[Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Mar 15 05:19:39 PDT 2009
I'll just repeat my main point and be done: it is irresponsible to
sell water rights to a buisness venure from another state, given that
we don't know how much we have. Period.
Joe Campbell
On Mar 13, 2009, at 5:04 PM, "a" <smith at turbonet.com> wrote:
> What you find hard to believe based on your subjective experience
> vs. the reality as presented by the director of public works doesn't
> make for a very compelling case. While I have no doubt that you have
> been intimately aquainted with the scullery of many a greasy spoon,
> and would doubtless be more familiar still were it not for the
> sincure of the ivory tower. Facts, sad to say, is facts. The water
> usage at any retail business is lower then that of any household and
> that of a large modern restaurant far less then that of 100
> individuals. Period.
>
> As to your analogy, there are problems with it as well. A better
> scenario whould be your lovely wife sold me the rights to listen to
> your favorite radio station. I am very happy and I think your wife
> is a wonderful woman who could have done far better in the
> matrimonial marketplace and is deserving of much better things in
> life but, I digress. I am happy to pay her for the opportunity to
> hear the broadcast because it's easier for me to obtain it that way
> then to build or buy my own receiver. She is happy with the extra
> income and I am happy not having to pay more but, had she decided to
> not go through with the mutually benificial transaction, I can and
> would be willing to use other means to listen to the signal. You
> don't own the "RIGHTS" to the bandwidth and Moscow doesn't own the
> "RIGHTS" to the aquifer.
>
> Your water argument is weak, your willingness to limit retail
> compition is without merit, and your asthetic opinion is arbitrary
> in the extreme. Add that all up and you've got a pretty good case of
> not much of anything at all.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: g. crabtree
> Cc: a ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; garrettmc at verizon.net
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
>
> Two comments.
>
> 1/ I'm "attempting to shift the specifics"? I gave a few criticisms
> to one of your posts and now I'm following up on your reply. I'm
> "shifting the specifics" because I didn't - in this post - follow up
> on another, something I thought I adequately dealt with? Sweet, Marie!
>
> I said my mind wrt to the "100 individuals" example. I've worked in
> a lot of restaurants. I find it hard to believe that most people
> would use more water while eating at home than while eating out. I
> don't care how efficient the toilets are. But this is an empirical
> issue. Folks have kindly sent me some links with information that
> might help settle it. Maybe we can revisit this matter when one of
> us has something more specific to add to the debate.
>
> 2/ Suppose that you're right and that IF they build the mall as you
> say, water usage remains more or less the same. And suppose we have
> good reason to think that they will build it as they/you say they
> should. I'm still against the SALE of water RIGHTS to WA businesses,
> given our current situation. Here's my argument.
>
> I think that my rights to water are as strong as my rights to
> anything that Moscow or the world has to offer. I need water to
> survive, not just to clean myself and my dishes. I live in a
> community where our water level is shrinking - that much is known -
> yet we don't know the rate. We don't know whether we will run out of
> water in 30 years or 50 years or 150 years or 300 years given
> current usage (plus rate of growth), which is to say we just don't
> know the size of our current and future water supply. So it would
> tick me off to find out, given our lack of knowledge, that our
> council and mayor are willing to SELL rights to that water supply to
> a WA business venture. That seems to me to be reckless and careless,
> even if I'm confident that the sale won't result in an increase of
> water usage. That confidence - even if I had it, which I don't - has
> little to do with it.
>
> Here is an analogy. Suppose my wife decided to sell the rights to my
> CD collection to my best friend David. Now I know that David won't
> abuse this right. He won't take any of my CDs. But CDs are pretty
> precious to me and I'd still be pissed at my wife for selling the
> right to my CDs to David. I'd feel vulnerable to David since my
> supply would now be dependent on his good graces. No matter how much
> I trusted David, I'd still feel vulnerable and, thus, I'd feel
> betrayed by my wife.
>
> Suppose my wife sold the rights to my CD collection to YOU, Gary.
> Well, then I'd be really pissed. And your assurances that you won't
> abuse those rights wouldn't do any good at all.
