[Vision2020] A Plea to Saundra Lund

No Weatherman no.weatherman at gmail.com
Tue Oct 21 12:42:36 PDT 2008 

Ms. Mix:

For the record, I believe it should be dual intervention.

One for her and one for you.


On 10/21/08, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
>
>  Saundra Lund deserves better than this from a coward who won't even use his
> name when mocking someone by hers.
>
> The idea that Saundra Lund, one of the brightest, kindest, most adept people
> I know, suffers from envy of anyone, much less Sarah Palin, is laughable.
> The "intervention" joke crosses the line, though.
>
> And no, Saundra doesn't need my defense or anyone else's -- but that won't
> keep me from objecting to your disrespectful, asinine portrayal of someone I
> respect, even if I haven't seen her or talked with her for a year or so.
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:55:06 -0800
> > From: no.weatherman at gmail.com
> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Plea to Saundra Lund
>
> >
> > Paul:
> >
> > I believe you wrote these questions in response to the dialogue
> > between Chas and I because that would be the appropriate context for
> > them.
> >
> > In case I'm wrong, however, my thesis regarding Ms. Lund is that she's
> > a bit undone with Palin envy and her friends should schedule an
> > intervention before she hurts herself.
> >
> > With regards to my exchange with Chas, he specifically asked,
> >
> > "You appear to demand a level of scrutiny for Obama that you don't for
> > the other candidates. Why?"
> >
> > I answered his question by listing a myriad of concerns about Obama
> > that scares the holy Shiite out of me and that the msm and this forum
> > have completely ignored.
> >
> > You ask, "What's the actual point you're trying to make?"
> >
> > The point that I'm trying to make and the point that hitherto for I
> > thought I made is that the msm has not vetted Barack Obama at all, let
> > alone to the same degree it has vetted the other ticket.
> >
> > I have no other thesis than that.
> >
> > With regard to you other questions, I have not gone that far because
> > we simply do not have the data.
> >
> > But I think you are terribly naïve to repeat Obama's sound bite, "I
> > don't get what the implications are of Obama knowing someone else who
> > was a "domestic terrorist" when Obama was eight years old."
> >
> > It does not matter if Obama was 8 years old when Ayers declared war
> > against the US government or if he was 88 years old. Obama's age is
> > irrelevant. What's relevant is that Ayers has not surrendered his war
> > against the US, i.e., his radical agenda to overthrow the government,
> > and Obama has spent an inordinate amount of time palling around with
> > the creep. Ayers is much more than "just a guy who lives in my
> > neighborhood," and how much more than that we need to know.
> >
> > I also find it curious that he wants to scrub his history with Ayers
> > from the record.
> >
> > He can hide the smoke but he can't douse the fire.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/20/08, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So what is your thesis, here? That Barack Obama is a closet domestic
> > > terrorist? That he wants to take down the government from the top down?
> > > That he wants to open our defenses and invite the terrorists in to trash
> our
> > > country as they please? I don't get what the implications are of Obama
> > > knowing someone else who was a "domestic terrorist" when Obama was eight
> > > years old.
> > >
> > > What's the actual point you're trying to make?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > No Weatherman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ms. Lund:
> > > >
> > > > I made it clear from the beginning that I had only one objective in
> > > > this exercise — to force the question of Barack Obama's long-standing
> > > > personal and professional relationship with domestic terrorists.
> > > >
> > > > Joe Campbell accused my of making a "guilt by association" argument
> > > > while he pronounced me "guilty by association" because of his
> > > > delusional perception that I belong to a local church. He called me a
> > > > "neo-Nazi" even though I have decried anti-Semitism with every other
> > > > post or so.
> > > >
> > > > My objective changed early on when the name calling began in concert
> > > > with the continued gang banging of Gov Palin. Now I consider myself
> > > > balance to your catty, shrill, dishonest, disingenuous, and
> > > > discombobulated and hormonally imbalanced posts as well as Mr.
> > > > Hansen's and Dr. Gier's.
> > > >
> > > > You now claim that you object to the "***quantity***" of my posts. But
> > > > this was not the case last month when you wrote this literary
> > > > masterpiece:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057066.html
> > > >
> > > > Let's see, you called me a "monster," a "racist monster . . . puffed
> > > > with pathetic notions of grandiosity." You called me a "troll," a
> > > > "piece of moral slime properly to be shunned by all decent people."
> > > > You declared that shunning me was a religious duty of yours lest you
