[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Wed Mar 17 10:55:07 PDT 2010
Forget it. I don't have time to read this more carefully. Joe
On Mar 17, 2010, at 1:30 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> Before you waste time commenting on something I didn't say, please
> take the time to read very carefully what I did say.
>
> W.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: Art Deco
> Cc: Vision 2020
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> It might be a while before I get to this but until I do I just want
> to point out that putting something in boldface and asserting that
> it is a FACT and not a philosophical point does not MAKE it an
> empirical fact. It might still be a philosophical point. In my
> experience, most people who criticize philosophy HAVE a philosophy.
> What they are really criticizing is OTHER philosophies than there
> own. If you are going to dogmatically assert that empiricism is true
> and that it can be SHOWN to be true by empirical methods all I can
> do is laugh and note that you are begging the question.
>
> Consider this. I'm a rationalist, that is, I think that SOME claims
> are established by a priori insight or something like that. Others
> think that some knowledge is gained by faith. I'm not trying to
> convince you of these views. I'm just noting that there are views
> that are contrary to yours. And how do we decide which is correct?
> Obviously if we prejudge that are method is to be empiricism, your
> view will emerge as the victor. But I hope you can see that this
> begs the question. Note that I didn't say you couldn't tell a fancy
> story to support your view I only claimed in the end it would beg
> the question.
>
> Now on the face of it, this looks like a philosophical dispute. You
> claim that all knowledge comes from experience (or mathematical
> proof), I claim some knowledge is a product of rational insight, and
> others that some knowledge is a product of faith. And there doesn't
> appear to be a way of settling the issue without begging the
> question. Which was what I said.
>
> I'll comment on the specifics later.
>
> Thanks! Joe
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:47 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe, (& Andreas, Sunil),
>>
>> I have included Joe's second post below so that I can respond to
>> both posts at the same time. I hope that others not interested in
>> a technical discussion will not be too bored, or if so, they will
>> find other things to do which they will find a more productive use
>> of their time.
>>
>> To avoid repeating material, here are two comments which I will
>> refer to by names, below.
>>
>>
>> Pigtails: A statement of the form "All X is Y" is refuted by
>> finding a single X that is not Y.
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> To refute the statement: "All pigs have curly tails" all that is
>> necessary is a single counterexample like pointing to pig whose
>> tail sticks straight out like a certain part of the anatomy of a
>> certain church elder does at a certain topless/bottomless bar.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if there are a billion pigs with curly tails and
>> only one with a straight tail, the exception refutes the truth of
>> the general statement.
>>
>>
>> Stones: Dick and Jane are in the middle of a football field. Jane
>> is a carrying a 100 pound stone. Jane asserts: "If I throw this
>> stone, it will land on the football field." Dick disagrees. What
>> method do you use to determine the truth of the knowledge claim at
>> issue? Obviously, let Jane throw the stone, an empirical method
>> where observation will determine if the knowledge claim is true.
>> Also note that the probability that the stone will land in the
>> football field is infinitesimally close to 1.00.
>>
>> I hope that neither Joe, Andreas, nor Sunil will be in disagreement
>> with the above. If either are, then the argument can proceed no
>> further.
>>
>>
>> Knowledge Claims
>>
>> From my perspective statements of the form "X is Y" are generally
>> knowledge claims. There are some instances of such statements in
>> poetry, for example, that are not. However, statements like the
>> following are knowledge claims:
>>
>> 1. "The Klein-4 group is an Abelian group."
>>
>> 2. "The current through a conductor between two points is
>> directly proportional to the potential difference or voltage across
>> the two points, and inversely proportional to the resistance
>> between them, provided that the temperature remains constant."
>>
>> 3. "Sheep reproduce asexually."
>>
>> 4. "Bartok is the greatest composer ever."
>>
>> 5. "You should never kill another human being."
>>
>> 6. "Every human being is more valuable than every other animal."
>>
>> Given that statements of the form "X is Y" are knowledge claims,
>> the problem then becomes what agreed upon methods can be
>> successfully used to determine the truth of the various kinds of
>> knowledge claims.
>>
>> Statement 1. above is a statement is an axiomatic system called
>> Group Theory. It's truth is determined by logical/deductive
>> methods. However, the axioms of the system were not chosen
>> blindly, but were chosen to be true of certain aspects of the
>> language that is used to describe the physical world, hence the
>> truth of the axioms is a matter of observation.
