[Vision2020] Freedom of expression

Tom Hansen thansen at moscow.com
Thu Dec 16 05:30:38 PST 2010

Paul Rumelhart blindly hypothesizes:

"I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, and
have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. . . . If Doug's book is a
valid work of historical research, . . . "

Here you go, Mr. R.

Read "Southern Slavery As It Was" and judge for yourself.  It's a fair
attempt at third grade fiction.


Seeya round the plantation, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

On Wed, December 15, 2010 10:23 pm, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> I don't think your "city test" is measuring what you think it is.
> Instead of being a valid measure of the amount of hate in a particular
> idea, it's measuring how emotionally invested people are in the topic.
> As I've said before, in some places in this country you would find
> certain basic ideas that I find completely reasonable to elicit a strong
> negative reaction.  This reaction says more about the person reacting to
> the statements than it does about anything else.
> I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, and
> have no idea exactly what his claims in it are.  It wasn't pertinent to
> my original point, which was that no matter what it says Doug has the
> right to express his opinions.  I'm just trying to say that a stance
> that some people vehemently disagree with and that some people would
> find offensive does not necessarily equate to being hate speech.  A
> study, for example, that showed that members of ethnicity A have a much
> lower IQ on average that that of ethnicity B may be seen as completely
> incorrect and grossly offensive to members of ethnicity A, but should it
> be classified as "hate speech"?  I would say no, not if it's a valid
> scientific study.  If Doug's book is a valid work of historical
> research, then I wouldn't classify it as "hate speech" even if it's
> conclusions would get you beat up on the street in Spokane.  Your
> opinion may be different, so we might just have to agree to disagree on
> this one.
> If we try to use the test that if someone finds something offensive then
> it must be hate speech, then you get strange situations where people
> with no ill will towards members of a particular group might
> inadvertently offend someone and thus have their speech classified as
> "hate speech".  All I'm saying is that the common sense definition of
> "hate speech" would be speech showing hatred towards something.  How
> this definition changed into some sort of marker that a particular
> speech offended someone is beyond me.
> Paul
> Joe Campbell wrote:
>> Well there ARE a lot of reasons one could get their butt kicked in a
>> city. But none have the level of predictability of the city test. You
>> would not have any reason, in general, to think "Were I to go to
>> Spokane today, I'm likely to get my butt kicked." But you would have
>> plenty of reason to think that were you to go to Spokane today and,
>> say, hand out fliers that claim slavery in the US was a "paradise in
>> which slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship with
>> their masters" that you'd get your butt kicked. That is why you won't
>> do it, right? You know and I know what will happen. You'll go to
>> Spokane one day because, though it could happen, it's unlikely you'll
>> get your butt kicked but you won't try the city test because you know
>> you'll at least have a bad day, an unpleasant experience in Spokane.
>> Maybe you should just trust me on this one. I keep saying "try it" but
>> you shouldn't try it because I KNOW what will happen.
>> You seem to think that Wilson is more naive than I do. I tend to give
>> him more credit and think he is more clever than you do. But even if
>> Wilson is ignorant, I'm not sure that it is relevant to whether or not
>> the slavery book is hate speech. Think of your example of hate speech
>> below. It wouldn't matter if someone actually believed that a
>> particular race was "sub-human" would it? Likely someone who said such
>> a thing in public WOULD believe it but that fact wouldn't mean that it
>> wasn't hate speech.
>> And how on earth COULD someone think that slavery was a "paradise," as
>> you say? And how isn't that claim offensive, no matter how ignorant
>> the person was who said it? Again, consider the Elizabeth Smart case.
>> It would be offensive to suggest, in public, that she enjoyed being
>> kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused. If you said that
>> in public it would be offensive. If you tried to justify saying it by
>> saying you actually believed it that would not justify the offense. I
>> would think that you were SO ignorant that you MUST be culpable. It
>> isn't as if ignorance always mitigates. If you tell me you failed an
>> exam because you failed to study that is no excuse. There are some
>> things that people should know better and that kidnapping is wrong,
>> that holding someone who committed no crime against her will is wrong
>> are among them.
>> I don't see how moving from the single case of Elizabeth Smart to the
>> general case of slavery makes your story any more plausible. For
>> crying out loud, Americans went to Africa and kidnapped other human
>> beings, held them against their will, sold them for profit, abused
>> them, and forced them to work without pay. What about this story
>> sounds like "paradise"? How would it matter how they were treated
>> while they were held against their will? How twisted of a world view
>> would one have to have in order to come away with the idea that this
>> was a kind of "paradise" and that saying so in public was anything
>> less than offensive? Common sense and empathy should be enough to tell
>> you that slavery is wrong. The only way that you could possibly
>> justify it is if you were to think that the people held as slaves
>> were, as you said, "sub-human." I see no other possibility. Now we've
>> moved from Wilson's book to the kind of stuff you do consider to be
>> hate speech and it was not a long trip.
