[Vision2020] Rose's Cleaning House & Comments
Saundra Lund
sslund at roadrunner.com
Sun May 6 21:41:40 PDT 2007
Hi Again Mr. Crabtree,
OK, I now have a better understanding of your concerns -- thanks.
I still disagree, however :-)
Since it's late, I'm going to just address one of your examples, but the
same would, I think, hold true to all of them.
Your example:
"Topic: Gay marriage is swell, Counter argument: The bible says that
homosexuality is an abomination. Result: Censored for being intolerant."
Your result is wrong: I would expect that Rose, or others commenting, would
point out -- just has been done many times here on V2020 -- places where
the Bible contradicts that particular take :-) I know Rose well, and I
think education, rather than censorship, is her bag.
Now, if instead of the wording you suggest, the comment was, "The Bible says
that [insert your favorite perjorative] are an abomination," I would expect
that comment would be censored because it contains a well-recognized
homophobic slur.
And, so on.
You also wrote:
"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."
Uh-oh . . . common ground :-) We agree :-)
You also wrote:
"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."
I'll state the obvious before moving on: if Dale were censoring comments,
you wouldn't necessarily know because you wouldn't necessarily see them :-)
Finally, you wrote:
"How about you provide me with a few examples of what constitutes these
sorts of remarks along with the URL's."
Well, I'm so glad you asked because this gives me the opportunity to point
out -- again -- that Dale takes his censorship to new heights, or new lows,
depending on your perspective: he blocks those he disagrees with from even
accessing his site, let alone making any comments. And, in case you're
wondering, no, I never broke any of Dale's rules -- since you've got access,
you can confirm this yourself.
But, it's Dale's playground, and he's free to blacklist/censor anyone he
chooses. However, given that you seem to be genuinely concerned about
censorship, perhaps you should discuss your concerns with Dale as they
relate to his blacklist :-)
Oh -- if Dale's blog has the ability to search comments, look for Chris
Witmer. I know there were several others (IIRC, Ed Swan's comments were
particularly ugly), but it's frankly been so long that my aging mind can't
recall the worst of the worst. The only reason I can remember Chris Witmer
is because he was stupid enough to write me privately in 2004 thinking I'd
fall for his attempt to play games. Needless to say, he made the huge
mistake of underestimating my intelligence . . . and my ability to Google
:-)
So, while *for you* I might be willing to take the time to go back through
Dale's hateful blog to find the examples you want, Dale's censorship
prevents me from doing so.
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 2007 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: Sunday, May 06, 2007 7:22 PM
To: Saundra Lund; 'Vision 2020'
Cc: 'Rose & Don Huskey'
Subject: Re: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments
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
=======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list