[Vision2020] Rose's Cleaning House & Comments
david sarff
davesway at hotmail.com
Sun May 6 21:16:23 PDT 2007
Gary, would you say that you don’t support paternalistic action overall? Or
is it just not acceptable from anyone except those that openly practice it?
Dave
>
>Ms. Lund,
> Lets start off with the area where we are in agreement. Rose, and by
>extension any blogger has an absolute right to place any restrictions they
>see fit on their "playground." I would never dream of trying to tell
>someone
>else how they should run their hobby.
>
>Now, where we part ways. I didn't mean to imply that Rose would ban the
>topics that I used and you quoted in your reply, far from it. These are the
>sorts of topics I can foresee her going off on with alarming regularity.
>It's the discussion where I see the censorship entering into the picture.
>There are many examples available where during the discussion of these
>sorts
>of topics a dissenting viewpoint is deemed intolerant and censored.
>Examples might include:
>
>Topic: Gay marriage is swell, Counter argument: The bible says that
>homosexuality is an abomination. Result: Censored for being intolerant.
>
>Topic: Blacks deserve reparations and educational and hiring preferences.
>Counter argument: The descendants of slaves enjoy a far better life in
>America than they might have any reason to expect in their native country's
>and should be thankful for their present opportunities. Result: Banned for
>being racist
>
>Topic: Women are discriminated against in the work place. Counter argument:
>Women, due to their biology, take off far more time from the job and don't
>have the same dedication to their professions that a man has and as a
>result
>don't deserve equal pay. Result: Struck for being sexist.
>
>I could do this all evening. I'm not saying that a blogger shouldn't have
>the right to shape discussion on their site any way they please but that it
>will never be the equal of an open and unmediated forum such as the V.
>
>As to Dales site, I have been a pretty regular presence at Right-Mind for
>quite a while now and I have never seen Dale censor a dissenting view
>point.
>The only type of thing that has been censored has been when slanderous
>comments are posted against the sites detractors. (example: I see that so
>and so is off his meds again and...) Replies in disagreement to the sites
>view point stay. Heck, he even left up ugly and totally undeserved comments
>directed toward his wife. Far more tolerant then I'd have been in a similar
>circumstance. Also I do not recall any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic
>comments being made at Dales site. This is not to say that I couldn't have
>missed them as I don't read every single topic. How about you provide me
>with a few examples of what constitutes these sorts of remarks along with
>the URL's. If they exist I suspect that they will bear out my contention
>that a liberals view of certain types of free speech isn't all that
>liberal.
>
>g
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at roadrunner.com>
>To: "'g. crabtree'" <jampot at adelphia.net>; "'Vision 2020'"
><vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Cc: "'Rose & Don Huskey'" <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>
>Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 3:11 PM
>Subject: RE: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments
>
>
>Hi Again Mr. Crabtree,
>
>You're free to disregard the voluntary V2020 daily limit whenever you see
>fit :-) I *try*, but I, too, have occasionally gone over the limit :-)
>For instance, I'm not counting my latest response to Donovan towards the
>limit -- I think there's a difference between having a discussion and
>pointing out when someone has intentionally told a lie.
>
>In any case, to continue where we left of, you wrote in part:
>"I can see the possibility where discussion of topics such as gay marriage,
>reparations or a woman's role in the ministry or the military, or hate
>crime
>legislation could be arbitrarily censored."
>
>I don't recall reading anything Rose wrote as indicating that she would
>"censor" certain topics, but rather that she wouldn't publish "racist,
>sexist, homophobic, or anonymous remarks."
>
>Of course, it's Rose's playground and the topics will be of her choosing,
>but I personally think it entirely possible -- and indeed proper -- to have
>discussions about gay marriage, reparations or a woman's role in the
>ministry or military, or hate crime legislation (to use your examples)
>*without* resorting to racist, sexist, homophobic, or anonymous comments.
>
>So, perhaps we just aren't talking about the same thing?
>
>You also wrote:
>"Anytime a single person with a strongly held point of view controls the
>course of debate it is not a free and open forum for discussion."
>
>Well, I don't know that I would disagree -- Rose has set up her playground
>with her limits, and the same certainly holds true for Dale Courtney's blog
>as well: he set up his playground with his limits.
>
>But, that's part of the nature of blogs, isn't it? I've always looked at
>blogs more as playgrounds, if you will, for those willing to play by the
>blogger's rules than open forums where no one participant has more control
>than any other.
>
>Finally, you wrote:
>"If that being "intentionally obtuse" I guess I'm guilty as charged."
>
>Again, perhaps we just weren't communicating clearly -- if I now understand
>correctly, you seem to be more concerned about *any* blogger's control of
>topics, which seems to me to be to be an intrinsic part of blogs. I, OTOH,
>was making the point that Rose won't allow the kind of racist, sexist,
>homophobic comments Dale welcomes and indeed finds amusing.
