[Vision2020] Tom, My name is Donovan, NOT ARNOLD

[Donovan Arnold]

What is wrong with you, Tom?

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. If you want to play third grade games by making fun of my name, I guess you can do that to your hearts delight. But, my name is Donovan, not Arnold. Arnold is my last name. Arnold is the first name of other people, NOT ME. If you use my last name, "Arnold" only do so with the attachment of "Donovan" or "Mr. at the front of it. If we went only by last names, I would have the same name as my mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, nieces, grandparents and that would be damn confusing when asking someone at the dinner table to pass the jello. 

Nobody I know calls me Arnold. If they did, I would correct them. My name is Donovan, not Arnold. Why is that so hard to understand, Tom?

OK, maybe if we were in boot camp, I would accept being called Arnold, or if there were two people named Donovan Arnold in the same room, which has never happened in my life time, and even so, then I would go by my middle name if he were older or of higher position. 

As to the issue of John Dickinson, you asked who, and I answered that is why his name came up, I said who, but followed that name by disqualifying the validity of the statement because it was unfair to John. Tom, Don't debate what I have already conceded as not being admissible material. 

Best Regards,

Donovan

--- On Tue, 2/10/09, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Sale Bill
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>, "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com, "roger hayes" <rhayes at turbonet.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 5:29 AM

Since you have (many times) whined about how you are addressed, I assumed 
the decency of referring to you as "Donovan Arnold", instead of 
just "Arnold".  And how do you repay this decency?

Well, that's is fine with me, Arnie.

Now, concerning your complaint  about my referring to the loved and deeply 
missed John Dickinson . . .

It was you, Arnie, that initially cited John Dickinson as a source without 
any evidence to substantiate your claim; your claim that John Dickinson 
had told you that Moscow's water source is available for the next 200 to 
300 years.

After having viewed some videos I maintain of city council sessions 
conducted during CY 2006, sessions in which John Dickinson participated as 
a council member, I have reached a conclusion totally contrary to yours.

You see, Arnie . . .

I was merely debating your claim by providing contrary evidence 
originating from your very source.

Perhaps you have other sources to substantiate your "200 to 300
years" 
claim.

If so, I (and many others) would be most interested in reading them.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> Hansen,
> 
> It doesn't mean anything. He could have thought 200-300 years
wasn't that
l> ong on a geological time scale, which it actually isn't. I think we
all
kne> w that John cared deeply for the environment. 
> 
> But again, I don't think we should be using John as a source because
he 
is
> not here to clarify his stance. I also don't think John really knew 
either
> for sure how much water we have. 
> 
> I just personally believe it is not necessary to panic and restrict its
use>  unless it is on a huge unreasonable scale. 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
>
Donovan

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.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
=======================================================



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090210/5f6a43eb/attachment.html