[Vision2020] Fw: Re: Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance

Darrell Keim keim153 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 5 10:49:59 PDT 2010 

Looks to me like you both need to step back and take a few deep breaths.

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:29 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Joe
> Take a tranquilizer.  I never intended for any of this to be off list. I
> hit "reply all" on all my responses. If you intended for it to be off list,
> It was not obvious. I usually honor requests for off list posting. The
> heading here had been on list and I assumed it still was. Will some one
> please show me where I have been offensive and Joe has been the model of
> civility and decorum.
> Joe, for your information, I sometimes vote for democrats. I voted for
> Butch this time, but I do like Keth Allred and think he would have been a
> good governor. I am also a member of his group "The Common Interest."
>
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
>
> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:53:23 -0700
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
>
> You are a liar. You are offensive and narrow minded. If your last email
> can't convince you of this, the one with the offensive, misleading comments
> about democrats, nothing will. I voted for Tom Trail, you vote for
> inexperienced bigots who refuse to answer reasonable questions. You give
> Republicans a bad name and would serve them better by keeping your mouth
> shut.
>
> And criticizing your stupid, misspelled comments is not the same as
> insulting you, you jackass. Keep this letter to remind yourself of the
> difference and DO NOT contact me off list again. I'll keep my comments to
> exposing your never ending string of fallacies.
>
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:32 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> > Joe
> > speak for your self on being offensive. I have  tried to carry on a civil
> discussion. You twist my words to represent me as the opposite of what I
> said Apparently any thing that does not agree with your opinion is offensive
> and narrow minded. So much for being an objective philosophy professor.
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:15:57 -0700
> > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
> >
> >> I cut and pasted the sentence, Roger. You reread your own sentences.
> >> I'm done talking to you. You are offensive and narrow minded, based on
> >> your last post if nothing else. I want to talk to people who have a
> >> chance of hearing me. You don't. Sorry but life is short!
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>> Joe
> >>> Re-read my first sentence where I quoted the 1st Amendment verbatim.I
> said "exercise".The sentence you referenced was not an exact quote. The
> difference between exercise and express in the sence in which it was used is
> a matter of semantics.
> >>> Your sentence-"The issue is allowing me to partake in  my own religious
> practices, as I see fit: to exercise my religious freedom." is what I have
> been saying all along. No where have I ever said that I favor laws favoring
> the establishment on one religion over another. I would be vehemently
> opposed to any laws doing so.
> >>> The University is a public place. When I worked there, I shared an
> office for a time with a Moslem. He asked me if it was alright with me if he
> said his noon prayer in the office. I told him that "as long as it did not
> interfere  with what I was doing go right ahead." Every day at noon he got
> out his little carpet, kneeled on it and said his prayers. This was fine
> with me. It did me no harm.
> >>> Roger
> >>> -----Original message-----
> >>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:07:12 -0700
> >>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
> >>>
> >>>> Well the second amendment doesn't say anything about armor piercing
> >>>> bullets. And why not just understand "arms" the way the framers of the
> >>>> constitution understood it, as referring to the kinds of arms that
> >>>> they had back then? Why assume they meant what we mean by "arms"
> >>>> today?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm just applying the "fundamentalist" criteria you applied to the
> >>>> first amendment on your interpretation of the second. Why not be
> >>>> consistent? I have no problem with the second amendment as you
> >>>> understand it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, let's not forget about Amendment IX: "The enumeration in
> >>>> the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
> >>>> disparage others retained by the people." This blows a hole in the
> >>>> myth of absolute rights. Sorry it wasn't me who did it but the framers
> >>>> of our Constitution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, wrt the first amendment, you wrote: "What it says is that no
> >>>> state religion  is to be established and that every one has the right
> >>>> to express their religious beliefs or lack there of." But it doesn't
> >>>> say this at all. It doesn't use the word "express" it uses the word
> >>>> "exercise." The issue isn't about voicing my religious views, which is
> >>>> already covered by the free speech portion of the first amendment. The
> >>>> issue is allowing me to partake in my own religious practices, as I
> >>>> see fit; to exercise my religious freedom. Kind of hard to do if we
> >>>> make laws favoring one religion over another. Your radical religious
> >>>> friends are no fans of the first amendment, correctly understood.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Joe
> >>>>> 2nd Amendment
> >>>>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
> infringed."