>> And that is exactly why the claims of Wilson's book are wrong. The US
>> practice of slavery was justifiable ONLY on the assumption that blacks
>> are sub-human. That, at any rate, is what anyone who gave the issue a
>> moment's thought would conclude. That is why the claim that slavery
>> was really a "paradise" is offensive. That is why saying it in public
>> would incite violence and that is why it is hate speech. It is a very
>> natural progression from Wilson's claims to claims that even you admit
>> are hate speech.
>> And don't try to justify it all by appealing to Wilson's religious
>> beliefs. It isn't as if religion is some kind of "get out of civility
>> free" card. I'm certain that the folks who crushed the twin towers
>> actually believed that they were doing the right thing because of
>> their own warped religious views. In reflective moments I might think
>> that this mitigates their actions, makes them less blameworthy but
>> most of the time I think their beliefs were so warped that they should
>> have known better. Regardless, at no time do I think it isn't worth
>> noting that they had warped beliefs and noting that religion is no
>> excuse for wrong action. At the very least, even if Wilson is as naive
>> as you think he is, I would still say the same things I've been
>> saying: that his ignorance has gone too far and much of what he says
>> is offensive and should not be said in a civil society. If he is
>> ignorant certainly he needs folks to shake some sense into him. And
>> that's giving him the "benefit" of the doubt, as you do. Again, I'm
>> pretty sure he is not that ignorant but I may be wrong. Wouldn't
>> change what I say either way.
>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Can't you get your ass kicked in a city for any of a number of reasons?
>>>  Such as wearing the wrong color coat or walking down the wrong alley
>>> or having the wrong skin color or looking the wrong person in the eye?
>>> I don't think that Doug Wilson's book on slavery is hate speech,
>>> because I believe that he truly believes what he's written and that
>>> he's not intending to insult anyone.  He may be seriously wrong, but I
>>> would expect that something should be called "hate speech" only when it
>>> involves speaking in such a way as to show hatred for a group based
>>> solely on a person's membership in that group.  For example, if he had
>>> said "blacks are a sub-human race and won't amount to anything if
>>> someone doesn't take a strong hand with them", then I would classify
>>> that as hate speech with respect to the non-law definition.  In fact,
>>> that's a common theme I heard from more than one person growing up in
>>> idyllic Idaho when I was a kid.  It's not something I ever agreed with,
>>> but it was common to hear it in conversations on the subject of race
>>> relations.  In fact, back then, there were places where you could get
>>> your ass kicked if you walked in off the street and tried to describe
>>> how black peopl!
>  e are as good as white people and deserve to be treated equally, making
> such statements into "hate speech" by your definition.  Intent should
> matter.
>>> Anyway, I also appreciate the civil conversation.  Especially knowing
>>> that this is an emotionally charged topic for a lot of people.
>>> Paul
>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>> Paul,
>>>> There are a lot of issues here. No one is helped if we jumble them up
>>>> and forget which one we're talking about.
>>>> We're not talking about freedom of expression. I believe it, you
>>>> believe it, it's the law. I keep saying I'm not for legal restrictions
>>>> of speech (other than the ones we already have, like yelling fire in a
>>>> crowd etc.), Nick has said the same. So please stop bringing it up. We
>>>> agree.
>>>> In your previous post to me you mocked my clam that Wilson's
>>>> pro-slavery book was hate speech. I gave this definition: speech that
>>>> "may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected
>>>> individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a
>>>> protected individual or group." The "city test" (as I'll call it) is a
>>>> test to see if something is hate speech. If you can say it on a city
>>>> street and LIKELY get beat up, it is hate speech. If you went to a
>>>> city, stood on a street corner, and tried to sell folks the idea that
>>>> slavery in the US was a "paradise in which slaves were treated well
>>>> and had a harmonious relationship with their masters" you would get
>>>> beat up. It WOULD incite violence, violence to YOU. In order to get
>>>> slaves they had to be KIDNAPPED and held AGAINST their WILL. Does that
>>>> sound like paradise to you? Would anyone in their right mind think
>>>> that being kidnapped, held against ones will, and forced into labor
>>>> with no pay is PARADISE? It is an OFFENSIVE idea with NO merit
>>>> whatsoever. It would be offensive to suggest the idea in a single case
>>>> -- like the Elizabeth Smart case: it is offensive to suggest that she
>>>> enjoyed being kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused. To
>>>> suggest it about the US institution of slavery is even more offensive,
>>>> offense to blacks and to almost anyone else. There is no purpose for
>>>> such an absurd suggestion. The only reason that someone would make
>>>> such a suggestion would be to incite rage in other people, people one
>>>> hates. There is NO reasonable purpose other than this to make such an
>>>> absurd claim. None. That is why the book needed to be published on
>>>> Wilson's own vanity press. No legitimate publisher would touch it.
