[Vision2020] U.S. Approves Mexican Consulate for Boise

[Donovan Arnold]

"Spoken" wasn't the operative words here; "falsely" was.  What "Decent
of the illegals" means, I have no idea."
   
  Sorry, I should have better phrased it better. The race of the illegal laborers is irrelevant to any argument. 

> You didn't "invoke" Rainford.

I didn't say that I had.

> Hansen simply posted an editorial written by him.

Precisely.
   
  So saying laying claim to the reason he was invoked is only an assumption made on your part, unless you had communication with him I was unaware?

 You are referencing what you want from it, as I am. I happen to
believe
> that Rainford's arguments do not address my primary concerns or
issues with
> illegal labor in the United States.

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

> I think Keely and Hansen have made points that the Mexican Consulate
should
> be placed in Idaho. But I don't agree they override the damage the
Consulate
> would cause by assisting illegal laborers to stay here, and to
attract more
> illegal laborers to Idaho to compete with Idaho Workers.

So, the damage that 2% of a given group might do override the needs of
the other 98%?
   
  No. The Mexican Consulates exist, not for the 98%, but only the 2%. And I don't agree with those figures. People here legally don't need a Mexican Consulate. 

>  I watched an investigative report on PBS about Mexican
> Consulates, and I trust their findings, and other readings about
them, then
> over that of Keely or Hansen.

I likewise tend to trust PBS over anecdotal evidence, regardless of
the source.  This might have been a useful detail to emphasize
earlier.  As it happens, I suspect that everything that you claim
about Mexican Consulates is true.  I disagree that it is particularly
important.
   
  True, I should have. 

> The fact that Keely is not always honest, and that Hansen is crude,
and
> offensive to persons his disagrees with, and always making stupid
jokes at
> other's expenses, does cloud my judgment of them and things they have
to
> say.

I find Keely to be scrupulously honest.  Tom does bait you, I concur,
but it does take two to prolong silly bickering.  Ignore him, at least
the stupid jokes at others expense.  I have learned that Tom is an
asset, even though we have our disagreements.  The antagonism between
the two of you predates my presence on Vision2020, so I'm not entirely
certain of its cause.  No, this isn't an invitation for
explanation/justification.  I wish it would stop.  It's tiresome.
   
  I find Keely the opposite. My disagreements with Hansen date to first few posts on the V. I have tried to stop it, and ignore him,  call a truce, make a bet to be silent or not make an insult, but it doesn't work. It won't stop until he wants it to stop. That is just the way Hansen is to many people. Before he did this with me, it was Doug Wilson, Dale Courtney, and Douglas Scambler. 

> The fact that me and you are Aspies, says more about our
miscommunication
> than a 1000 emails could.

Agreed.  I was the lucky one in my family.  Both of my younger
brothers suffer from a variety of autism with far more problematic
consequences than any that have plagued me.
   
  Inverse here. Aspergers can be a benefit to many people, like Einstein, Al Gore, and Sir Issac Newton, and even Bill Gates. But not for me and most people. 

> One thing about me, I do like to argue about political issues. But I
am
> always as honest as I can be. I don't always read what people intend,
as
> others misread me. But I am passionate about my positions, and am
serious
> about it most of the time. But I do sometimes, take the oppositional
view,
> for a more interesting discussion.

I enjoy "arguing," but only when it is orderly and logical.  I dislike
tangents immensely.  Arguments should proceed in a step-by-step
manner, with no leaping to conclusions by either side.  Everything
should be articulated cleanly and precisely.  Preferably, all logical
fallacies should be avoided, all innuendo left at the door.  Ideally,
it should be processed in small chunks, with neither side advancing
until agreement has been reached about the details up until that
moment, or until both sides have have agreed to disagree, at which
point the argument is essentially over.  Again, all digressions should
be squashed.  If a mutually interesting tangent does come to the fore,
then start another thread.  I've participated in discussions following
this sensible format for literal decades.  When I first discovered
newsgroups and online forums, I was overjoyed.  Sensible dialogue
seemed possible, and for a while, it actually occurred.  Then the
barrier to entry was lowered, so that anyone could participate, no
matter how ill-equipped, and "anyone" did.  Trolls and flamers and
then spammers destroyed the medium, except for in small, usually
intimate forums.  Vision2020 has the potential, and probably in
private pockets this potential is realized, but seldom out in the open
where it would have the most utility.
   