>
>
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>- Edmund Burke
>
>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life
>plus
>70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
>the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>author.*****
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: g. crabtree [mailto:jampot at adelphia.net]
>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 7:24 PM
>To: Saundra Lund; 'Art Deco'; 'Vision 2020'
>Cc: 'Rose & Don Huskey'; 'Sue Hovey'
>Subject: Re: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments . . . and THANKS, SUE HOVEY!
>
>Ms. Lund, in my current unfortunate position as mongoose I'm afraid I'm
>going to occasionally thumb my nose at the voluntary three a day rule and
>today is one of those days. You post:
>
>"In most cases, I don't see anything subjective at all about excluding
>racism, sexism, homophobia, or anonymity."
>
>
>I'm afraid I would have to beg to differ. I can see the possibility where
>discussion of topics such as gay marriage, reparations or a woman's role in
>the ministry or the military, or hate crime legislation could be
>arbitrarily
>
>censored. We see examples of this quite regularly in public education
>settings. Anytime a single person with a strongly held point of view
>controls the course of debate it is not a free and open forum for
>discussion. If that being "intentionally obtuse" I guess I'm guilty as
>charged.
>
>g
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at roadrunner.com>
>To: "'g. crabtree'" <jampot at adelphia.net>; "'Art Deco'" <deco at moscow.com>;
>"'Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Cc: "'Rose & Don Huskey'" <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>; "'Sue Hovey'"
><suehovey at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 4:02 PM
>Subject: RE: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments . . . and THANKS, SUE HOVEY!
>
>
>Mr. Crabtree wrote:
>"Clearly she intends to subjectively censor the comments made to her blog."
>
> >From Rose's blog, I repeat:
>"I welcome your comments, but this is a monitored website and I will not
>publish racist, sexist, homophobic, or anonymous remarks."
>
>In most cases, I don't see anything subjective at all about excluding
>racism, sexism, homophobia, or anonymity.
>
>Now, if you like the kind of hate-mongering -- and attacks on minor
>children
>-- your pal Dale allows on his blog, that's your choice.
>
>Personally, I found the comments on Dale's blog, as well as some of his
>"editorial" comments, reprehensible and irresponsible. For me, the
>negativity far outweighed any newsworthy items I might see there.
>
>Different strokes for different folks, which is why I'm looking forward to
>reading Rose's blog. I personally will find the lack of racist, sexist,
>homophobic, and anonymous comments a breath of fresh air!
>
>You apparently aren't offended by the racist, sexist, homophobic, anonymous
>comments on Dale's monologue. Different strokes for different folks.
>
>Do you Get It now? If not, then I can only conclude you're being
>intentionally obtuse or I'm failing miserably to communicate clearly with
>you. In either case . . . that's my three for the day.
>
>And, since I'm at the voluntary V2020 daily limit, I'm going to add here my
>sincere gratitude for Sue Hovey's incredibly excellent and
>thought-provoking
>post last night on Jerry Weitz's lawsuit. Thanks, Sue -- you said it well,
>and I was honored to meet you at the Knowledge Bowl!
>
>
>
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>- Edmund Burke
>
>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life
>plus
>70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
>the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>author.*****
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: g. crabtree [mailto:jampot at adelphia.net]
>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 3:29 PM
>To: Saundra Lund; 'Art Deco'; 'Vision 2020'
>Cc: Rose & Don Huskey
>Subject: Re: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments (was RE: It's not
>"cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,)
>
>Ms. Lund, how does repeating Rose's explanation from her site change
>anything that I have said? Clearly she intends to subjectively censor the
>comments made to her blog. The fact that you think it's swell and done for
>the most wonderful of reasons doesn't change the fact that it's what she
>claims she'll do and Dale doesn't, period. Now, is this explanation clear
>to
>
>you? If it isn't, what point are you trying to make, exactly?
>
>g
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at roadrunner.com>
>To: "'g. crabtree'" <jampot at adelphia.net>; "'Art Deco'" <deco at moscow.com>;
>"'Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Cc: "Rose & Don Huskey" <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>
>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 2:54 PM
>Subject: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments (was RE: It's not "cyberstalking"
>unless you harass someone,)
>
>
>Mr. Crabtree,
>
>Here is an explanation that perhaps you *can* understand since you don't
>seem to get it from what Rose apparently wrote to you "directly and
>personally":
>
>"I welcome your comments, but this is a monitored website and I will not
>publish racist, sexist, homophobic, or anonymous remarks. If you won't
>claim
>it, you don't get to say it on my blog. Well, actually, I might publish
>some
>samples of dim-witted emails in order to expose the intellectual and moral
>defectives that, sadly, are not all together uncommon in this neck of the
>woods. I have never given a fig if others agree with me or not, and I don't
>need external affirmation to validate my beliefs, or prop up my sense of
>self-esteem. However, I do expect responders to demonstrate civility,
>intelligence, integrity, and, it is to be hoped, an abundance of good
>humor.