>>>> That is why it took merely a pamphlet by a pair of UI historians to
>>>> refute it. It is without academic and social merit. Its only purpose
>>>> is to make people angry. That is hate speech.
>>>> Again, if you think I'm wrong just try the city test. Just find one
>>>> black man NOT a member of Christ Church and run the idea by him. Then
>>>> try to convince him that it isn't offensive. See where you get. You
>>>> cannot take this crap to anywhere other than an on-line blog in Idaho
>>>> and get away with saying it without getting punched in the nose or
>>>> having your house burned to the ground. It is hate speech. If you want
>>>> to try to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to drive you to Spokane and
>>>> we'll put it to the test. Although I'll remain in the car while you
>>>> conduct the test because someone will need to take you to the hospital
>>>> afterward and it won't be the guy who beat you up.
>>>> And the definition of "hate speech" is not watered down at all. You
>>>> could try the city test with a variety of other statements and LIKELY
>>>> you won't get punched. There is something special about the suggestion
>>>> that slavery was paradise, something that you still don't seem to get.
>>>> If you tried the city test, you'd get it rather quickly. I'm just
>>>> asking you to put your nose where your theory is and see what happens.
>>>> You won't do it, so you loose this particular debate. Wilson's book is
>>>> hate speech.
>>>> I just wanted to point out that this is the first time I've ever had
>>>> an extended discussion on Vision 2020 about Wilson, NSA, etc. and no
>>>> one mentioned my job, offended me with insults, or told me to take it
>>>> off-line. So I thank you for that! Though I'm a bit worried that it is
>>>> merely the calm before the storm.
>>>> Best, Joe
>>>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>> Thoughtful discussion like this about the slavery book could only
>>>>>> happen here and practically nowhere else in the country. You take
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> book to a street corner in almost any city and try to give the
>>>>>> explanation you are giving below. Do it. I am serious. You won't but
>>>>>> if you did, someone would literally beat the crap out of you. It
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> quite literally incite violence. Go to any city with a diverse
>>>>>> population and try this experiment and see what happens. You won't
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> it and you know it. That should tell you something about your own
>>>>>> attitude toward your own argument. You can only give it in the
>>>>>> sheltered confines of V2020 in Moscow, Idaho. Bad argument!
>>>>> I'm advocating for freedom of expression, not Doug Wilson's views on
>>>>> slavery.  That means that I'm often in the position of trying to
>>>>> protect someone's right with whom I disagree, since they are often
>>>>> the ones that people are trying to censor.
>>>>> This idea that people should not express their opinions because other
>>>>> people might get upset is basically what I'm fighting against.  No, I
>>>>> wouldn't want to go there and preach from the gospel of Doug.  I
>>>>> don't really want to go to a right-wing bar and start discussing the
>>>>> benefits of gay marriage either.  That doesn't mean that I shouldn't
>>>>> talk about it.
>>>>>> Again, hate speech is in part a legal term and as I defined it the
>>>>>> other day it is speech that "may incite violence or prejudicial
>>>>>> action
>>>>>> against or by a protected individual or group, or because it
>>>>>> disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Say what
>>>>>> you will but the slavery book classifies as hate speech by this and
>>>>>> any reasonable definition. And the thought experiment noted above,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> well as your unwillingness to try to provide the justification below
>>>>>> in pretty much ANY context other than this one, shows I'm correct.
>>>>>> And
>>>>>> I never said the NSA website was "hate speech." It is "violent
>>>>>> rhetoric" and like hate speech it is an example of OFFENSIVE speech.
>>>>>> Offensive speech is political. Not religious but political. You seem
>>>>>> blind to that truth.
>>>>> I think that definition of hate speech is so watered down as to be
>>>>> unworkable.  All you have to do is disparage a group and it's hate
>>>>> speech by that definition.  I think many people on the far right let
>>>>> their emotions rule their responses too often.  There, that would
>>>>> qualify as hate speech.
>>>>>> Let me explain something to you. I did not grow up in Idaho. I did
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> grow up in a place where folks could get away with saying the kind
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> crap that NSA, No Weatherman, etc. have gotten away with saying. So
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> experience of all of this and of watching otherwise decent folks
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> yourself defending that crap is a bit jarring. It is unlike anything
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> could have ever imagined. In the town I grew up in there were
>>>>>> butchers
>>>>>> with numbers tattooed on their forearms. The grandparents of some of
>>>>>> my friends grew up in concentration camps, as well. Nazi Germany was
>>>>>> not something I just read about in history books or heard about in
>>>>>> films. I actually heard some of the stories from actual survivors of
>>>>>> concentration camps. I saw and interacted with these people often. I
>>>>>> was told on a regular basis by people who suffered to never forget
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I won't.