> > > > be "bad Samaritans" who add to my "hate-mongering propensities."
> > > >
> > > > Funny, though, you never mentioned the "***quantity***" of my posts.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I think you're unhinged by Palin envy though I would not
> > > > begin to speculate why.
> > > >
> > > > They say that friends don't let friends drive drunk. You seem to me to
> > > > be inebriated by hate for Palin. If I was your friend I'd pull you off
> > > > the road ASAP before you end up hurting yourself.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Saundra Lund
> <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Roger,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you're completely wrong on this. I think what Tom and many,
> > > many,
> > > > > many other forum members really object to is the ***quantity*** of
> the
> > > > > troll's posts. The anonymous coward made it clear from the beginning
> > > that
> > > > > he wasn't interested in honest dialogue or debate but rather in
> simply
> > > > > hurling invective and insulting those who disagree with him. When
> > > someone
> > > > > pointed out to him that the convention in the V2020 living room was
> to
> > > try
> > > > > to limit posts to 2-3 per day, he said he'd post as much as he
> wanted.
> > > And,
> > > > > he's proceeded to do so: just in October, he's posted OVER THREE
> > > HUNDRED
> > > > > TIMES. Get a clue: he's nothing more than a cowardly rude troll with
> > > an
> > > > > agenda to disrupt and destroy this forum with his invective.
> > > > >
> > > > > While I refuse to interact with nameless cowards, I also refuse to
> allow
> > > > > this troll to turn this COMMUNITY forum into his own one-sided
> > > playground.
> > > > > Only when it became undeniable that the troll has absolutely no
> respect
> > > for
> > > > > the way the V2020 community works did I start standing up to the
> bully
> > > by
> > > > > posting news from the other side, and even then, my "count" is still
> way
> > > > > under a hundred for this month -- and barely over a daily average of
> > > three
> > > > > posts per day. And, I'll add that I've received more than a few
> offlist
> > > > > responses from folks all along the political spectrum thanking me
> for
> > > the
> > > > > articles I've been posting in response to the troll's firestorm.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see your subsequent post where you suggest that people apply
> Donovan's
> > > > > (joking or not) suggestion about dealing with the troll's record
> posting
> > > > > frequency by doing the same to me. Shame on you, Roger -- you've
> been
> > > > > around here long enough to know that I am a genuine participant who
> has
> > > > > posted according to our "on our honor" posting guidelines for years
> now.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do find it telling that you once again come out in defense of
> those
> > > with
> > > > > whom you agree while ignoring their multitude transgressions and
> insults
> > > > > against those with whom you disagree.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, what -- if any -- suggestions do you have to deal with trolls
> like
> > > the
> > > > > one trick pony No Weatherman's attempts to take over this forum for
> his
> > > own
> > > > > anti-Obama agenda by posting OVER THREE HUNDRED TIMES in fewer than
> 20
> > > days?
> > > > > He's drowning out legitimate conversation and driving away list
> members
> > > and
> > > > > their participation in this COMMUNITY forum, which is indisputably
> one
> > > of
> > > > > his goals.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you're completely wrong Roger -- those of us who object to the
> > > cowardly
> > > > > anonymous troll's attempt to take over this forum would be just as
> > > > > frustrated by the volume regardless of the topic or political
> direction.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 2008 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 lfalen
> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11:09 AM
> > > > > To: No Weatherman; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Plea to Visionaires
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom apparently only wants left wing views to be aired. Anything else
> is
> > > > > racist and profane. I would like Ton to demonstrate where No
> > > Wheathermans
> > > > > posts have been any more objectionable than some of his. I submit
> that
> > > they
> > > > > are objectionable and profane because he disagrees with the veiws
> > > > > expressed. No Wheatherman seems to me to do a petty good job of
> > > > > documentation when listing facts. Everyone have the right to an
> > > > > opinion(within reason) without documentation as long as it not
> presented
> > > as
> > > > > fact.
> > > > > Roger
> > > > >
> > > > >
> =======================================================
> > > > > 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
> > =======================================================
>
> ________________________________
> When your life is on the go—take your life with you. Try Windows Mobile(R)
> today

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list