>Please note: the comments section is not quite ready. I will alert
>readers
>as soon as it is. Thanks for your patience."
>
>Is that any clearer for you??? I hope so!
>
>Kudos to Rose for not intending to allow the kind of hate-mongering Dale
>Courtney welcomes!
>
>
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>- Edmund Burke
>
>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life
>plus
>70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
>the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>author.*****
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>On Behalf Of g. crabtree
>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 2:39 PM
>To: Art Deco; Vision 2020
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass
>someone,
>
>I stand (and without a walker no less!) by previously made remarks. Rose's
>site does not currently allow comments and she told me directly and
>personally that when they were allowed they would be allowed only "within
>appropriate parameters" (note the quotation marks, her words not mine)
>Dale's site allows commentary and he does not censor the remarks that
>appear. When you or Keely make an unsupported assertion it does not
>automatically become exposure of lies, but you already knew that didn't
>you?
>I suspect you've been using these sorts of disingenuous tactics since the
>Smoot/Hawley debates when you were a somewhat younger crank.
>
>g
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Art Deco <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
>To: Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass
>someone,
>
>Gary,
>
>Keely has already exposed your lies about Courtney's the nature
>web-blots. I only view them when receiving a link from a local person or
>from the crackpot tracking service to which I subscribe. You'd be
>surprised
>at how often your hero Cultmaster Wilson and his various toadies show up.
>
>However, I take great, great offense at your statement:
>
>"At your advanced age you shouldn't get so agitated."
>
>I am only 350 or so in locksmith years.
>
>W.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: keely emerinemix <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>
>To: g. crabtree <mailto:jampot at adelphia.net> ; Art Deco
><mailto:deco at moscow.com> ; Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:39 PM
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass
>someone,
>
>Ummm, hey? Gary? Rose's blog says she allows comments. Just not
>bigoted ones. She gets to decide.
>
>Also, while we're on topic here, I can assure you, as someone
>slandered and mocked by Dale Courtney quite regularly over the last four
>years, his is not about news with a modicum of commentary. It's just nasty
>and snide, with a modicum of respect for actual facts.
>
>keely
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: jampot at adelphia.net
>To: deco at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 10:29:30 -0700
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless
>you harass someone,
>
>
>My goodness, Wayne all those years of bottled up spleen are
>certainly making themselves apparent in today's posting aren't they? (what
>is it now, 101? You don't look a day over 98 but you are a testament to the
>notion that old and grumpy do go hand in hand) Lets address your little
>hissy fit in the order that you excreted it.
>
>You take me to task for the sentence:
>
>
>"Apparently it's more fun to simply broadcast your
>irrefutable wisdom to the world and not have to deal with the
>unpleasantness
>of actual debate."
>
>Mr. Courtney's blog is a news/items of interest site with a
>modicum of commentary tossed in on the side. Not screeds and lengthy
>personnel political rants. A greatly appreciated aspect to his using this
>format is that items of interest to him are not directed to and clogging
>up
>the greater groups inbox unlike certain others who shall remain nameless.
>
>In my memory of Dale's posts to the V he did a fine job of
>expressing and defending his view points, as did Rose. The difference was
>that Dale was the lone mongoose in the viper pit and Rose sang with the
>choir. I perfectly understand how being the minority voice can become
>tiresome and, eventually, not worth the effort. In conversations I have had
>with Dale I have done my best, sorry as it is, to convince and encourage
>him
>to rejoin the fray. Lord knows I would enjoy an additional conservative
>voice here to help sing the counterpoint to the rest of ya'lls dreary
>dirge.
>Do I have "distain and censure" for Rose and her new endeavor? Not hardly,
>I'm not wild about the fact that it doesn't allow for comments (as Dale's
>does) but I have been assured that this is but a temporary thing and will
>change "soon." I have been informed that comments must fall within
>"appropriate parameters" and this IS a type of censorship I'm not
>particularly fond of. I truly fail to see how anything I have posted might
>be construed as being in favor of limiting anyone's free expression. You
>seem to be laboring under the erroneous and fatuous assumption that Rose
>and
>I are enemies of some sort. Nothing could be further from the truth. We get
>on rather well, all things considered and I wish her nothing but the best
>in
>her latest whimsy and I hope that it doesn't suffer the same ignoble fate
>that lil' Joannie's did.