>>>>> I prefer to live in a place where people can speak their mind without
>>>>> fear of getting their asses kicked or worse.  I think that should be
>>>>> the ideal, not some sort of accident of location to be chastised
>>>>> about.
>>>>>> I go back east a few times each year since my family and my best
>>>>>> friends still live there. Years ago I talked about the slavery book
>>>>>> and the regular criticisms of gays and Muslims. One of the parents
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> my friend said: "This is how it started in Nazi Germany. They
>>>>>> started
>>>>>> with the gays and with the less populated groups and then moved on
>>>>>> from there." Years ago intolerance against Mormons would have been
>>>>>> unthinkable but this year we actually had a man run for political
>>>>>> office whose pastor had insulting comments about Mormons posted on
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> website. Want to read more local hate speech about Mormons? Look
>>>>>> here:
>>>>>> http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/
>>>>>> I find it hard to shake the thought that maybe the parent of my
>>>>>> friend
>>>>>> was correct. I go back to New Jersey a few times a year and I run
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> these folks and they ask me how it's going. So I can't ever give up
>>>>>> the fight to try to shake some sense into this town. It is just not
>>>>>> possible. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd rather err on the side of
>>>>>> insulting
>>>>>> some idiot who thinks that slavery was a cakewalk than make the
>>>>>> mistake of allowing another Nazi Germany. That is an easy choice for
>>>>>> me.
>>>>> I would think that if you best want to fight the kind of
>>>>> totalitarianism exemplified by Nazi Germany, then you would fight for
>>>>> an individual's right to freedom of expression, among other rights
>>>>> like the right to believe as one wishes and the right to be different
>>>>> from the norm.  You can't have freedom of expression if you try to
>>>>> define it as anything "not Nazi-like" or whatever your standard is.
>>>>> You have to take the bad with the good, or you don't have anything at
>>>>> all.
>>>>> I suspect that if some group tried to do what the Nazis did in
>>>>> Germany here, I'd be one of the first targets.  I wouldn't agree with
>>>>> the silencing of opposition voices, and I'd say so loud and clear.
>>>>> I'd be fighting on the "right" side, as far as most people are
>>>>> concerned, which would be a relief from what I'm currently doing
>>>>> which is fighting for viewpoints I don't usually agree with.  From my
>>>>> perspective, though, I'd still be fighting for the same thing.
>>>>>> And again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. Nor am I trying to
>>>>>> convince you of anything. Nor am I trying to silence Christ Church
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> NSA. I'm just asking you and others to stay the hell out of my way
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> let me say what I wish. You want to allow hateful, offensive speech
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> regular basis? Fine. I am the natural consequence of your generous
>>>>>> nature, so you better allow my speech too.
>>>>> I uphold your right to freedom of expression as much as anyones.  My
>>>>> comments aren't meant to try to silence anyone.  I'm just trying to
>>>>> put my opinion on the matter out there.
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you saying that descriptions of this supposed paradise in which
>>>>>>> slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship with
>>>>>>> their masters is hate speech?  You may disagree with it, lots of
>>>>>>> people whose ancestors had a considerably worse experience that he
>>>>>>> describes might disagree with it, but that doesn't make it hate
>>>>>>> speech.  I think that he truly believes this, because he knows that
>>>>>>> many of the men that owned slaves at that time professed to be
>>>>>>> Christian, and the Bible apparently talks about slavery as an
>>>>>>> everyday occurrence, so it must be something that God would approve
>>>>>>> of.  So he selectively reads history and picks out what he thinks
>>>>>>> supports this ideal and glosses over what doesn't.  A very easy
>>>>>>> trap to fall into.  That doesn't make his book hate speech.  It
>>>>>>> more than likely makes him wrong (I'm not a historian), but it
>>>>>>> doesn't make it hate speech.
>>>>>>> And I fully support his right to express his opinions on the
>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the NSA
>>>>>>>> website.  If our bar is so low that that website can trigger cries
>>>>>>>> of "hate speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any
>>>>>>>> website is offensive to somebody."
>>>>>>>> Is this the only example of hate speech from this crowd? For
>>>>>>>> crying out loud, Wilson wrote a BOOK denying the evils of slavery.
>>>>>>>> They were noted by a NATIONAL organization, one that helped remove
>>>>>>>> neo-Nazis up north. Did I make that up too?
>>>>>>>> Again, come back east with me just once and try telling your story
>>>>>>>> to my friends. I no longer wonder how the Nazis took over Germany,
>>>>>>>> I'll tell you that. Well meaning "liberals" like yourself had much
>>>>>>>> to do with it.