>
> Add to this the fact that we, Moscow, already have a mall that is
> pretty good and getting better and that the competition is unlikely
> to improve our choices a whole lot - I've seen the other malls and I
> know what's available - AND the fact that we are selling water
> rights to a WA based business in direct competition with MANY Moscow
> based businesses AND the fact that the mall will be an eyesore, add
> this all up and I have a pretty good case, regardless of what you've
> said and speculated about so far.
>
> Joe Campbell
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:35 AM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> wrote:
> "Will they be able to pump water on thief own without buying from
> Moscow? If so, why on earth do they want to pay us for it?"
>
> I'm sure they can pump on their own as they have already acquired
> the water right. Why they may not want to and buy from us would be
> not having to maintain wells, pumps, and the other components of a
> self contained water system.
>
> You are attempting to shift the specifics of the discussion. Our
> original debate involved restaurants water use vs. water use for 100
> individuals. The reason I expect to see the reduced energy/reduced
> water consumption devices without having seen the building plans is
> because I have been in several recently constructed restaurants.
> These sorts of fixtures are the rule, not the exception.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: "a" <smith at turbonet.com>
> Cc: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>; <garrettmc at verizon.net
> >
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
>
> > Again most of your responses are based on presumptions that you
> cannot
> > gaurentee -- mere wishful thinking on your part, as far as I can
> tell.
> > Will they be able to pump water on thief own without buying from
> > Moscow? If so, why on earth do they want to pay us for it? And IF
> they
> > stock the mall with "low energy" whatever, sure that would be better
> > than not. But why on earth should I expect that to happen? Have you
> > seen the building plans?
> >
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2009, at 3:56 PM, "a" <smith at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Selling water to a WA mall seems like bad usage. I dont see the
> >> benefit."
> >>
> >> And having them pump their own rather than buy from the city helps
> >> your argument how?
> >>
> >> "I can promise you that more water is used when eating out than
> >> while eating at home."
> >>
> >> A promise you just can't keep, I'm afraid. When the 100 people of
> >> your original statement are factored in, a new restaurant with
> >> urinals, low gpf toilets, water saving sink fixtures, and energy
> and
> >> water efficent dishwashers will use far less water then those same
> >> people will at home. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of
> >> the head of Moscow's Public Works dept. Someone a bit more
> qualified
> >> on the topic then you or I wouldn't you say?
> >>
> >> g
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >> >
> >> To: "a" <smith at turbonet.com>
> >> Cc: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>;
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>; <garrettmc at verizon.net
> >> >
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:33 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm not saying we should stop ALL building, just that we should be
> >>> careful about water use. Yet again you score points by distorting
> >>> my view.
> >>>
> >>> Selling water to a WA mall seems like bad usage. I dont see the
> >>> benefit.
> >>>
> >>> Also, Troy is in a better situation than us since a surface
> capture
> >>> reservoir is more efficient than hoping the water finds it's way
> >>> to the aquifer!
> >>>
> >>> And have you ever washed dishes for a living? I can promise you
> >>> that more water is used when eating out than while eating at
> home.
> >>>
> >>> Joe Campbell
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 2:16 PM, "a" <smith at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Point 3 is wrong in only the most insignifigant way, if that. The
> >>>> City of Troy, population 798, does get its water via surface
> >>>> capture reservoir (although it's a matter of serious
> consideration
> >>>> whether some of the water captured would be going to recharge
> >>>> ground water sources) Rural Troy draws water from the same
> >>>> shallow aquaifer that is part of Moscow/Pullman's (and the wells
> >>>> Hawkin's would sink if they do not purchase water from us) water
> >>>> supply.
> >>>>
> >>>> I did not discuss water "cost" to build so I'm hard pressed to
> >>>> see where I might have been wrong. If that is going to be part
> of
> >>>> the argument then we better place a moratorium on all
> >>>> construction as building Hawkins will be no more consumptive
> than
> >>>> any other building project of similar scope. (I'm not even sure
> >>>> what this "cost" you refer to would be. Intake and discharge by
> >>>> the construction workers?)
