[Vision2020] What is Jeff talking about? (was something else)

[Jeff Harkins]

Joe,


At 02:26 AM 10/29/2007, you wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>I wanted to run for election but I didn't. Why? I'm unable to get 
>into it with
>attack dogs like Crabtree. I might run one day but right now I'm not ready.
>
>Likewise, you are not ready to be treasurer for a campaign.

The requirements for treasurer do not require me to give up my right 
to dialogue - my job is to monitor the receipts and the disbursements 
and to file the paperwork on time and in accordance with the 
rules.  And I have a lot of experience with the job.  I am not a 
spokesman for Wayne, I am a supporter.  Read the dialogue between 
Bruce and I.  He pushed the same button - what does Wayne think about 
this.  I suggested that he contact Wayne.  He did.  He got a 
response.  One of the great attributes about Wayne Krauss is that he 
does not attempt to control my thoughts.  He wants me to have an 
opinion and to express it.

>I asked you an honest question: How are you going to keep Moscow from
>smelling (and looking) like Lewiston? This is what you wrote:

>After considerable thought, and given the
>constraints in real estate that exist in Moscow
>(no need to preclude businesses that couldn't
>locate in Moscow because there is no room for
>them or they require infrastructure that we don't
>have), heavy manufacturing (large heavy
>equipment, aircraft, large-scale auto) would
>probably not be a good fit.  That said, a custom
>manufacturer - say manufacturing small hybrid
>cars, wind turbines, solar energy systems, ATV's,
>bicycles, garden power tools, farm implements to
>serve Palouse farming specifically could fit very
>nicely.

I guess we are not communicating on this question.  Lewiston has a 
large industrial operation.  I pointed out that that would not be a 
good fit for us here in Moscow.  How is that not an appropriate 
response to your question???  I am surmising that most of the 
industries that you seem to want me to identify, I have precluded in 
my mind because we do not have the infrastructure to support 
them.  We are very weak in transportation, power capacity, and a 
natural resource (say iron ore) that would have to be shipped in 
before it could be processed into something.

Perhaps if you can clarify what you are looking for, I can provide a 
more clearly delineated answer

>This is not an answer to the question. It was an answer to some other
>question but not this one. I asked the question again and you just 
>repeated it.
>
>Telling me that certain businesses won't fit doesn't answer it. Your 
>laze faire
>economic views won't allow you to prevent it from happening either. Why not
>just move to Lewiston instead of moving Lewiston here?

I just don't get it - rephrase the question and I will make an effort 
to answer the post.

>You can say what you want about me but my name is not on any candidate's
>sign. And if you are going to continue to evade questions and respond in a
>condescending manner -- making fun of people's occupations (the oft noted
>"angles dancing on pins" comment about the topic of LOGIC no less) -- when
>voters are trying to find out information about your candidate.

Joe, I will take full responsibility for the "angels dancing on heads 
of pins".  It was not meant as a rebuff to the importance of 
logic.  It was meant to take that issue off of the discussion list 
because it is not a provable point.  You cannot prove that Logic is 
the mother of all sciences.  It is an artifact issue.  It is the type 
of issue that academics would debate over a beer forever.  It would 
generally speaking, be rather obtuse or uninteresting to the average 
person on the street.  I regret that you were offended by that - it 
was certainly not the intent of the post.  I even provided a post to 
demonstrate that not all scientists accept your world view.  You are 
either jerking my chain on this thread or ... I don't  know.  As you 
well know, every discipline has an "angels dancing on heads of pins" 
issue. In any case, no intent on my part to offend.

>If Krauss does not fire you, then clearly he must think that this is 
>a fine way
>to do politics: Respond nicely to the folks you like and flip the 
>liberals and
>academics off. This is a bad campaign strategy!
>
>I will not vote for Krauss in part because you are his treasurer, his
>spokesman and you seem unable to speak nicely or in an informed way to
>anyone who does not share your opinion.

Isn't this the "false premise" argument.  I looked back over your 
last 20 or so posts.  Back in early October, you were condemning 
Wayne for his positions (mostly water).  In fact you have 
consistently condemned Wayne, Dan and Walter because they were GMA 
candidates.  You really want me to believe that you are now not 
voting for Wayne because I am his treasurer???  Sorry, I'm just not 
buying it. This seems more like a personal attack against me, rather 
than a somewhat heated dialogue between two politically divided individuals.

>This is exactly one of the fears of the GMA that I expressed in my town crier.

Yes, I think this position is more to the point.  And you are 
certainly entitled to not vote for candidates because they are 
endorsed by an organization.  And that is, of course, a two-way 
Street.  MCA candidates will not receive some votes for the same reasons.

>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>Joe,
>
>Yes, it is a busy time of year.
>
>Unusual post.  Perhaps in your own words - you close with a
>fallacious argument.
>
>Good night Joe