>>>>>>>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Two separate responses in body of text below.  This fourth post
>>>>>>>>>> today
>>>>>>>>>> is over the limit for me... so "Good Night," as Ringo Starr sang
>>>>>>>>>> it:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> "According to my views on freedom of expression, political
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a disease that should be purged from the world."
>>>>>>>>>>>> and earlier:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Just point, laugh, roll your eyes, and move on to fight
>>>>>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't just hyperbole."
>>>>>>>>>>>> So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll your eyes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> move on..." regarding the New Saint Andrews' website
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vision2020, you later state you want to purge the world of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> disease
>>>>>>>>>>>> political correctness?  Why not just "...point, laugh, roll
>>>>>>>>>>>> your eyes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and move on..." when someone makes a politically correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are politically correct statements more harmful to the world
>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>> statements suggesting violence and hate, as some have
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted the
>>>>>>>>>>>> statements on the NSA website to imply?
>>>>>>>>>>> I see the point you're making.  I wasn't suggesting that people
>>>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>> laugh, and move on to be politically correct, I was suggesting
>>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>>> that to avoid feeding the trolls.  Which is, really, what they
>>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>> It appears the slippage of language strikes again...
>>>>>>>>>> I was not saying anyone should "move on to be politically
>>>>>>>>>> correct."  I
>>>>>>>>>> was asking, why object so strenuously to those who make
>>>>>>>>>> politically
>>>>>>>>>> correct statements, if this is what you think some on Vision2020
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> doing, regarding New Saint Andrews' website?  What is the major
>>>>>>>>>> harm
>>>>>>>>>> in someone making a politically correct statement on Vision2020,
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> this is truly what is occuring (I am not saying it is...)?
>>>>>>>>>> Are these statements more harmful than statements that suggest
>>>>>>>>>> violence and hate, as some found the statements on the NSA
>>>>>>>>>> website?  I
>>>>>>>>>> understand you do not think there is any real threat implied by
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> NSA website, but others perhaps disagree.  What is the major
>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>> with expressing differing opinions regarding the NSA website?
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>> there are more important topics, but Vision2020 often focuses on
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> I think are not very important issues.
>>>>>>>>> I think that the societal self-censorship of certain topics under
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> guise of political correctness has a negative effect in the long
>>>>>>>>> run.  It stops the average Joe Public from speaking his mind
>>>>>>>>> freely about what
>>>>>>>>> he perceives to be negative traits of a certain race, creed, or
>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>> and it keeps people from being offended, but Joe has not changed
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> mind - he's just learned to keep his thoughts to himself.  He may
>>>>>>>>> harbor
>>>>>>>>> a hatred of people of a specific type, and may have no simple way
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> blowing off steam.  So he has a run-in with one someday, and gets
>>>>>>>>> violent.  Or he learns to not promote anyone in his company of
>>>>>>>>> that type
>>>>>>>>> of person, because it's one way of getting back at them.  You get
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> idea.  If there were no societal prohibitions about talking about
>>>>>>>>> it, he
>>>>>>>>> might learn that other people like people of that type just fine,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> that they are actually really nice, usually.  He might even get
>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>> discussion with one that turns into a friendship, after the first
>>>>>>>>> bit of
>>>>>>>>> arguing and name-calling dies down.
>>>>>>>>> Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the NSA
>>>>>>>>> website.  If our bar is so low that that website can trigger
>>>>>>>>> cries of "hate
>>>>>>>>> speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any website
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> offensive to somebody.  I'd rather save the phrase to describe
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> that are undeniably hate speech.  What's the harm in having some
>>>>>>>>> language like that on their website?  People might get a bad
>>>>>>>>> impression
>>>>>>>>> of Moscow is one reason I've heard.  Tough.  We can only control
>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>> do ourselves.  We don't have the right to try to censor others.
>>>>>>>>> If people think that there is a real threat on the website, call
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> police.  Making threats is against the law.  Just be aware that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> have a definition of "threat" that the website may fail to meet.
>>>>>>>>> I don't have a problem with people expressing their views.  It's
>>>>>>>>> just my
>>>>>>>>> opinion that if they really valued freedom of expression then
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be talking about this subject so much.  I do value
>>>>>>>>> freedom of
>>>>>>>>> expression, which is why I'm talking about what my concept of it
>>>>>>>>> is here.
>>>>>>>>>> Your response suggests you think the NSA website should not be a
>>>>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>> of discussion to "avoid feeding the trolls."  But in responding
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> Vision2020 to what you have implied, it seems, is politically
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> criticism regarding NSA, are you feeding those politically
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> "trolls?  You are certainly helping to keep the focus on the NSA
>>>>>>>>>> website discussion in this thread, by referencing it in your
>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>> post.