> >>>>
> >>>> Finally you claim "100 people would not use as much water eating
> >>>> at home, easing there own dishes, as they would eating in a
> >>>> restaurant." Lets fudge the numbers in your favor and call
> those
> >>>> 100 people 20 households. 20 households use far more water than
> >>>> one large restaurant. New commercial dishwashers are quite water
> >>>> efficient.
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems to me there's more error in your post then mine.
> >>>>
> >>>> g
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >>>> >
> >>>> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> >>>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:41 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Point 3 is wrong. First, the point of the mall would be to bring
> >>>>> SOME
> >>>>> people from the outside area into the our area. If someone comes
> >>>>> from
> >>>>> Troy to the Moscow area the water they use comes from a
> different
> >>>>> source than it would have otherwise. Second, it will "cost" a
> lot
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> water just to build the mall. Third, if there are restaurants
> that
> >>>>> will be an addition use. 100 people would not use as much water
> >>>>> eating
> >>>>> at home, easing there own dishes, as they would eating in a
> >>>>> restaurant. Have you ever seen a restaurant dish washer? I
> washed
> >>>>> dishes for a time, so I have!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joe Campbell
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 10:59 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. My business is not located in Whitman county.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Predatory? All business competes with other business. This
> is
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> nature
> >>>>>> of the game. Will Idaho lose some tax revenue? Some, but
> probably
> >>>>>> not as
> >>>>>> much as you think. Those same tax dollars are lost when Idaho
> >>>>>> residents go
> >>>>>> to Spokane to shop or make purchases through the intertubes
> >>>>>> because
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>> they seek is unavailable in Moscow.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. Water. We've been over this one repeatedly. Whether it is
> >>>>>> delivered by
> >>>>>> the City of Moscow, pumped from private wells, or provided by
> the
> >>>>>> City of
> >>>>>> Pullman, it's all the same water. The folks who are working and
> >>>>>> shopping at
> >>>>>> the new mall would be using the same amount of water if they
> were
> >>>>>> working in
> >>>>>> Moscow, Pullman, Troy, or Colton. You don't uptake or
> download any
> >>>>>> more just
> >>>>>> because you're at the Hawkins development. I suspect that your
> >>>>>> vegetable
> >>>>>> production facility uses far more water than any individual
> >>>>>> business
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>>> and provides far fewer jobs. If the Hawkins property were to be
> >>>>>> turned into
> >>>>>> a truck farm the same argument you attempt to use applies.
> >>>>>> Competition with
> >>>>>> Moscow business. (you) No tax dollars for Idaho. Far higher
> water
> >>>>>> consumption. Perhaps you would prefer the land lay fallow?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. I am willing to accept any legal, legitimate business
> operation
> >>>>>> located
> >>>>>> on private property in Latah or Whitman Co. Pullman or Moscow,
> >>>>>> miles
> >>>>>> away or
> >>>>>> right next door to my shop. Period.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5. I think that my answer regarding your questions concerning
> FOCA
> >>>>>> were to
> >>>>>> the point. One third of all hospitals in America are Catholic.