  Only in a perfect world. That might work a little better in person, but online, with a hundred people interacting and no body language, I think it is hard. I don't intentionally miss what people are saying, or intentionally mislead people of my arguments, but it just happens, especially online. I don't think it is possible to say anything without making assumptions. We all must make assumptions. 

Anyway, the above delineates what I seek n Vision2020, or in any
dialogue.  Your mileage may differ.  It probably does.

You probably stay on the V for a different reason than I do.
   
  Best Regards,
   
  Donovan

Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
  On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Donovan Arnold
wrote:

> are just being intentionally obtuse. You know the term slanderous can be
> applied to a written or verbal statement. Slanderous is a synonym for
> libelous in the American Thesaurus if you want to play technical games. This
> sort of thing is so fruitless and trivial. Decent of the illegals is
> irrelevant and pointless in this argument.

"Spoken" wasn't the operative words here; "falsely" was. What "Decent
of the illegals" means, I have no idea.

> You didn't "invoke" Rainford.

I didn't say that I had.

> Hansen simply posted an editorial written by him.

Precisely.

You are referencing what you want from it, as I am. I happen to believe
> that Rainford's arguments do not address my primary concerns or issues with
> illegal labor in the United States.

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

> I think Keely and Hansen have made points that the Mexican Consulate should
> be placed in Idaho. But I don't agree they override the damage the Consulate
> would cause by assisting illegal laborers to stay here, and to attract more
> illegal laborers to Idaho to compete with Idaho Workers.

So, the damage that 2% of a given group might do overide the needs of
the other 98%?

> I watched an investigative report on PBS about Mexican
> Consulates, and I trust their findings, and other readings about them, then
> over that of Keely or Hansen.

I likewise tend to trust PBS over anecdotal evidence, regardless of
the source. This might have been a useful detail to emphasize
earlier. As it happens, I suspect that everything that you claim
about Mexican Consulates is true. I disagree that it is particularly
important.

> The fact that Keely is not always honest, and that Hansen is crude, and
> offensive to persons his disagrees with, and always making stupid jokes at
> other's expenses, does cloud my judgment of them and things they have to
> say.

I find Keely to be scrupulously honest. Tom does bait you, I concur,
but it does take two to prolong silly bickering. Ignore him, at least
the stupid jokes at other's expense. I have learned that Tom is an
asset, even though we have our disagreements. The antagonism between
the two of you predates my presence on Vision2020, so I'm not entirely
certain of its cause. No, this isn't an invitation for
explanation/justification. I wish it would stop. It's tiresome.

> The fact that me and you are Aspies, says more about our miscommunication
> than a 1000 emails could.

Agreed. I was the lucky one in my family. Both of my younger
brothers suffer from a variety of autism with far more problematic
consequences than any that have plagued me.

> One thing about me, I do like to argue about political issues. But I am
> always as honest as I can be. I don't always read what people intend, as
> others misread me. But I am passionate about my positions, and am serious
> about it most of the time. But I do sometimes, take the oppositional view,
> for a more interesting discussion.

I enjoy "arguing," but only when it is orderly and logical. I dislike
tangents immensely. Arguments should proceed in a step-by-step
manner, with no leaping to conclusions by either side. Everything
should be articulated cleanly and precisely. Preferably, all logical
fallacies should be avoided, all innuendo left at the door. Ideally,
it should be processed in small chunks, with neither side advancing
until agreement has been reached about the details up until that
moment, or until both sides have have agreed to disagree, at which
point the argument is essentially over. Again, all digressions should
be squashed. If a mutually interesting tangent does come to the fore,
then start another thread. I've participated in discussions following
this sensible format for literal decades. When I first discovered
newsgroups and online forums, I was overjoyed. Sensible dialogue
seemed possible, and for a while, it actually occurred. Then the
barrier to entry was lowered, so that anyone could participate, no
matter how ill-equipped, and "anyone" did. Trolls and flamers and
then spammers destroyed the medium, except for in small, usually
intimate forums. Vision2020 has the potential, and probably in
private pockets this potential is realized, but seldom out in the open
where it would have the most utility.

Anyway, the above delineates what I seek n Vision2020, or in any
dialogue. Your mileage may differ. It probably does.

Chas

=======================================================
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
=======================================================


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080505/9686c673/attachment-0001.html