>>
>> Logical methods are used to determine the truth of such
>> mathematical statements given the truth of the axioms. This is not
>> an infallible method, however. In the 19th Century, George Boole
>> found an error in the up-to-that-point-thought-infallible system of
>> Aristotelian Logic. The advent in the 19th Century of Non-
>> Euclidean Geometry(s) and the subsequent theories of Einstein (now
>> partially confirmed) showed that at least one of once-worshiped-as-
>> irrevocably-true axioms of Euclidean Geometry were not true of the
>> universe writ in large.
>>
>> Statements 2. and 3. are knowledge claims whose truth or falsity
>> are determined by empirical methods -- combinations of logical and
>> observation methods. Using such methods, humankind has sent
>> persons to the moon and back while transmitting parts of this event
>> in real-time to millions of people. The empirical method succeeds
>> in part because precise definitions are required.
>>
>> Empirical methods are not infallible either. Mistakes can be made
>> -- many of which are self-correcting in time; some problems at
>> present are not completely amenable to empirical methods because of
>> their practical complexity -- issues in the social sciences, for
>> example. The best that can be said that knowledge claims that can
>> be tested empirically is that they have truth that is at best
>> probable, not absolute. Some of the probabilities are
>> infinitesimally close to 1.00 such as Ohm's Law, at least in the
>> terrestrial environment, but there is always that possibility of a
>> counterexample being discovered.
>>
>> It is a fact, not a philosophical position, that certain kinds of
>> knowledge claims are successfully resolved by empirical methods,
>> notwithstanding the problem of induction.
>>
>> Statements 4., 5., and 6. are commonly called value statements.
>>
>> The three that were chosen each illustrate that in our present
>> state of knowledge there is not a generally accepted method to
>> establish their truth. It is not a simple matter like the stones
>> example above. The phrase "in our present state of knowledge" is
>> included so as to not preclude the discovery of such a method in
>> the future.
>>
>> Musicians, musicologists, ordinary people argue, so far without
>> resolution, about who is the greatest composer. Even expertly
>> trained musicians who are thoroughly knowledgeable about all
>> factual matters with respect to a composition's structure and live
>> sound, and agree upon such, will still disagree about who is
>> the greatest composer.
>>
>> There are many who assert quite apodictically that it is never
>> justified to kill another human being even in self-defense. The
>> truth of these kind of assertions are not demonstrable by empirical
>> methods like the in stones example. One cannot produce
>> observations that demonstrate the truth of such a knowledge claim.
>>
>> That is not to say that facts or probabilities established by
>> empirical methods are not useful or necessary in resolving certain
>> value or ethical disputes. They are very important; but not
>> completely definitive. Further, many of us reject as fanciful,
>> unsupported speculation the use of alleged supernatural beings and
>> their alleged dicta as relevant in such resolutions.
>>
>> In a nutshell, if we want to establish the truth of a knowledge
>> claim then first we must define the terms of that claim
>> unambiguously; then we must agree upon a method to test its truth.
>> So far, in our present state of Knowledge we have not established a
>> generally agreed upon method to establish the truth of knowledge
>> claims which are value statements of the kind given as examples (4.
>> - 6.) above.
>>
>>
>> Applications
>>
>> Restating the argument against capital punishment given by Andreas/
>> Joe:
>>
>> 1. There is no situation where the judicially-sanctioned murder
>> of an innocent person is justified.
>> 2. Regimes which allow the death penalty result in the execution
>> of innocent people.
>> __________________________________________________________________________________
>> 3. Therefore, the death penalty is never justified.
>>
>> Premise 2. is highly likely true at this time. There probably
>> isn't a regime with the death penalty the result of whose judicial
>> system hasn't caused the execution of an innocent person. This
>> premise is not a value knowledge claim, but a matter that can be
>> determined to be true by empirical methods.
>>
>>
>> However, premise 1. is a knowledge claim about values. Notice
>> that it is a "all X is Y" statement. Hence, referring to the
>> pigtails example above, it is only necessary to find one
>> counterexample that at least some observers might cite.
>>
>> During WWI and WWII when very strategic ground battles were to be
>> fought with the expectation of very high casualties and there were
>> the probabilities of massive troop desertions, the following has
>> been alleged: An officer would chose a particularly inept soldier,
>> one whose ineptness threatened harm to the unit, and accuse him of
>> being caught deserting. A summary court-martial would held, the
>> accused though innocent would be convicted, and then executed.
>>
>> The argument of the upper command was this: executing what the
>> other troops saw as a deserter would prevent some of the other
>> potential deserters from deserting and thus increase the
>> probability of a military victory of sorts in the oncoming battle.
>> The argument was that by killing one innocent person, many other
>> lives would be saved in battle, and perhaps the course of the war
>> changed so that millions of lives would be saved.