>>>>>>>>> I think the person that wrote that blurb on that website was
>>>>>>>>> hoping for
>>>>>>>>> this kind of reaction.  They were trolling the people that watch
>>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>> and a few of them took the bait.  If you don't want trolls to
>>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>>> trolling, then your best bet is to simply ignore them.  Point,
>>>>>>>>> laugh,
>>>>>>>>> roll your eyes, and move on.  If that's all the reaction they
>>>>>>>>> get,
>>>>>>>>> they'll find someone else to bait.  That's the method I've
>>>>>>>>> learned that
>>>>>>>>> works best after 20+ years of interacting in Internet forums.  It
>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>> have anything to do with trying to suppress the actual point they
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> trying to make.
>>>>>>>>>> Again, why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." at the
>>>>>>>>>> criticisms of NSA, rather than make more of an issue of it, as
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> advised regarding the NSA website?  You think, if I have
>>>>>>>>>> understood
>>>>>>>>>> you correctly, that these criticisms are somehow creating ill
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> between NSA and those of differing ideologies.  So I suppose you
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> that less criticism of NSA will encourage them to express more
>>>>>>>>>> tolerance of "secularists?"  I doubt it.  When an insititution
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> higher learning, NSA, frames its mission aggressively against
>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>> who do not share their ideology, to argue this approach should
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> arouse a "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." response, appears
>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>> an attempt to silence public discussion on substantive issues
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> effect many people, which it also appears you cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> advocating,
>>>>>>>>>> given your emphasis on freedom of expression.
>>>>>>>>> For one, I don't care if they ever learn to have a better opinion
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> secularists.  Their education on religion is none of my concern.
>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>> can go to the grave believing that secularists are out to hunt
>>>>>>>>> them down
>>>>>>>>> and convert them.  I don't really care.  I don't feel the need to
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> sure that everyone agrees with what I say or think like I do.  In
>>>>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>>>>> I'd hate a world like that.  My stance is simple.  Everyone has
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> right to think whatever they want, believe whatever they want,
>>>>>>>>> and have
>>>>>>>>> whatever view of whatever topic they want.  I don't care how
>>>>>>>>> horrendous
>>>>>>>>> their beliefs or views are to others.  I also believe that they
>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>> right to express those views however they want, keeping in mind
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they don't have the right to force others to listen to them, and
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> don't have the right to harm others.  If they want to put on the
>>>>>>>>> website
>>>>>>>>> that they think that secularists probably eat children for
>>>>>>>>> breakfast, so
>>>>>>>>> what?  If someone goes out and beats up a secularist because of
>>>>>>>>> it, then
>>>>>>>>> the responsibility for that action falls on the shoulders of the
>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>> that committed that action.  There are very few cases where I
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> advocate for censoring their website.  The text they have on it
>>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>> doesn't even come close.
>>>>>>>>>> Also, to claim the debate regarding fundamentalist Christianity
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> secularism, and the political tactics involved, is not worth
>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>> discussion, is on the face of it, not credible, given the power
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> fundamentalist Christianity has over the political system.
>>>>>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>>>>>> that Idaho is one of the Super DOMA states
>>>>>>>>>> ( http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm ).  There is no doubt
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> this law is in part the result of a religious view that NSA
>>>>>>>>>> shares
>>>>>>>>>> with other fundamentalist Christians in Idaho.  And they vote.
>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>> they did regarding the ridiculous topless ordinance the Moscow
>>>>>>>>>> City
>>>>>>>>>> Council passed.
>>>>>>>>> It's not my stance that people shouldn't talk about
>>>>>>>>> fundamentalist
>>>>>>>>> Christianity and the ills they imagine are there.  I just think
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> people that I've been assuming all along are for freedom of
>>>>>>>>> expression
>>>>>>>>> shouldn't get so bent out of shape when something somebody says
>>>>>>>>> offends
>>>>>>>>> them.  I'm not trying to force them to shut up, I really don't
>>>>>>>>> care.  What did provoke me to write my little diatribe were
>>>>>>>>> indications that
>>>>>>>>> some sort of attempt to silence the NSA people might be coming
>>>>>>>>> up.  I
>>>>>>>>> misinterpreted what Nick said about the Chamber of Commerce, but
>>>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>>>> time I thought they were advocating for taking the site down.  I
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> saw references to "hate speech", which is a sensitive button of
>>>>>>>>> mine.  I'd hate for a statement that more or less says "we fight
>>>>>>>>> secularism as
>>>>>>>>> an ideal" to lead to someone being convicted of some sort of
>>>>>>>>> "hate
>>>>>>>>> crime".  Stranger things have happened.
>>>>>>>>> All I'm doing is advocating for true freedom of expression.  Let
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> say what they like.  It's better for all of us in the end.