>
>Whether I have "exhibited yourself for all to see as a
>phony" is for others to decide. What I have been trying to express is my
>contention that more light (and heat) is shed in an unmediated,
>unrestrained
>setting and that it's the venue that I, personally prefer (even if it means
>having to endure silly fonts & unrestrained use of color) for hashing out
>the topics de jour as opposed to having to listen (read) someone hold forth
>ad nauseum.
>
>Now hows about you have yourself a nice little nap and try
>and get a little more fiber in your diet and see if your cranky and
>constipated outlook don't take a remarkable turn for the better. At your
>advanced age you shouldn't get so agitated.
>
>g
>
>From: Art Deco <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
>To: Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:57 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking"
>unless you harass someone,
>
>
>Well, Gary,
>
>I am surprised that you have the stupidity to
>mention and to champion Dale Courtney's web-blots so soon after you wrote
>the following about Rose Huskey and others:
>
>"Apparently it's more fun to simply broadcast your
>irrefutable wisdom to the world and not have to deal with the
>unpleasantness
>of actual debate."
>
>Are you too busy playing with your keys to see that
>Courtney runs his own web-blots in part because he was not able to
>effectively defend his positions on V 2020, and so that he may remove
>comments that he doesn't like, or remove comments that point out where he
>either misquotes, quotes out of context, or quotes incompletely to give the
>wrong impression. It's all right for Dale Courtney, but not for Rose
>Huskey?
>
>Further, you pretended a few days ago to be
>staunchly anti-censorship and a true defender of freedom of speech
>"Censorship sucks" were your words. Now you express disdain and censure
>for
>those who dare, like your hero Courtney, to express themselves in a blog -
>a
>decidedly anti-free-expression position on your part.
>
>You sir, have just exhibited yourself for all to see
>as a phony, whose writings express a desire to control what others say and
>do almost as much as do the cultmaster's!
>
>
>Wayne A. Fox
>1009 Karen Lane
>PO Box 9421
>Moscow, ID 83843
>
>(208) 882-7975
>waf at moscow.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: g. crabtree <mailto:jampot at adelphia.net>
>To: Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen at moscow.com> ;
>heirdoug at netscape.net ; vision2020 at moscow.com
>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:28 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking"
>unless you harass someone,
>
>I know I'm probably going to regret this but my
>curiosity is hopelessly piqued. Just exactly what action did you take that
>would serve as a shining example for others to emulate? Is it the thinly
>veiled vulgarities in your post? Is it maintaining a hate web site against
>a
>small local protestant congregation? Is it endlessly posting of news
>tidbits
>that you think should be of interest to others? Is it your tireless and
>constant monitoring of Dale Courtney's web site? I'd really like to know
>what it is so I could thank you properly for your ongoing good works. (once
>their identified)
>
>g
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
>
>To: heirdoug at netscape.net ;
>vision2020 at moscow.com
>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 5:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not
>"cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
>
>
>No-Clue -
>
>
>
>You keep submitting gutless threats. Is
>that all there is to you? My guess is "Yes".
>
>
>
>I am going to repeat a comment I made to you
>a long time ago:
>
>
>
>"SH*T OR GET THE HELL OFF THE POT!"
>
>
>
>Loosely translated that means: Be a
>FRIGGIN' man for once in your spineless, ignorantly childish life! Crawl
>out from under that rock of yours and DO SOMETHING. Either take action or
>SHUT the EFF UP!
>
>
>
>I have set an example for you to follow when
>I took action in the past (and will continue to do so in the future).
>
>
>
>Jeesh!
>
>
>
>Tom Hansen
>
>Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
>"Uh, how about a 1-strike law. Death doesn't
>seem too extreme for a Level-3 sex offender."
>
>- Dale "Comb-Over" Courtney (August 3, 2005)
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of heirdoug at netscape.net
>Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:17 PM
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] It's not
>"cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,
>
>
>
>And I quote, ".... course of conduct
>constitute an implied threat."
>
>
>
>
>
>Wow J.,
>
>
>
>That would have to be the best example of
>point proving since Joan's "jack-boot-vasectomy-procedure" from many months
>past.
>
>
>
>There is nothing like being the poster girl
>for the Intoleristas! Is there.
>
>D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I'd tell you go do yourself, but you'd have
>to grow some first. Which isn't
>about to happen this late in the game, now
>is it?
>
>The end.
>
>J :]
>
>________________________________
>
>
>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail
><http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=htt
>p://www.aim.com/fun/mail/> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam
>and
>email virus protection.
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>=======================================================
>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
>
>=======================================================
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>=======================================================
>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
>
>=======================================================
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>=======================================================
>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
>
>=======================================================
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now!
><http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=
>wlmailtagline>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>
>=======================================================
>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
>=======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>=======================================================
> 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
>=======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list