[Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 15 11:17:21 PDT 2009


Joe writes:  . . . "it is irresponsible to sell water rights to a buisness venure from another state, given that we don't know how much we have"


I don't know about that, Joe. People often share things they are not sure how much they have. I know I share my intellect, which comes from a very shallow well, indeed. 

Best Regards,

Donovan

--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
To: "a" <smith at turbonet.com>
Cc: "<vision2020 at moscow.com>" <vision2020 at moscow.com>, "<garrettmc at verizon.net>" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 5:19 AM

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  
    
>>>>>>>    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

=======================================================
 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/20090315/e888fb40/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list