>>>>>>>>>> To state you are not afraid of being physically attacked by
>>>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>> from NSA, nor where you offended, given the rhetoric on their
>>>>>>>>>> website,
>>>>>>>>>> does not address the real influence based on behavior that such
>>>>>>>>>> rhetoric has on the local, state and national level, regarding
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> least four very important issues (I'll skip the alleged
>>>>>>>>>> association
>>>>>>>>>> with racist groups and the debate regarding Wilson's book
>>>>>>>>>> "Southern
>>>>>>>>>> Slavery As It Was"): gay and women's rights, religious tolerance
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> understanding between those of all religions, spiritual
>>>>>>>>>> worldviews, or
>>>>>>>>>> those of no particular persuasion on these matters, and the US
>>>>>>>>>> pursuit
>>>>>>>>>> of the so called "war on terror," which as everyone knows is
>>>>>>>>>> tainted
>>>>>>>>>> with religious prejudice and misunderstandings here in the US
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> internationally, by those of differing religions:
>>>>>>>>>> http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm
>>>>>>>>>>> From website above:
>>>>>>>>>> In a speech to high school kids at her church, Sarah Palin said:
>>>>>>>>>> "Pray...that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [our
>>>>>>>>>> military men and women] out on a task that is from God. That's
>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>> have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> that that plan is God's plan."
>>>>>>>>> I'm all for people discussing these issues.  I'm not for any
>>>>>>>>> attempt to
>>>>>>>>> get the NSA to change their website other than simple pleas that
>>>>>>>>> they  do so.  What people are discussing is not the implications
>>>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>>>> viewpoints on secularism, they are discussing whether or not
>>>>>>>>> their text
>>>>>>>>> is violent and whether or not something should be done about it.
>>>>>>>>> Prejudice about religion or lack of religion can be a problem,
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> true.  As long as no one is censoring anyone, then I hope that
>>>>>>>>> debate
>>>>>>>>> rages along nicely.  I just haven't seen much of it on here with
>>>>>>>>> regards
>>>>>>>>> to this topic.  I admit, though, that I haven't been following it
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> that close.  I just thought I'd go ahead and elucidate my
>>>>>>>>> thoughts on
>>>>>>>>> the subject of freedom of expression, and hopefully others would
>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>> this in perspective.
>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Political correctness" could be defined to suit whatever I
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> purge from society.  Advocating purging a point of view is
>>>>>>>>>>>> alarming
>>>>>>>>>>>> language.  Perhaps you were making a joke of some sort in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> comment, and I am missing the joke by taking you literally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> But consider this example:  I define publicly exposing
>>>>>>>>>>>> undercover CIA
>>>>>>>>>>>> government assassins as a "politically correct" agenda, that
>>>>>>>>>>>> must be
>>>>>>>>>>>> "purged" to protect the necessary for national security
>>>>>>>>>>>> assassinations
>>>>>>>>>>>> carried out in secret by the CIA..  Thus in purging political
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness in this example, I am supporting government
>>>>>>>>>>>> secrecy
>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding CIA assassinations.  It might be justifed to purge
>>>>>>>>>>>> somone
>>>>>>>>>>>> planning to expose undercover CIA assassins, to protect
>>>>>>>>>>>> national
>>>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some examples of what might be reasonably defined as
>>>>>>>>>>>> "politically
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct" can be viewed as idealistic ethically laudable
>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviors, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of behaviors it seems you would aprove given your support
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikileaks.
>>>>>>>>>>> I think you are taking me too literally.  It's not politically
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> statements, which is basically any statement not involving
>>>>>>>>>>> race,
>>>>>>>>>>> religion, gender, or sexual orientation in a negative light,
>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>> object to.  It's people feeling like they cannot make
>>>>>>>>>>> politically
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect statements because of some sort of societal pressure
>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>> think is a problem.  When I said that I think "political
>>>>>>>>>>> correctness" is
>>>>>>>>>>> a problem, I was referring to the very idea that there are
>>>>>>>>>>> things that
>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot talk about because they might offend somebody, which
>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>> idea I object to.  Not talking about any one of these areas as
>>>>>>>>>>> a society
>>>>>>>>>>> helps only in the short term.  Real discussion is what heals
>>>>>>>>>>> wounds,
>>>>>>>>>>> societal pressure towards silence only makes them fester.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're example above referring to political assassination isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> the sort
>>>>>>>>>>> of political correctness I was referring to, but while we are
>>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I would say that keeping information about the
>>>>>>>>>>> whereabouts and
>>>>>>>>>>> covers for assassins should be kept secret.  However, the fact
>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>> US government is sanctioning assassinations should be out in
>>>>>>>>>>> the open so
>>>>>>>>>>> that the American people can let their congressmen know whether
>>>>>>>>>>> or not
>>>>>>>>>>> they think the US should be engaging in such behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that political correctness can be used to censor, of
>>>>>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>>>>> can create a climate of fear that blocks freedom of expression,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> can impede Democracy and the power of the Fourth Estate.  Look
>>>>>>>>>> at what
>>>>>>>>>> happened to Bill Maher, or the US media coverage of the build up
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> the invasion of Iraq, especially, a shameful and frightening
>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>> of media seized by a form of patriotic political correctness
>>>>>>>>>> that kept
>>>>>>>>>> the US public woefully misinformed.  The example of the firing
>>>>>>>>>> of Imus
>>>>>>>>>> for the "nappy-headed hos" comment some argue is an example of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> abuse of political correctness.  I wonder if you think Imus
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> have been fired for what some claim was an explictly racist
>>>>>>>>>> comment?