>>
>> The ethical principle invoked was that saving many lives justified
>> killing one innocent person. Notice the context is a judicial
>> system, albeit a military one.
>>
>> Obviously, many would find this alleged principle repugnant; others
>> would agree with the principle. By what generally accepted method
>> would you resolve this dispute? I do not know of one. Hence, this
>> example certainly seems to raise a legitimate question about the
>> truth of premise 1. above.
>>
>>
>> If the knowledge claim is that there is not a single case where
>> capital punishment is justified, therefore capital punishment ought
>> be abolished, then referring to the pigtails example above there
>> is another counterexample, as mentioned earlier: The cases where
>> the evidence is overwhelming, a confession is made and is
>> overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and the convicted demands to
>> be executed. The issue of executing an innocent man does not arise
>> here.
>>
>> I chose statement 6. ("Every human being is more valuable than
>> every other animal.") above for a purpose. I have a good friend
>> who is vehemently against capital punishment when we discuss it as
>> a subject per se. However, when we discuss people who poison pets
>> or off-roaders who chase/harass wildlife, this friend asserts that
>> they would have no hesitation in shooting these offenders, dead.
>>
>> Joe argues that convictions are only probabilities. Almost all
>> knowledge claims are only probabilities, even Ohm's Law, for
>> example. It is the strength of the probability that counts. The
>> very, very high probability of the guilt and the enormity of the
>> crime of Joseph Duncan justify his execution for me; obviously it
>> does not for Sunil, Andreas, and Joe. I am always open to advances
>> in methods of determining the truth of value knowledge claims and
>> open to hearing persuasive arguments on ethical matters. At one
>> time I too was against the death penalty. But facts learned and
>> very serious consideration changed my mind, as it has, and
>> continues to do on an assortment of ethical issues.
>>
>> This whole dispute is about determining the truth of knowledge
>> claims. If there is a generally accepted method of determining the
>> truth of knowledge claims about values with the same degree of
>> certainty in the stones example above, it has escaped the notice of
>> most of the world's population so far. If either Joe or Andreas is
>> claiming that there is such a method, perhaps they could submit
>> persuasive evidence of such. The problem as has been discussed ad
>> nauseam by philosophers is that value knowledge claims include an
>> emotive element which depends on an individual's inner mental/
>> physical sate, not just on exterior reality.
>>
>> There is hardly an ethical principle that is agreed upon
>> universally. If there were presently such a method of determining
>> the truth of value knowledge claims, one would expect substantial
>> agreement on many such principles.
>>
>> Joe claims that he knows that slavery is always wrong. Some people
>> disagree. For example, they cite the results of some slave efforts
>> to justify the slavery that produced them -- the seven wonders of
>> the world, for example.
>>
>> In the early to middle part of the 20th century in some areas of
>> the west able-bodied men were forced at gunpoint, threat of great
>> bodily harm, or imprisonment to help fight a flood or forest fire
>> threatening a town. This was involuntary servitude or slavery.
>> The authorities invoked the principle that the short sentence of
>> slavery (they called it helping your neighbors) was justified by
>> the circumstances -- saving the town. What generally accepted
>> method is there to resolve the truth of the value knowledge claims
>> here?
>>
>> If you have an adventurous/curious/not-easily-shocked mind venture
>> onto www.collarme.com. You will find that slavery is alive and
>> well today, even in Idaho, and that there are slaves that appear to
>> thrive in that environment, and are at least as happy or happier in
>> that environment as any other.
>>
>> As Joe is a professional philosopher who has studied ethics and
>> probably taught it, he knows in his heart-of-hearts that there is
>> no agreement today among all professional philosophers of a single
>> non-metalinguistic ethical principle, or of a system/method to
>> produce such.
>>
>>
>> Some may rue this situation. It would be nice to have ethical
>> principles clearly and irrevocably established whose truth
>> could be demonstrated in a manner like in the stones example
>> above. Such is not the case. If, or until such a method is
>> discovered, we will have inevitable conflict like we have had since
>> the beginning of humankind over these matters.
>>
>> W.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joe Campbell
>> To: Art Deco
>> Cc: Vision 2020
>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 11:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>>
>> I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument about
>> ethics below is a BAD argument.
>>
>> First, the view that knowledge is possible only through empirical
>> test is itself a philosophical view. Thus, it should be just as
>> unprovable as you claim ethical principles to be. The view is self-
>> refuting.
>>
>> Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable as
>> empirical claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong as I
>> am that my hand exists. Certainly people might dispute that slavery
>> is wrong but it can't follow from that that "slavery is wrong" is
>> unknowable. It is a consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis that ANY
>> evidence can be rejected if one is willing to accept the
>> consequences and revise enough of their beliefs. If you think that
>> dispute means lack of knowledge it is easy to show that no one
>> knows anything.
>>
>> Third, and related to the above, you can't give a non-question
>> begging proof of the existence of anything, even your hand. What
>> you can do is show that our actions convey that we all believe it
>> (given it is true). But the same can be shown about ethical claims.
>> Or so I think.
>>
>> Obviously this is controversial but the point is that your argument
>> asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical proof. But this won't
>> even work for your belief that you have a hand. Once you show me
>> why it is that you are entitled to believe that you have a hand,
>> I'm pretty confident I can duplicate the story for at least one
>> moral claim. Again, if you push the view you are holding,
>> skepticism follows. But then ethical principles are no longer unique.
>>
>> Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical disagreement is
>> really something else, say, a metaphysical dispute. Take the
>> abortion issue. Both sides AGREE that it is wrong to kill innocent
>> persons. They disagree about the metaphysical issue, e.g., what is
>> a person? (This is a simplification but hopefully you get the point.)
>>
>> Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are irresolveable
>> and, for that reason there will always be disagreement about
>> abortion. But you should be careful about drawing similar
>> conclusions about ethics.
>>
>> Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more common in
>> philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math (think about
>> Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). Absolutely NO broad
>> conclusions about the impossibility of resolution can be drawn from
>> this fact. So please keep talking about ethics!
>>
>> Best, Joe
>>
>> I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument about
>> ethics below is a BAD argument.
>>
>> First, the view that knowledge is possible only through empirical
>> test is itself a philosophical view. Thus, it should be just as
>> unprovable as you claim ethical principles to be. The view is self-
>> refuting.
>>
>> Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable as
>> empirical claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong as I
>> am that my hand exists. Certainly people might dispute that slavery
>> is wrong but it can't follow from that that "slavery is wrong" is
>> unknowable. It is a consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis that ANY
>> evidence can be rejected if one is willing to accept the
>> consequences and revise enough of their beliefs. If you think that
>> dispute means lack of knowledge it is easy to show that no one
>> knows anything.
>>
>> Third, and related to the above, you can't give a non-question
>> begging proof of the existence of anything, even your hand. What
>> you can do is show that our actions convey that we all believe it
>> (given it is true). But the same can be shown about ethical claims.
>> Or so I think.
>>
>> Obviously this is controversial but the point is that your argument
>> asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical proof. But this won't
>> even work for your belief that you have a hand. Once you show me
>> why it is that you are entitled to believe that you have a hand,
>> I'm pretty confident I can duplicate the story for at least one
>> moral claim. Again, if you push the view you are holding,
>> skepticism follows. But then ethical principles are no longer unique.
>>
>> Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical disagreement is
>> really something else, say, a metaphysical dispute. Take the
>> abortion issue. Both sides AGREE that it is wrong to kill innocent
>> persons. They disagree about the metaphysical issue, e.g., what is
>> a person? (This is a simplification but hopefully you get the point.)
>>
>> Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are irresolveable
>> and, for that reason there will always be disagreement about
>> abortion. But you should be careful about drawing similar
>> conclusions about ethics.
>>
>> Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more common in
>> philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math (think about
>> Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). Absolutely NO broad
>> conclusions about the impossibility of resolution can be drawn from
>> this fact. So please keep talking about ethics!
>>
>> Best, Joe
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2010, at 11:22 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's why arguments like we are engaged in cannot be resolved
>>> given our current state of knowledge:
>>>
>>> Ethical principles are not completely amenable to resolution by
>>> evidence or testing. If they were, we wouldn't have such a wide
>>> diversity of opinion on ethical matters held by decent, reasonable
>>> people. It's not like establishing Ohm's law or the Theory of
>>> Conditioned Reflexes. Facts count, but even when people agree on
>>> the facts, they may not agree on an underlying ethical principle.
>>>
>>> It appears you are arguing for the principle that capital is never
>>> justified, or equivalently there is not a single case
>>> where capital punishment is justified.
>>>
>>> How would you empirically establish the truth of such a broad
>>> statement? What observations would render the probability of such
>>> a statement being 1.00?
>>>
>>> The best we can do in our current state of knowledge (the absence
>>> of an agreed method to establish ethical principles without doubt)
>>> is to attempt to persuade others by citing facts or other ethical
>>> principles which they may agree upon.
>>>
>>> In order to refute the statement "There is not a single case where
>>> capital punishment is justified." only a single case need be shown.