> >>>>> That is what the Constitution says, which I support.
> >>>>> Roger
> >>>>> -----Original message-----
> >>>>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:47:53 -0700
> >>>>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr:  The Triumph of Igorance
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> No where in the constitution does it say that individuals have a
> right to bear semi-automatic rifles.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you must be for gun control, Roger!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The First Amendment
> >>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion,or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom
> of speech,or of the press,or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and
> or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> >>>>>>> No where is there any thing said about the separation of church and
> state. What it says is that no state religion  is to be established and that
> every one has the right to express their religious beliefs or lack there of.
> The "separation of church and state" comes from an article written by Thomas
> Jefferson in which he said "There should be a wall of separation between
> church and state" ,but it no where in the Constitution.
> >>>>>>> Roger
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original message-----
> >>>>>>> From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:24:30 -0700
> >>>>>>> To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr:  The Triumph of Igorance
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LEONARD PITTS JR.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We don't deserve this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
> States That's for Christine O'Donnell.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" she
> asked last week, drawing gasps and astonished laughter from an audience of
> law school students.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Chris Coons, her Democratic opponent for a Delaware Senate seat,
> replied that in asking the question, O'Donnell shows "fundamental
> misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment
> establishes the separation ..."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> O'Donnell wasn't buying it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "The First Amendment does? ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the
> phrase 'separation of church and state,' is found in the First Amendment?"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It was a bizarre exchange that permits but two conclusions. One,
> O'Donnell is frighteningly ignorant, particularly for a woman who claims
> constitutional expertise and aspires to the Senate. Or, two, assuming you
> buy her after-the-fact explanation (she was merely observing that the phrase
> "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment), she is
> terribly disingenuous.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> After all, the framers' intention to isolate church from state and
> vice versa is evident in the amendment's wording and is a matter of
> long-settled law, besides. The phrase "freedom of expression" doesn't appear
> in the First Amendment, either.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Would O'Donnell question that right, too?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe I shouldn't ask.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While one is appalled by O'Donnell's ignorance and/or
> disingenuousness, one is not surprised. The capacity to be surprised by her
> died long ago, victim of revelations that she once "dabbled" in witchcraft.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And was the subject of an IRS lien. And said people with AIDS
> brought the disease upon themselves. And was sued for nonpayment by her
> college and mortgage company. And was cited eight times by the Federal
> Elections Commission And thinks scientists have created mice with human
> brains.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That this woman is a major party candidate for national office,
> that she is among the brightest stars of a constellation of like-minded
> cranks - some of them already in office - tells you all you need to know
> about this moment in our political life. Welcome to the United States of
> Amnesia.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Somehow we have forgotten the lesson we spent most of the last
> decade learning at ruinous cost: that faith-based governance, foreign policy
> by gut instinct, choosing leaders on the basis of which one we'd most like
> to watch television with, simply does not work.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some say this is a conservative revolution, but this is no
> conservatism Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater would have recognized. At
> least their ideology adhered to an interior logic. This ideology adheres to
> a perverse "illogic" that posits that the less you know, the more authentic
> you are. So what triumphs here is not conservatism, but rather, mediocrity.
