[Vision2020] Roger: Who has the facts?
Chuck Kovis
ckovis at turbonet.com
Fri Feb 11 13:48:07 PST 2011
Roger, how hard does a man have to work for 5 billion dollars a year as a
hedge fund manager? As hard as the guy who empties the trash cans at the U
of I? How much sweat off his brow does that hedge fund manager have to
drip? As much as the cow/calf operator out of Arock at 3:00 a.m. when he's
calving? How hard? Chuck Kovis
----- Original Message -----
From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
To: "Gier, Nicholas" <NGIER at uidaho.edu>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Roger: Who has the facts?
>I am not going to reduplicate it here, but read "PIIGS To The Slaughter" by
>Andrew Stuttaford in the December 20, 2010 issue of National Review. I do
>not question your figures, but I think that there is more to the story that
>what is presented here. The main issue is liberty and a right to keep what
>one has eaned by the sweat of his brow. Society has a duty to care more the
>mentally handicapped , the physically disabled and veterans. But to take
>from those that have worked hard for what they have and give to to the able
>bodied who won't work is stealing and is morally wrong. I would be in favor
>of eliminating all subsides and tax brakes. I would make an exception for
>subsidies in case of a natural cetastrophe. An exception could be make for
>tax brakes if it can be clearly shown that it will benefit the state in
>some way, such as providing more jobs and overall improve the economy.
>This should be reviewed every few years. In the end I will stick with Ben
>Franklin.
> Roger
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Gier, Nicholas" NGIER at uidaho.edu
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:25:41 -0800
> To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: RE: Roger: Who has the facts?
>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> I meant to send my original message to the Vision, and it and your reply
>> is below.
>>
>> Here are some figures from "The Economist," which even Jeff would have
>> sense enough to NOT call biased. Business people all over the world rely
>> on their data. So I challenge you to show me where the bias is.
>>
>> Excerpt from my column "Germany Leads Europe's Recovery":
>>
>> The latest figures (four months ago) published in The Economist shows
>> that the 16 countries in the Eurozone grew at an annualized rate of 3.9
>> percent, while the U.S. dropped to 1.6 percent. Just as is the case with
>> the individual American states, the performance these countries ran the
>> gamut from good to poor. Germany led with a dramatic 9 percent increase,
>> while Sweden followed with 4.7 percent (Sweden has now jumped ahead),
>> Britain (still under Labor rule) at 4.5 percent (but now 1.5 percent
>> under the Conservatives), Denmark with 3.9 percent, and Austria
>> increasing 3.8 percent.
>>
>> While the U.S. is struggling with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate,
>> Norway, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark are at 3.5, 3.8, 3.9, and 4.1
>> percent respectively. Excluding Norway’s budget surplus because of its
>> oil wealth, the three remaining countries have an average budget deficit
>> of 3.8 percent.
>> The U.S. budget deficit has fallen 2.2 percent since April 7, but it is
>> still at 8.9 percent. Greece’s deficit is 9.5 percent, but Europe’s
>> highest is Ireland at 14 percent.
>>
>> It is significant to note that all these countries, except for Ireland,
>> were developed by Social Democrats, whose generous health and social
>> services (financed by high income taxes) have been trimmed only slightly
>> under recent center-right governments. According to free marketeers,
>> these countries should be economic basket cases, but obviously they are
>> not that at all. Indeed, it is primarily countries such as Iceland,
>> Ireland, and the Baltic States that have failed under libertarian, free
>> market policies. Greece went really bad with a center-right government
>> that hired Goldman Sachs to hide their deficits.
>>
>> In the 1990s the Danish Social Democrats invested in a jobs training
>> program (expending 20 times more per capita than the U.S. does), which
>> has kept unemployment at a 3-4 percent rate ever since. During their last
>> term in office (1995-2005) the German Social Democrats instituted a jobs
>> program and relaxed tight labor laws, and the number of unemployed
>> dropped from 5 million in 2005 to 3 million in 2008. Although the rate is
>> still relatively high at 7.6 percent, Germany is in its 13th straight
>> month of falling unemployment--right through the throes of the Great
>> Recession.
>>
>>
>> Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus
>> Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
>> "The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM
>> President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO
>> www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm
>> 208-882-9212, 1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lfalen [mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com]
>> Sent: Tue 2/8/2011 12:14 PM
>> To: Gier, Nicholas
>> Subject: Re: Roger: Who has the facts?
>>
>> I think that Jeff has better data than you do. That is just my opinion
>> and of course I am biased. I think your data is biased too. I am not sure
>> just where Sweden stands, but most of Europe is n trouble with over
>> extended debt. Just look at PIIGS. The US is not far behind. The third
>> way does not rock and they are headed for a fall. This is to say nothing
>> of individual liberty, which in the end is more important.
>> To paraphrase Ben Franklin " He who prefers security over liberty,
>> deserves nether"
>> Roger
>> -----Original message-----
>> From: "Gier, Nicholas" NGIER at uidaho.edu
>> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:26:06 -0800
>> To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com
>> Subject: Roger: Who has the facts?
>>
>> > Hi Roger,
>> >
>> > Not once have you shown that I have presented erroneous data.
>> >
>> > Some time ago I answered Jeff with hard data on refugees per capita and
>> > new citizens per capita that blew his claims about my "favorite
>> > countries" out of the water.
>> >
>> > No response yet from Jeff, and not a very good record of coming up with
>> > either facts or truths.
>> >
>> > A long time ago he said something about European unemployment, and I
>> > quoted from The Economist to show that he was wrong.
>> >
>> > My columns showing many European countries with high taxes and more
>> > regulation but lower deficits and lower unemployment go unrefuted by
>> > either you or Jeff. Currently the fastest growing economy in Europe is
>> > Sweden with 50 percent of its GDP in the public sector. I challenge
>> > any libertarian to explain how that can happen.
>> >
>> > The Third Way Rocks and libertarian theories are not supported by
>> > facts.
>> >
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus
>> > Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
>> > "The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM
>> > President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO
>> > www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm
>> > 208-882-9212, 1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of lfalen
>> > Sent: Tue 2/8/2011 10:52 AM
>> > To: Art Deco; Vision 2020
>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health
>> >
>> > I do not have that much of a problem with most f your list. I think
>> > that you violate number 3 as much as anyone. On number 4 , it would be
>> > good to substantiate what one says. There are some problems here. You
>> > throw out a bunch of statistics. Every one should know that statistics
>> > can be and are frequently skewed. This is done by leaving out relevant
>> > information and only taking into consideration a portion of the facts.
>> > This allows one to come up with an erroneous conclusion. My computer is
>> > old and slow. It I were to try and find substantiating data every time
>> > you ask for it would take me forever. I do not have that kind of time.
>> > I have a few other things to do that look up data just to satisfy you.
>> > You would just come up with more biased data to support your position.
>> > Frankly a am a little fed up with your egotistical, holier than thou
>> > attitude. Jeff does a good job of refuting the erroneous data put out
>> > by you and Nick. He is better able to do so than I am and for the m!
> ost !
>> > part I
>> > will leave it up to him.
>> > Roger
>> > -----Original message-----
>> > From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
>> > Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:05:34 -0800
>> > To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health
>> >
>> > > So, Roger, tell us of another approach to resolving disputes other
>> > > than:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Defining terms sufficiently, when necessary, so that each side
>> > > clearly knows and agrees on what the issues, alleged
>> > > facts/probabilities, and arguments mean and are.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Using valid argument forms, pointing out, when necessary, where
>> > > the opposite side is not using valid arguments and why.
>> > >
>> > > 3. Not telling lies or making absurdly gross exaggerations.
>> > >
>> > > 4. Where needed, or when requested, giving sources for alleged
>> > > "factual" information.
>> > >
>> > > 5. Understanding the probabilistic nature of knowledge, and the
>> > > problems inherent in supporting value statements.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Please tell us which of the above you object to and why. Then tell
>> > > us what you would do differently and why. Please tells us explicitly
>> > > in clear language, and why, yours is a better system/approach to
>> > > progressing toward the truth/resolution.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I can see why you and Crabtree don't like the above approach to issue
>> > > discussion/resolution. It put both of you at a formidable
>> > > disadvantage.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Wayne A. Fox
>> > > 1009 Karen Lane
>> > > PO Box 9421
>> > > Moscow, ID 83843
>> > >
>> > > waf at moscow.com
>> > > 208 882-7975
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: lfalen
>> > > To: the lockshop ; Reggie Holmquist
>> > > Cc: Vision 2020
>> > > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:27 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental
>> > > health
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Keep up the good work. I am out of here until next week. You do a
>> > > better job of dealing with these guys than I do. If you have ideas
>> > > that are different than theirs, then you are not responding with any
>> > > meaningful dialogue. I quess that it is hopeless to try and engage
>> > > then them on a civil plain. Wayne is real good at putting someone
>> > > down that takes a different approach that he wants you to. You just
>> > > arn't arguing within the proper framework.
>> > > Roger
>> > > -----Original message-----
>> > > From: "the lockshop" lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>> > > Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:24:53 -0800
>> > > To: "Reggie Holmquist" reggieholmquist at u.boisestate.edu
>> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental
>> > > health
>> > >
>> > > > Dude? Seriously? Maintaining my credibility with the surfer/skate
>> > > boyz segment of the forum isn't as high up on my priority list as it
>> > > used to be.
>> > > >
>> > > > g
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: Reggie Holmquist
>> > > > To: the lockshop
>> > > > Cc: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:55 AM
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental
>> > > health
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > "I, on the other hand think it would be good if you gave it a
>> > > rest."
>> > > >
>> > > > Or what? You'll call him "creepy" again? Or perhaps tell him
>> > > to "go pound sand"? You've lost credibility, dude.
>> > > >
>> > > > -Reggie
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM, the lockshop
>> > > <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > "dysfunctional disclarity"
>> > > >
>> > > > Dave Barry thinks that this would be a good name for a
>> > > neo-punk band.
>> > > >
>> > > > I, on the other hand think it would be good if you gave it a
>> > > rest.
>> > > >
>> > > > g
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: Art Deco
>> > > > To: Vision 2020
>> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:17 AM
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and
>> > > mental health
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The thesis is that you are not interested in constructive
>> > > dialog.
>> > > >
>> > > > Your response gives more than ample evidence of that. And
>> > > also more than ample evidence of dysfunctional disclarity.
>> > > >
>> > > > w.
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: Gary Crabtree
>> > > > To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:57 PM
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and
>> > > mental health
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > "Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on
>> > > the list that you consider to be "right" and "left" so that people
>> > > will not have to attempt to reach the foggy recesses of your mind in
>> > > order to decide who's who in your opinion. Otherwise, most will
>> > > think you are pulling a Roger Falen by refusing to respond to an
>> > > issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating yourself using
>> > > different words and syntax."
>> > > >
>> > > > While I find you mildly unpleasant and not a little
>> > > creepy, I don't currently believe you are stupid. Do you really still
>> > > imagine that insisting that I respond to to your demands in precisely
>> > > the manner that will please you is a productive use of your time? Do
>> > > you actually believe that I am concerned with what you and your
>> > > mythical "most" are thinking? If so, a drastic revision of my opinion
>> > > is in order.
>> > > >
>> > > > "I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or
>> > > enumerate "right" and "left" because even in that dark back room of
>> > > The Lock Shop you know that there is vast disagreement among those
>> > > you claim to be on the left on this list on some very fundamental
>> > > issues such as abortion, the death penalty, health care, first
>> > > amendment rights, gun ownership rights, religious freedom and truth,
>> > > the bailouts and other economic issues, educational reform, drug
>> > > policy, the desirability of unions, possible solutions to the
>> > > immigration problems, etc. "
>> > > >
>> > > > Oh no! Us cartoon characters in our dark back rooms
>> > > prefer to believe in monolithic stereotypes that never vary from the
>> > > role to which they are assigned. To wit:
>> > > >
>> > > > The "right" = six gun toting, God fearing, courageous,
>> > > generous types who love America, Mom, and apple pie and feel truly
>> > > sorry for drug ingesting hippies who refuse to eat red meat and have
>> > > questionable hygiene. These stalwarts gravitate to professions such
>> > > as astronaut, super hero/costumed crime fighter, bronco busting, bull
>> > > riding cowboy of a decidedly non-brokeback persuasion, and double
>> > > ought spy.
>> > > >
>> > > > The "left" = squirrelly, tofu munching, dope smoking,
>> > > atheist gas bags who march and wave placards in homogenous herds and
>> > > have never met a criminal, tree, or illegal alien that they have not
>> > > immediately wanted to coddle, hug, or provide welfare benefits to. If
>> > > they can be bothered to arise from their cannabis and/or narcotic
>> > > induced stupor to perform any semi-useful labor at all they will
>> > > normally be lawyers, collage professors (liberal arts), bureaucrats,
>> > > interpretive dancers, and mimes
>> > > >
>> > > > Does that satisfy your curious lust for definition?
>> > > >
>> > > > Something, something, something...
>> > > >
>> > > > Some hastily tossed off flippant response. Is it becoming
>> > > obvious that boredom is
>> > > > beginning to set in? Gosh, I hope not.
>> > > >
>> > > > Blah, blah, reading suggestions I'll immediately ignore,
>> > > blah...
>> > > >
>> > > > zzzzz...
>> > > >
>> > > > "It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in
>> > > a way that would promote understanding/clarification and possible
>> > > resolutions, or man up and admit that you are just another
>> > > propagandist whose goal is not truth, but attempts at persuasion
>> > > exalting your personal ideals."
>> > > >
>> > > > Or what? you'll hold your breath, kick your little feets
>> > > and pound your teeny widdle fists? Listen, I get it. I really do. You
>> > > want me to take this forum more seriously. You want me to take you
>> > > seriously. You want me to read the books you recommend. You want me
>> > > to discuss what you want to discuss and you want me to discuss it in
>> > > a manner that is pleasing to you. I'm reading you five by five. It
>> > > pains me to have to tell you that there no chance your dreams are
>> > > going to come true in this regard. For the last time, here's the
>> > > deal. You may feel free to complain to your little hearts content
>> > > but, I write what I write for reasons that are my own. Demanding that
>> > > I do something differently or insisting that I respond to you in some
>> > > specific way is a waste of your precious remaining time on earth. Now
>> > > go pound sand.
>> > > >
>> > > > g
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > From: Art Deco
>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:30 AM
>> > > > To: Vision 2020
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and
>> > > mental health
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Crabtree writes:
>> > > >
>> > > > 'I don't really believe that there is any real lack of
>> > > clarity on this list as to where the "left" leaves off and the
>> > > "right" kicks in."'
>> > > >
>> > > > Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on
>> > > the list that you consider to be "right" and "left" so that people
>> > > will not have to attempt to reach the foggy recesses of your mind in
>> > > order to decide who's who in your opinion. Otherwise, most will
>> > > think you are pulling a Roger Falen by refusing to respond to an
>> > > issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating yourself using
>> > > different words and syntax.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or
>> > > enumerate "right" and "left" because even in that dark back room of
>> > > The Lock Shop you know that there is vast disagreement among those
>> > > you claim to be on the left on this list on some very fundamental
>> > > issues such as abortion, the death penalty, health care, first
>> > > amendment rights, gun ownership rights, religious freedom and truth,
>> > > the bailouts and other economic issues, educational reform, drug
>> > > policy, the desirability of unions, possible solutions to the
>> > > immigration problems, etc.
>> > > >
>> > > > And hence, any meaningful characterization of "left" and
>> > > right" would exclude or make very fuzzy their inclusion in the list
>> > > many you apparently think of as leftists. That this is so is
>> > > exhibited by many prior discussions on this list. So, to deny such
>> > > is either dishonest and/or cowardly. [Google:
>> > > "Over-simplification", "Over-generalization", and Dishonesty".]
>> > > >
>> > > > 'Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely
>> > > clear. It's pretty much anything the left doesn't want to hear from
>> > > the right. Hate speech is defined by its source not its content.'
>> > > >
>> > > > So if someone on the right says "the economy will do
>> > > better under conservative leadership," and someone you allege is on
>> > > the left disagrees, that's hate speech? What rot. Again you offer
>> > > no reasonable criteria to determine what hate speech is except that
>> > > it is anything one particular [the "left"] group doesn't like about
>> > > what another [the "right"] says. That makes almost any political
>> > > discussion of opposing views hate speech.
>> > > >
>> > > > See: The Fallacy of Persuasive Definition:
>> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
>> > > >
>> > > > It is not surprising that you again refuse to participate
>> > > in a meaningful discussion of the issues. That is your style and
>> > > fits your limited worldview from the window of the backroom of your
>> > > business. Your definition of "hate speech" is so prejudicial, and
>> > > it's lack of clarity greatly amplified given the lack of precision of
>> > > the meaning of "right" and "left" that it tells readers a lot about
>> > > you, but not much about the reality outside of you.
>> > > >
>> > > > "The never-ending insistence that everything evil
>> > > emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the libs
>> > > are long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of
>> > > competing lists will do nothing to change that fact."
>> > > >
>> > > > Another gross distortion/lie/exaggeration. Who one the
>> > > list said anything like that? Some have said that violent rhetoric
>> > > and hate speech is more common from pundits on the right, but I do
>> > > not see that anyone claimed that such practices where exclusive to
>> > > the right. So starting with a grossly false O'Reillyism, you then
>> > > negate the possibility of anyone giving any kind of evidence that
>> > > would might clarify or give weight to one side or the other on the
>> > > issue. What a dunce-like position!
>> > > >
>> > > > Although you falsely accused Reggie of being foolish
>> > > because you disagreed with his characterization of three people on
>> > > his prior long list, and although your alleged counterexamples are
>> > > open to reasonable questions such as Andreas Schou has raised, it is
>> > > you that appears to be foolish, if not dishonest and cowardly when
>> > > you:
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] Refuse to define in any meaningful way what you are
>> > > talking about,
>> > > >
>> > > > [2] Use really cockeyed, prejudicial persuasive
>> > > definitions when you do deign to define terms, and
>> > > >
>> > > > [3] Tell bald-faced lies about other's positions.
>> > > >
>> > > > Perhaps your self-education might benefit from a
>> > > concentrated study of Wesley Salmon's concise, but incisive book
>> > > Logic. Or a careful reading of Proofiness by Charles Seife might
>> > > help you deal with some of your problems of over-generalization and
>> > > over-simplification.
>> > > >
>> > > > It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in a
>> > > way that would promote understanding/clarification and possible
>> > > resolutions, or man up and admit that you are just another
>> > > propagandist whose goal is not truth, but attempts at persuasion
>> > > exalting your personal ideals.
>> > > >
>> > > > w.
>> > > >
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: Gary Crabtree
>> > > > To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 7:48 PM
>> > > > Subject: Re: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and
>> > > mental health
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Interesting. You sound like the kid on the playground
>> > > who always wanted to tell everyone else what the game should be,
>> > > define the minutia the games rules, and then become pouty when his
>> > > expectations weren't met with regard to being deferred to in all
>> > > matters. Life can be a disappointment for kids like that.
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't really believe that there is any real lack of
>> > > clarity on this list as to where the "left" leaves off and the
>> > > "right" kicks in. (I don't consider myself a proper member of the
>> > > "right" but to make this easier for you we'll pretend it's the case)
>> > > The difficulty arises, at the very least in the most current
>> > > discussion, when those on the left want to pretend to be Sunday's
>> > > child where it comes to acts of violence and political discussion
>> > > that is less then demure. The never-ending insistence that everything
>> > > evil emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the
>> > > libs are long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of
>> > > competing lists will do nothing to change that fact.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely
>> > > clear. It's pretty much anything the left doesn't want to hear from
>> > > the right. Hate speech is defined by its source not its content. When
>> > > the same sentiments are expressed from a liberal perspective it
>> > > becomes passionate political discourse and a sacred first amendment
>> > > principal. >From the right, pure incitement to violence (even when
>> > > none was voiced) to be quashed by any and every means possible.
>> > > Violent speech is funny in that when a person hailing from the
>> > > "right" talks of targeting a district, defeating an opponent, or
>> > > quotes the founding fathers the remarks are an unequivocal, bold neon
>> > > colored calls for assassination. When the "left" explicitly hope for
>> > > the death of Sarah Palin and/or her children, pray for Dick Cheney's
>> > > heart to give out, and make big budget Hollywood movies glorifying
>> > > the murder of GWB, the speech is apparently translucent in the lack
>> > > of notice it receives.
>> > > >
>> > > > I hope that this gives you "a clear and distinct idea"
>> > > on where this cartoon character stands on the matter at hand. Now, if
>> > > you'd be so kind, could you go into a little more detail with regard
>> > > to my education? There is very little that I find more fascinating
>> > > then to hear the playground mope expound at length on the topic of
>> > > what he imagines my background to be.
>> > > >
>> > > > g
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > From: Art Deco
>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:35 PM
>> > > > To: Vision 2020
>> > > > Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and
>> > > mental health
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > A lesson to Reggie, et al:
>> > > >
>> > > > This dispute is on Vision 2020 is driven by at least
>> > > two things:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. The lack of anywhere near agreement on the
>> > > definitions of "right" v. "left" and "hate speech".
>> > > >
>> > > > 2. The apparent inability and unwillingness of
>> > > Falen/Crabtree to support their positions with meaningful arguments.
>> > > With Roger, it is the apparent inability to understand what an
>> > > argument is; with Crabtree, it is the long demonstrated unwillingness
>> > > to engage in meaningful dialogue on any subject where his basic
>> > > beliefs may be threatened by facts and/or alternative values.
>> > > >
>> > > > Reggie: When you put the list at issue together, you
>> > > offered evidence. One would expect those holding an opposing views
>> > > would offer a different list of at least the same magnitude. Both
>> > > Crabtree and Falen are unwilling to do so. Forget meaningful
>> > > dialogue.
>> > > >
>> > > > At some point, maybe one side or the other would offer
>> > > more clarifying definitions so that the dispute could be better
>> > > conducted by referring meaningful evidence. Don't look to Falen or
>> > > Crabtree for that either. It is too threatening.
>> > > >
>> > > > I repeat the following without much hope that either
>> > > Falen or Crabtree will alter their self-satisfying, but futile,
>> > > churlish behavior:
>> > > >
>> > > > 'It may be wise to remember in a discussion of values
>> > > [or any other subject] the following paraphrase of a quotation from
>> > > English Philosopher John Locke:
>> > > >
>> > > > "When comparing two ideas, it is necessary to have a
>> > > clear and distinct idea of each."'
>> > > >
>> > > > Or its modern statement:
>> > > >
>> > > > "When comparing two statements or theories, the
>> > > clearer, less vague and ambiguous statement(s) of and definitions
>> > > used in each, the better the chance of meaningfully determining the
>> > > truth, or in the case of values, the correct application, or least
>> > > discovering the roots of agreement or disagreement."
>> > > >
>> > > > Over many months of reading Crabtree in action on V2020
>> > > I have thought that he might be the object of a possible Far Side
>> > > cartoon whose caption would be "When self-education goes horribly
>> > > wrong."
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Wayne A. Fox
>> > > > 1009 Karen Lane
>> > > > PO Box 9421
>> > > > Moscow, ID 83843
>> > > >
>> > > > waf at moscow.com
>> > > > 208 882-7975
>> > > >
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: lfalen
>> > > > To: Reggie Holmquist
>> > > > Cc: vision 2020
>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:52 AM
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I hope that you had fun putting together this list, some of
>> > > which it would really be a stretch to call hate speech or necessarily
>> > > from the the right. It would almost seem that anything you disagree
>> > > with is hate speech or right wing. I don't much care if it is exactly
>> > > equal from both sides. suffice it to say that there is plenty on
>> > > both. I am not going to go tit for tat with you.
>> > > > Roger
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > =======================================================
>> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> > > > http://www.fsr.net
>> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> > > > =======================================================
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > =======================================================
>> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> > > > http://www.fsr.net
>> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> > > > =======================================================
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > > >
>> > > > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3419 - Release
>> > > Date: 02/02/11 11:34:00
>> > > >
>> > > > =======================================================
>> > > > 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
>> > > > =======================================================
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers
>> > > exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will
>> > > instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
>> > > and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
>> > > already happened.
>> > > >
>> > > > Douglas Adams
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > > > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3420 - Release Date:
>> > > 02/02/11 23:34:00
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > =======================================================
>> > > 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
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list