> >>>>>> If a
> >>>>>> doctor
> >>>>>> or nurse hired on with one of these facilities they would
> have a
> >>>>>> reasonable
> >>>>>> expectation of working in an environment that did not promote a
> >>>>>> culture of
> >>>>>> death. Forcing institutions such as these to provide a service
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> they did
> >>>>>> not originally is to force every person employed there to do
> >>>>>> something that
> >>>>>> was not in their original job description. I am not talking
> >>>>>> about the
> >>>>>> mythical minority that might have hired on at an abortion mill
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> suddenly
> >>>>>> don't want to perform their job. In my example I'm talking
> about
> >>>>>> thousands
> >>>>>> of real health care professionals, in yours you talking about a
> >>>>>> tiny
> >>>>>> handful
> >>>>>> (if that) of hypothetical employees. I stand by my red herring
> >>>>>> assertion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems that you are arguing in favor of an employers right to
> >>>>>> can a
> >>>>>> hypothetical fraction of his work force rather than the
> rights of
> >>>>>> the very
> >>>>>> real thousands of doctors and nurses who will be adversely
> >>>>>> impacted
> >>>>>> by BHO's
> >>>>>> very bad decision.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> g
> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> >>>>>> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com
> >
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:21 PM
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> g writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "I'm confused. I thought you said you were a Moscow
> resident... I
> >>>>>>> like our
> >>>>>>> neighbors to the west, I don't feel a need to meddle in their
> >>>>>>> affairs, and
> >>>>>>> I'm willing to let them purchase "our" water at reasonable
> >>>>>>> rates."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not sure why you're confused. I live in Moscow. I try to
> >>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>> locally-owned stores, even ones in Whitman County. Like you, I
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> nothing against Whitman County, or the employers and people
> there
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>> general sense. I want their lives to prosper as much as anyb
> >>>>>> ody's. But when they are doing so by competing with Moscow's
> >>>>>> interests, it
> >>>>>> only seems natural to want to defend Moscow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are free to feel the way you state. The fact is, a Boise
> >>>>>>> developer
> >>>>>>> plans to build a predatory mall next to Moscow. Their intent
> is
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> compete
> >>>>>>> with Moscow businesses. To me, I'm not thrilled at that
> prospect,
> >>>>>>> and I
> >>>>>>> consider it meddling with Moscow in that they aren't in this
> >>>>>>> to help
> >>>>>>> Moscow. More than likely, some businesses in Moscow will
> suffer,
> >>>>>>> and thus
> >>>>>>> Idaho sales tax revenue will decrease. So in some sense,
> they are
> >>>>>>> meddling
> >>>>>>> with Moscow by intently wanting Moscow business, thus reducing
> >>>>>>> state
> >>>>>>> coffers. I see nothing wrong with defending Moscow's interests
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> private developers who don't care if they hurt Moscow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We aren't talking about one store, but a mall twice the size
> as
> >>>>>>> Moscow's
> >>>>>>> largest mall. That isn't minor as you stated earlier. The fact
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>> want to draw from the same aquifer as Moscow is another way
> >>>>>>> they are
> >>>>>>> meddling with Moscow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moscow shouldn't be in the business of facilitating out of
> state
> >>>>>>> mega-malls that don't have Moscow's best interest at heart,
> >>>>>>> meaning
> >>>>>>> Moscow
> >>>>>>> shouldn't sell them water, and should not have offered to
> provide
> >>>>>>> them
> >>>>>>> sewer services, as well. That isn't meddling, that just making
> >>>>>>> sure
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>> aren't letting Moscow be ill-served.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Should I take from your position, g, that you are willing to
> >>>>>>> accept
> >>>>>>> anything that may come to Whitman County, or even to Moscow?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How about a nuclear waste depository? A chemical company with
> >>>>>>> a known
> >>>>>>> history of polluting and leaving the waste to be cleaned up by
> >>>>>>> taxpayers?
> >>>>>>> A strip club a block down from your lock shop, perhaps with a
> >>>>>>> topless
> >>>>>>> car-wash (out of public view, of course)?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do you have limits, or is it an anything goes kind of growth?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regarding the conscience rule questions I asked. I
> understand the
> >>>>>>> specific
> >>>>>>> cases you are defending. I had in previous replies to the
> thread
> >>>>>>> taken a
> >>>>>>> similar position. From what I remember, Sunil asked you to
> >>>>>>> document
> >>>>>>> cases
> >>>>>>> where someone was forced to perform an abortion, and you
> wrote,
> >>>>>>> "To
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> best of my knowlage they have not." Meaning to me, no one has
> >>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>> forced
> >>>>>>> to perform an abortion against their will. So it seems that to
> >>>>>>> bring up
> >>>>>>> something that is not an issue as an answer to my question
> is a
> >>>>>>> red
> >>>>>>> herring.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I wasn't answering a question with a question. The question
> you
> >>>>>>> asked was
> >>>>>>> addressed to someone else, and it was answered. I thought of
> the
> >>>>>>> questions
> >>>>>>> I asked you to further the discussion on the issue, and
> since you
> >>>>>>> were the
> >>>>>>> person supporting the conscience rule as is, I merely was
> hoping
> >>>>>>> you'd
> >>>>>>> answer them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My questions were about the overall implications of the law,
> not
> >>>>>>> specific
> >>>>>>> parts. Since the original article was about modifying the
> >>>>>>> order, not
> >>>>>>> repealing it, I was trying to get to the meat of the issue.