>>>
>>> I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a counter-example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III
>>> )
>>>
>>> "Joseph Edward Duncan (born February 25, 1963) is an American
>>> convicted serial killer and sex offender who received national
>>> attention after being arrested in connection with the kidnapping
>>> of Shasta Groene,[1] aged 8, and her brother Dylan,[2] 9, and
>>> being featured on America's Most Wanted.[3] He pled guilty in
>>> December 2007 to 10 federal counts involving the kidnapping and
>>> torture of the children and the murder of Dylan at a remote
>>> campsite west of the Rocky Mountain Front, and was sentenced to
>>> death under federal laws for kidnapping resulting in death (he had
>>> already pleaded guilty in state court) on August 27, 2008. As of
>>> October 27, 2009, Duncan was being tried in Riverside County,
>>> California for the 1997 murder of Anthony Michael Martinez."
>>>
>>> There is a lot more, a horrifyingly graphic, sickening more.
>>>
>>> I could have also cited a number of confessed serial murderers or
>>> used those old favorites Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
>>>
>>> Given your belief in the statement "There is not a single case
>>> where capital punishment is justified." such counterexamples would
>>> not be persuasive to you. You would still hold the above ethical
>>> principle to be true despite the lack of a method to demonstrate
>>> it's truth. However, some people might be persuaded that Duncan
>>> should be executed and make his case an exception to their general
>>> opposition to capital punishment. In fact, I know of at least one
>>> such person.
>>>
>>> Until there is a method to establish the truth of general
>>> ethical principles differences of opinion like ours are not likely
>>> to be resolved. We may persuade each other about certain cases or
>>> classes of cases (like those where guilt is questionable), but in
>>> general we have no way to come to agreement like we might if we
>>> were arguing about the cause of diabetes or whether syphilis is
>>> caused by urinating in the moonlight.
>>>
>>>
>>> W.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Sunil Ramalingam
>>> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:15 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the
>>> death penalty
>>>
>>> Not even him, and you want to kill for less than that.
>>>
>>> From: deco at moscow.com
>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>> penalty
>>>
>>> Joseph E. Duncan III
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Sunil Ramalingam
>>> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:41 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>> penalty
>>>
>>> I've never seen a good argument for the death penalty from you,
>>> Wayne.
>>>
>>> Sunil
>>>
>>> From: deco at moscow.com
>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700
>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>>>
>>> Another good argument for the death penalty:
>>>
>>> Updated March 15, 2010
>>>
>>> Ex-Bank President Arrested for Allegedly Lying to Get TARP Money
>>>
>>> AP
>>>
>>>
>>> The former president of a small community bank was arrested on
>>> charges that he lied to the federal government to get a piece of
>>> the bailout program, authorities said Monday.
>>> NEW YORK -- The former president of a small community bank was
>>> arrested on charges that he lied to the federal government to get
>>> a piece of the bailout program, authorities said Monday.
>>> Charles Antonucci Sr. was charged in a criminal complaint filed in
>>> U.S. District Court in Manhattan with self-dealing, bank bribery,
>>> embezzlement and fraud.
>>> Authorities said the rip-off targeted the New York
>>> State Banking Department, the Federal Deposit
>>> Insurance Corp. and the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
>>> Antonucci resigned last year as president of The Park Avenue Bank,
>>> which is headquartered in Manhattan with four retail branches in
>>> Manhattan and Brooklyn.
>>> Among other allegations, Antonucci was accused of using false
>>> information to request $11 million from the federal government's
>>> TARP bank bailout program.
>>> The complaint accused him of lying to banking authorities in late
>>> 2008 and early 2009 to make them believe he had invested $6.5
>>> million of his own money in the bank when the money actually
>>> belonged to the bank.
>>> After the application for TARP money was rejected, Antonucci did a
>>> media interview in which he said the bank withdrew its application
>>> because of "issues" with the TARP program and a desire to avoid
>>> "market perception" that bad banks take TARP money, the complaint
>>> said.
>>> Federal authorities say Antonucci actually wanted to obtain
>>> millions of dollars for his own use, in part so he could obtain a
>>> controlling interest in the bank.
>>> They said he also permitted a former administrative assistant to
>>> obtain $400,000 of loans the assistant was not qualified for. The
>>> complaint said the former assistant is now cooperating.
>>> The complaint alleged that Antonucci later used the former bank
>>> employee's private plane on 10 or more occasions, including trips
>>> to Phoenix to attend the Super Bowl, to Augusta, Ga.,
>>> to watch the Master's golf tournament, a flight to Florida to
>>> visit a relative and a flight to Panama.
>>> Antonucci's lawyer, Charles Stillman, said he had just gotten a
>>> copy of the charges. He declined immediate comment.
>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100317/9c3c78a0/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list