just ducky for you to do the same on your own 
>web
> > site, to which you thoughtfully provided a link, not to mention here on
> > the V?
> >
> >
> >
> >  gc
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>=======================================================
>  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
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!  
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline