[Vision2020] Response to Website Contact (rec'd from TomandRodna.com)

Rosemary Huskey donaldrose at cpcinternet.com
Wed Apr 27 20:37:37 PDT 2011

At the risk of intruding into what appears to be a two-party conversation I
would like to address the issues you have raised about anonymity, Paul. In
this particular case, it seems to me that "Concerned" was stating his/her
opinion, about the posting of photographs of Steven Sitler along with
related (Legally Obtained) documents.  As far as I can tell, no one on V2020
is suggesting that the anonymous author is defending Steven Sitler's
horrendous behavior.  In fact, I agreed entirely with Doug Wilson's
assessment of ChoMo Sitlerm four years ago when he wrote:
oan-Opyr-Cub-Reporter&catid=68:moscow-diversity-cleansing> "I believe that
if Steven [Sitler] is returned to our community, he should be welcomed as a
criminal and serial pedophile and a dangerous man, as well as a sinner who
professes repentance."

Consequently, it is absolutely astonishing that Doug and his band of merry
men can, in the space of four years, completely transformed and reinvent Mr.
Steven Sitler from a criminal, serial pedophile, dangerous man to a
delightful and godly young man who will be marrying an NSA graduate with the
blessing of the Kirk and the elders. Doug Wilson, will be officiating at the
June 11th wedding.  Who would've thunk it would turn out like this?

Rose Huskey


From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:12 PM
To: Paul Rumelhart
Cc: Rosemary Huskey; Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Response to Website Contact (rec'd from


Fair enough, Paul. I'm not an enemy of anonymity. I wouldn't want to ban it,
for instance. I've had some bad luck with it, locally speaking. It is abused
on the Daily News website in a way that seems to play into the hands of the
local, radical right -- just to use one example.

Do you think it is impossible to know who wrote something if the author is
anonymous? Don't you think one might have reason to believe that an
anonymous posting is written by a particular person or a particular church?
After all, you don't know for certain who is writing this letter. If
absolute certainty is the measure, then no one knows anything. If something
less is the measure, then were you to follow local politics for a number of
year's, you might have pretty good reason for belief in particular cases.

Two things I don't like in public debate, things that I think are harmful to
public debate: lying and deception. Reasons for belief are hard to come by
and the value of public debate, as I see it, is that we can get a variety of
reasons for and against a variety of issues. But if someone offers nothing
other than lies, fallacies, or some other form of deception, that is a
disservice to the debate. 

Maybe he/she believes that X on the basis of fear, for instance. But how can
his/her fear be a reason for me to believe that X? It can't. All one can do
in that case is -- in an effort to get one to believe that X -- is share the
fear. That can't be a good thing. Thus, in public debate we have an
obligation to provide objective reasons for belief, not sneaky rhetoric. And
as a matter of fact, there are quite a few local conservatives who use
anonymity as just one more tool in the rhetorical tool box. I don't see how
anyone benefits from that, though I understand how someone might fool
him/herself into thinking there is a benefit.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>

If these people are anonymous, how do we know they are all from the same

Also, I wasn't claiming that anyone here was demonizing anybody, only that
society demonizes the concept of "sexual offender"; so much so that even
accused of a sex crime and proven innocent later can still screw up your
It's not too much of a stretch to think that arguing against this sort of
can get you into trouble, depending upon what your circumstances are.
Hence, a
possible reason for the anonymity.

In today's world where your iPad follows your movements and multi-national
conglomerates follow your every webpage click, I would say that privacy and
anonymity are in need of defending upon occasion.


P.S.  Practice safe web browsing - run Adblock and NoScript or their

and delete cookies from obvious ad agencies.

----- Original Message ----
From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Rosemary Huskey <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>; Moscow Vision 2020
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wed, April 27, 2011 4:21:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Response to Website Contact (rec'd from

If all the anonymity is coming from the same members of the same church,
not a good thing. Not good because it might be hiding the true opinions and
influence of the church or it's members.

And I can't help but note how ironic it is that you use the term "demonize."
When NSA calls secularism "evil," when Bouma's pastor calls Mormons
"blasphemous" -- both cases of literal demonization -- it gets counted as
"religious" opinion. Yet pointing out that a pedophile has been left in the
of an unqualified pastor is "demonization."

On Apr 26, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 04/26/2011 08:09 AM, Rosemary Huskey wrote:
>> Hi Tom and Visionaries,
>> Because "Concerned" isn't concerned enough to sign his/her name we can
>> easily dismiss his/her opinions.
> While I can sympathize with this statement in a lot of different
> contexts, there are plenty of times where anonymity can be a good
> thing.  For example, when you want to state an unpopular opinion
> relating to a topic that is often demonized to such a degree that merely
> stating that someone is going too far can bring unwelcome pressure to
> bear upon yourself.
> I'm not actually that "Concerned", though.
> 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
> =======================================================


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110427/b364fed8/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list