> I'm
> >>>>>>> sorry you
> >>>>>>> interpreted them as red herrings, but that was not my
> intent. I
> >>>>>>> think they
> >>>>>>> are questions that supporters of the rule should think about.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I were to call anything a red herring, it is the answer you
> >>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>> gave
> >>>>>>> to my questions. If you want me to consider that your
> "neglected
> >>>>>>> reply,"
> >>>>>>> then I'll just assume you don't have a reasonable answer those
> >>>>>>> questions,
> >>>>>>> copied here for references sake:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why should a business be obligated to pay an employee who
> doesn't
> >>>>>>> do their
> >>>>>>> job?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Shouldn't the business have the right to not spend its money
> on
> >>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>> employee who won't perform their job? If not, then how could a
> >>>>>>> business
> >>>>>>> continue to function if there doesn't seem to be a way to
> prevent
> >>>>>>> employees from over-enjoying their supposed right to not do
> >>>>>>> their job
> >>>>>>> because of such a broad excuse as it goes against their
> religion?
> >>>>>>> Are we
> >>>>>>> talking about every single religion?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does the government have the right to force a business to
> pay an
> >>>>>>> employee
> >>>>>>> who doesn't do their job? If so, why should government
> >>>>>>> intervene in
> >>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>> an intimate way since that seems rather socialistic?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Doesn't passing a law requiring businesses to pay an
> employee who
> >>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>> do their job because of religion violate the 1st Amendment? If
> >>>>>>> not,
> >>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>> can a law which essentially is regarding the establishment of
> >>>>>>> religion not
> >>>>>>> be illegal, particularly when it also seems rather anti-
> >>>>>>> capitalistic?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> g's answer:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. If you reply to my question with a question (and no
> >>>>>>>> actual response) am I honor bond to reply? If so, should it
> >>>>>>>> be in the form of another question?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. Your questions were specious in that we were not talking
> >>>>>>>> about the nurse at a planned parenthood clinic suddenly
> >>>>>>>> deciding that she didn't want to be involved in the
> >>>>>>>> tgaking of a life or anyone who contrived to be hired,
> >>>>>>>> knowing full well what their job would entail, and suddenly
> >>>>>>>> opting to not perform their duties. We are talking about
> >>>>>>>> personnel hired at private facilities that had no
> >>>>>>>> involvement with abortion suddenly being forced to perform a
> >>>>>>>> procedure they never hired on for. We are talking about
> >>>>>>>> private sector pharmacists being forced to sell products
> >>>>>>>> they in good conscience find abhorrent.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This, and Donovan's "emergency save the
> >>>>>>>> mother" arguments are red herrings tossed out to cover
> >>>>>>>> the stench of forcing private individuals to bow to the whim
> >>>>>>>> of others against their will and conscience.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please consider this my neglected reply. Sorry for my lack
> >>>>>>>> of alacrity.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> g
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>>> Checked by AVG.
> >>>>> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release
> Date:
> >>>>> 3/12/2009 10:38 AM
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database:
> 270.11.11/1997 -
> >>> Release Date: 3/12/2009 10:38 AM
> >>
> >
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date:
> 3/12/2009 10:38 AM
> gt;>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>>> Checked by AVG.
> >>>>> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release
> Date:
> >>>>> 3/12/2009 10:38 AM
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database:
> 270.11.11/1997 -
> >>> Release Date: 3/12/2009 10:38 AM
> >>
> >
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date:
> 3/12/2009 10:38 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090315/71dd1c3c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list