[Vision2020] "Left Wing" Slant Anonymous Posting...

[Ted Moffett]

The anonymous Vision2020 participant "greytreecrab" (assuming I have this
correct... this "word" was in the e-mail address under which these posts
were posted, not a signature to posts) did post with a political slant, as I
recall, towards what some would term "the left."  But though I have searched
for these posts, I have not found an example.  There were not an abundance
of posts that occurred from this source.

Ted Moffett


On 10/3/08, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Recall the anonymous participant "greytreecrab," I think it was?  This was
> likely a play on the name of a
> a regular Vision2020 participant, who I don't need to name for anyone who
> follows Vision2020.
>
> I always (nearly) sign my full name to my posts.  While some on this list
> know that I am not an anonymous participant just from my e-mail address or
> first name, there may be many who would not know this, especially those new
> to this area or new to Vision2020.
>
> On this point, there are Vision2020 participants who usually sign their
> posts with only their first name.  I don't personally know some of these
> participants.  The only reason I assume they not hiding their identity is
> that others on the list appear to personally know them.
>
> Still, I think everyone should sign their posts with their full name.  This
> helps to promote openness and honesty on the list, especially for those new
> to Vision2020.  Those who sign their posts with only their first name cast
> an aura on the list of it being a insiders club for a local gossip session,
> I think, which in fact it sometimes actually is... This perhaps does not
> encourage new participants, which Vision2020 needs.
>
> Some people may have good reasons for not signing their full name, or using
> a pseudonym, personal safety or work restrictions, for example.
>
> Given that I have been deceived in the past by anonymous participants, if I
> suspect a participant is hiding their identity, I now mostly ignore these
> posts, though sometimes I will extend trust to a new participant, without
> checking on their identity as presented, if the post content does not seem
> "suspicious."
>
> To change the subject away from the subject heading of this post (which I
> usually try to avoid), and address a comment in the post below, about local
> churches and their political activity:
>
> Some local churches function as a political machine in a manner (lock step,
> authoritarian, with a political agenda that can impact local government)
> that is quite different than some other local churches.  This fact is why
> there is a special focus among some in the local community towards certain
> churches regarding their efforts to impact the nature of the community.  But
> as the comments below state, this is "so dang obvious," so excuse me for the
> redundancy that nonetheless appears to need restating over and over...
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
> On 10/2/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have supported J. Ford for personal reasons. But as has been pointed
>> out. Other than that I'm
>> not sure what you're talking about. But since you seem to have all of my
>> posts saved and
>> categorized -- or one of your friends does -- no doubt you'll bring one up
>> if I'm mistaken!
>>
>> I am not reading Dr. No's posts for the simple reason that what little I
>> did read contained, as I
>> noted, obvious and numerous fallacies. There is not much of a challenge
>> there and little interest.
>>
>> He does get my panties in a wad, I'll admit. But not because of his
>> arguments, or even his insults.
>> I still can't get over how a local church could so blatantly act like a
>> political machine. That they
>> can continue to do so while most people, intelligent though most may be,
>> fail to notice what
>> strikes me as being so dang obvious.
>>
>> Just to make my point, I'll ask you straight up, Gary. Are you really
>> going to tell me that you don't
>> know who No Weatherman is, and with what church he is affiliated? We may
>> have our differences
>> but, previous name-calling aside, I certainly consider you to be
>> intelligent. But my guess is, you'll say "No" and "No." And that just makes
>> my point. I am stunned that they could pull the wool over
>> even your eyes, a crafty, no-nonsense man of the people. Just thinking
>> about it, let alone being
>> reminded of it on a daily basis, drives me fricken nuts.
>>
>> And since I'm not reading Dr. No's posts and you consider him to be so
>> challenging, could you just
>> repeat for me what you take to be his best point, and the best argument
>> for that point. Just one.
>> If it is not an easily identifiable fallacy, I'll be shocked. But prove me
>> wrong! Just one example.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081004/1c9e2ca8/attachment.html