>>>>>>>>>> I recall Imus meeting the women basketball players he referred
>>>>>>>>>> to in
>>>>>>>>>> this manner, where he apologized, and they asserted they were
>>>>>>>>>> deeply
>>>>>>>>>> offended by his statement.
>>>>>>>>>> I knew that you were not referring to the sort of political
>>>>>>>>>> correctness I used as an example, regarding CIA assassins.  I
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> simply saying that advocating purging something from society,
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> political correctness, is alarming language, that can be twisted
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> suit nefarious agendas.  I was making no statement on the
>>>>>>>>>> appropriateness of exposing CIA assassins, only using this as an
>>>>>>>>>> example.  My example was probably not a good one to make my
>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>> But given you stated I was taking you too literally, I'll not
>>>>>>>>>> construct a better example.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just thought I'd weigh in here with a little diatribe of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the freedom of an individual or group of individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to express
>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves is sacrosanct.  The freedom to express your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> held dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a free
>>>>>>>>>>>>> society.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are very few limits that should be placed on speech, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my humble
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion, most having to do with statements of facts and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions.  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with libel laws, for example.  On the other hand, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obscenity laws probably universally.  If groups want to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> together and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> form islands of information in which certain ideas are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppressed, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for that, too, as long as other options exist.  For example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to create a separate internet targeted at children
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enforced
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's own censorship, I would be OK with that.  If parents
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were OK with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their kids surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be allowed to do so without repercussions if their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> child ends up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a porn site or a site about Islam or whatever your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> favorite boogey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> man is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks.  Our government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> works *for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us*.  They should only have secrets in very narrowly defined
>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very specific reasons.  And no, "they shouldn't see it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make our leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify.  The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> secrets in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to my views on freedom of expression, political
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a disease that should be purged from the  world.  Instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> helping, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just sweeps the problem under the rug.  If a person hates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blacks because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an incident when they were younger, or because they just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who are "different", then they should be free to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> express that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion.  Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensue, but this is healthy.  This tendency by people to shun
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these sorts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of debates is unhealthy for society (in my opinion, anyway).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I might as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well go ahead and add that I also disagree with some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> child
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pornography laws as they exist on the books, as they relate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to freedom
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of expression.  These laws have been expanded so much under
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the guise of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "save the children" that they are insane.  In Australia, one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> man was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrested for having downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpson
>>>>>>>>>>>>> engaged in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having sex, and was convicted under that countries child
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pornography
>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws.  In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing manga
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Japan that contained drawings of children having sex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was Bart
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simpson actually hurt by this?  Or the fictional Japanese
>>>>>>>>>>>>> schoolgirl?  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can understand the prohibition against possession of real
>>>>>>>>>>>>> child porn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (because it creates a market for such things) though I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it completely.  I think it should be a prohibition against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *distribution* of child pornography, not simply "possession",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if for no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other reason than people might be likely to hand it over to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement without the fear of going to jail themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prohibition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> against "virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be fought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what does this mean to us?  It means that if something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offends you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you should suck it up and learn to live with it.  Grow some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thicker skin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see if you can find a sense of humor on sale somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freedom of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression, if that's a concept you agree with, has to trump
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "freedom
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from being offended".  The minute you allow the idea that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are just too horrible to be read or viewed, then you've just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of freedom of expression out the window.  Now you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> slippery slope where the definition of "too horrible" tends
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to match the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideals of the people who are in power at any given moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they most often end up defending things that they might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehemently
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with.  They defend the speech of people they simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or don't agree with, and they defend speech they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally offended
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by because the speech that everyone agrees with is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> threatened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by the NSA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> website,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I wasn't, then I would still be fighting for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right to be as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inane with their metaphors as they wish.  I applaud them,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not rushing to change the page in an orgy of political
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>> 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
> =======================================================

"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list