> The Know Nothings and Flat Earthers are ascendant. But intellect matters.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Knowledge is good. And what's it tell you that that point even
> needs to be made?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In a recent debate, O'Donnell was asked to name a modern Supreme
> Court decision to which she objects. "Oh, gosh," she said. "Give me a
> specific one, I'm sorry. ... Right off the top of my head, I know that there
> are a lot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some of us are reminded of how candidate George W. Bush kept
> calling Greeks "Grecians."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some of us remember how the electorate shrugged off that evidence
> of looming gaps in his basic knowledge because he had a folksy way and
> twinkling eyes. Some of us remember how that came out.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Others apparently don't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Others are ready to travel that road again. It brings to mind an
> old saying: we get the leaders we deserve.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You and I better hope that's not true.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:53:23 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
> You are a liar. You are offensive and narrow minded. If your last email
> can't convince you of this, the one with the offensive, misleading comments
> about democrats, nothing will. I voted for Tom Trail, you vote for
> inexperienced bigots who refuse to answer reasonable questions. You give
> Republicans a bad name and would serve them better by keeping your mouth
> shut.
>
> And criticizing your stupid, misspelled comments is not the same as
> insulting you, you jackass. Keep this letter to remind yourself of the
> difference and DO NOT contact me off list again. I'll keep my comments to
> exposing your never ending string of fallacies.
>
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:32 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> > Joe
> > speak for your self on being offensive. I have  tried to carry on a civil
> discussion. You twist my words to represent me as the opposite of what I
> said Apparently any thing that does not agree with your opinion is offensive
> and narrow minded. So much for being an objective philosophy professor.
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:15:57 -0700
> > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
> >
> >> I cut and pasted the sentence, Roger. You reread your own sentences.
> >> I'm done talking to you. You are offensive and narrow minded, based on
> >> your last post if nothing else. I want to talk to people who have a
> >> chance of hearing me. You don't. Sorry but life is short!
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>> Joe
> >>> Re-read my first sentence where I quoted the 1st Amendment verbatim.I
> said "exercise".The sentence you referenced was not an exact quote. The
> difference between exercise and express in the sence in which it was used is
> a matter of semantics.
> >>> Your sentence-"The issue is allowing me to partake in  my own religious
> practices, as I see fit: to exercise my religious freedom." is what I have
> been saying all along. No where have I ever said that I favor laws favoring
> the establishment on one religion over another. I would be vehemently
> opposed to any laws doing so.
> >>> The University is a public place. When I worked there, I shared an
> office for a time with a Moslem. He asked me if it was alright with me if he
> said his noon prayer in the office. I told him that "as long as it did not
> interfere  with what I was doing go right ahead." Every day at noon he got
> out his little carpet, kneeled on it and said his prayers. This was fine
> with me. It did me no harm.
> >>> Roger
> >>> -----Original message-----
> >>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:07:12 -0700
> >>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr: The Triumph of Igorance
> >>>
> >>>> Well the second amendment doesn't say anything about armor piercing
> >>>> bullets. And why not just understand "arms" the way the framers of the
> >>>> constitution understood it, as referring to the kinds of arms that
> >>>> they had back then? Why assume they meant what we mean by "arms"
> >>>> today?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm just applying the "fundamentalist" criteria you applied to the
> >>>> first amendment on your interpretation of the second. Why not be
> >>>> consistent? I have no problem with the second amendment as you
> >>>> understand it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, let's not forget about Amendment IX: "The enumeration in
> >>>> the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
> >>>> disparage others retained by the people." This blows a hole in the
> >>>> myth of absolute rights. Sorry it wasn't me who did it but the framers
> >>>> of our Constitution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, wrt the first amendment, you wrote: "What it says is that no
> >>>> state religion  is to be established and that every one has the right
> >>>> to express their religious beliefs or lack there of." But it doesn't
> >>>> say this at all. It doesn't use the word "express" it uses the word
> >>>> "exercise." The issue isn't about voicing my religious views, which is
> >>>> already covered by the free speech portion of the first amendment. The
> >>>> issue is allowing me to partake in my own religious practices, as I
> >>>> see fit; to exercise my religious freedom. Kind of hard to do if we
> >>>> make laws favoring one religion over another. Your radical religious
> >>>> friends are no fans of the first amendment, correctly understood.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Joe
> >>>>> 2nd Amendment
> >>>>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
> infringed."
> >>>>> That is what the Constitution says, which I support.
> >>>>> Roger
> >>>>> -----Original message-----
> >>>>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:47:53 -0700
> >>>>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr:  The Triumph of Igorance
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> No where in the constitution does it say that individuals have a
> right to bear semi-automatic rifles.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you must be for gun control, Roger!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:56 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The First Amendment
> >>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion,or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom
> of speech,or of the press,or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and
> or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> >>>>>>> No where is there any thing said about the separation of church and
> state. What it says is that no state religion  is to be established and that
> every one has the right to express their religious beliefs or lack there of.
> The "separation of church and state" comes from an article written by Thomas
> Jefferson in which he said "There should be a wall of separation between
> church and state" ,but it no where in the Constitution.
> >>>>>>> Roger
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original message-----
> >>>>>>> From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:24:30 -0700
> >>>>>>> To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Leonard Pitts Jr:  The Triumph of Igorance
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LEONARD PITTS JR.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We don't deserve this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
> States That's for Christine O'Donnell.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" she
> asked last week, drawing gasps and astonished laughter from an audience of
> law school students.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Chris Coons, her Democratic opponent for a Delaware Senate seat,
> replied that in asking the question, O'Donnell shows "fundamental
> misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment
> establishes the separation ..."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> O'Donnell wasn't buying it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "The First Amendment does? ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the
> phrase 'separation of church and state,' is found in the First Amendment?"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It was a bizarre exchange that permits but two conclusions. One,
> O'Donnell is frighteningly ignorant, particularly for a woman who claims
> constitutional expertise and aspires to the Senate. Or, two, assuming you
> buy her after-the-fact explanation (she was merely observing that the phrase
> "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment), she is
> terribly disingenuous.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> After all, the framers' intention to isolate church from state and
> vice versa is evident in the amendment's wording and is a matter of
> long-settled law, besides. The phrase "freedom of expression" doesn't appear
> in the First Amendment, either.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Would O'Donnell question that right, too?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe I shouldn't ask.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While one is appalled by O'Donnell's ignorance and/or
> disingenuousness, one is not surprised. The capacity to be surprised by her
> died long ago, victim of revelations that she once "dabbled" in witchcraft.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And was the subject of an IRS lien. And said people with AIDS
> brought the disease upon themselves. And was sued for nonpayment by her
> college and mortgage company. And was cited eight times by the Federal
> Elections Commission And thinks scientists have created mice with human
> brains.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That this woman is a major party candidate for national office,
> that she is among the brightest stars of a constellation of like-minded
> cranks - some of them already in office - tells you all you need to know
> about this moment in our political life. Welcome to the United States of
> Amnesia.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Somehow we have forgotten the lesson we spent most of the last
> decade learning at ruinous cost: that faith-based governance, foreign policy
> by gut instinct, choosing leaders on the basis of which one we'd most like
> to watch television with, simply does not work.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some say this is a conservative revolution, but this is no
> conservatism Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater would have recognized. At
> least their ideology adhered to an interior logic. This ideology adheres to
> a perverse "illogic" that posits that the less you know, the more authentic
> you are. So what triumphs here is not conservatism, but rather, mediocrity.
> The Know Nothings and Flat Earthers are ascendant. But intellect matters.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Knowledge is good. And what's it tell you that that point even
> needs to be made?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In a recent debate, O'Donnell was asked to name a modern Supreme
> Court decision to which she objects. "Oh, gosh," she said. "Give me a
> specific one, I'm sorry. ... Right off the top of my head, I know that there
> are a lot, but I'll put it up on my website, I promise you."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some of us are reminded of how candidate George W. Bush kept
> calling Greeks "Grecians."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some of us remember how the electorate shrugged off that evidence
> of looming gaps in his basic knowledge because he had a folksy way and
> twinkling eyes. Some of us remember how that came out.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Others apparently don't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Others are ready to travel that road again. It brings to mind an
> old saying: we get the leaders we deserve.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You and I better hope that's not true.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>> 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/20101105/03d0fb6e/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list