[Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Thu Mar 31 11:32:13 PDT 2011
Thanks Glenn
You did a much better job than I ever could. Joe says an argument is fallacious. He doe not say why or offer a good alternative. It is fallacious because he says so. A little arrogant.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Glenn Schwaller vpschwaller at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:17:23 -0700
To: vision2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> Well besides refunding tuition to your poor students, you better give
> back your doctorate as well because I, and I think several others here
> agree, your attempt at logical argument is seriously flawed. Instead
> of arrogantly patronizing Roger and others, maybe you would be best
> off to "listen slowly" to yourself.
>
> 1 - "Glenn made several fallacious points. . .," Let me paraphrase
> you: "You 'professors of logic' think your views should be adopted
> for no other reason than that you believe them" So because you think
> I made fallacious points, they are - end
> of story. And that is NOT a fallacious argument?? Point 1: FAIL
>
> 2 - “Roger, do you also support slavery, another view that Glenn
> supports?” And you KNOW I support slavery how?? Because you say so?
> Because you "know" I belong to Christ Church? Because you "know" I'm
> Doug Wilson? You call me a racist (proof??) using a fake name
> (proof??) Yet it must be true because YOU say so? Your only argument
> being 20 years of teaching logic leads you to believe that "I think
> therefore it is" and THAT is what progressive, rational, logical
> thinking is. Point 2: FAIL
>
> 3 - "Glenn made several fallacious points, some of which were pointed
> out and all of which are ignored below." You know I have ignored
> them? Perhaps I have been out of town and not on the computer.
> Perhaps I've been ill. Perhaps any number of things yet you say they
> are ignored. There is no basis in fact to say they have been ignored.
> Point 3: FAIL.
>
> 4 - You asked Roger for one example. I gave you three and you dismiss
> them out of hand with no opposing point of view other than to offer up
> your standard “fallacious arguments”, "they are pretty bad", “just
> irrational rhetoric”. Then you proceed with your usual badmouthing
> and denigration of the other person, never attempting to explain why
> the other person is “irrational and misguided” other than the fact
> that you say so. Point four: FAIL. Plus another fail for being
> rude, offensive, and pretentious in general.
>
> 5 - "You are so used to listening to the lies on Fox" Let me quote
> you: "This is crap rhetoric and you should know better." Yes, you
> SHOULD know better. You criticize someone for speaking what you
> consider to be rhetoric, offer no proof it IS, then turn around and
> argue with “crap rhetoric” yourself. Point 5: FAIL
>
> 6 – “Worse, you want to promote further ignorance by disallowing
> legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting education”. You offer
> nothing to support your contention NPR is more legitimate than any
> news source (please try to note the distinction between “news’ and
> “opinion”), nor any support that education has been gutted. Except
> for the “crap rhetoric” spewed forth. Oh yes, it’s spewed from the
> progressives so its true no doubt about it. Point 6: FAIL
>
> 7 - I don't care if NPR is left wing, right wing, libertarian, or
> simply bad. There is absolutely NO reason they should feed at the
> government trough. Your position that corporate money influences
> broadcasting is inane. I pointed out that most corporations advertise
> on all major broadcast networks and cable networks, FOX and MSNBC
> included. Big oil, stock brokers, big-box stores, banks, car
> companies foreign and domestic. All advertise on all networks. Your
> argument is they would influence FOX differently than CBS or NBC?
> Seriously?? Point 7: FAIL
>
> 8 - Yes, give me $1 million to shut up and go away I will. If I don’t
> keep quiet, you don’t pay. Quite an influence you have over me. So
> ultra-left winger George Soros gives nearly $2 million to NPR and they
> will tell him to go fly a kite when he wants an agenda pushed?
> Seriously? Point 8 - FAIL
>
> 9 - Comparing state run colleges to state-run (it’s actually federal
> given your argument of NATIONAL) broadcasting corporations is
> ludicrous at best. State run colleges and federally run broadcasting
> networks - apples and oranges. FAIL.
>
> The federal government has no business being in education. It has no
> business being in the broadcasting industry. NRP already accepts
> commercial funding from businesses. It’s just couched as “support”.
> Want an example? “Funding for NPR is provided by Chevrolet, maker of
> the 40 miles-per-charge Chevy Volt. See one now at your local
> Chevrolet dealer.” Sounds like corporate advertising to me. To argue
> it is not - well then NPR lies. They want to accept "support" from
> corporations, fine. Limit the acknowledgement to "Program funding is
> provided by Chevrolet". Period.
>
> And even giving you the benefit of the doubt, your only argument is
> that it “keeps costs down”. If one is a student paying tuition to a
> university, then keeping costs down is important. Keeping costs down
> for a broadcast network is good for the network maybe, but this
> affects out-of-pocket expense to an individual or the general public
> how?? Apples and oranges, point 9: FAIL
>
> 10 - And I support Roger (and everyone else to whom you make
> unsubstantiated and non-factual statements about) with several rounds
> of FAIL FAIL FAIL.
>
> You and your ilk seem to think all of us “backward” people want NPR to
> go away. Nothing is further from the truth. (So another FAIL for
> illogical assumptions). Roger listens to some things, I listen to
> some things (and ignore what I consider to be left-wing babble). Just
> as you ignore what you consider to be right-wing babble from networks
> such as FOX. And both NPR and FOX are guilty of such babble – it’s
> called “opinion programming”. We just think government needs to keep
> it’s pointy little head out of the broadcast industry. Enough said.
>
> GS
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We're not spending too much on NPR! We spend more bombing Libya in one day
> > than a year's worth of NPR! I don't see any good arguments supporting your
> > case. That's all.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> N PR receives less than half it's funding from the government. It is not a
> >> 100% federal entity. Its management is private and so should it's funding.
> >> Your comparison with colleges is still apples and orange. You said " If you
> >> can tell me a better way for the US to spend it money, I'll listen." The
> >> problem is we are spending too much. We are head over heels in debt and need
> >> to cut many other things in addition to NPR funding. To name just a few
> >> OSHSA, EPA, planned ParentHood, and even waste in the military. I would not
> >> cut FDA or Child Protective Services. Both of these are more important that
> >> funding NPR. I was the Compliance officer for most of the feed companies I
> >> worked for. I dealt with all of the agencies. EPA and OSHA were ridiculous.
> >> We had some feed bend at Lewiston the bottom of witch were about 15 feet in
> >> the air. Feed sometimes hung up in them. We had to hang in the air with one
> >> hand and beat on them with a hammer with the other hand. To make it safer we
> >> installed a cat
> >> walk bellow them to salve the problem. OSHSA made us take them out because
> >> the regulations sday you have to be able to walk down a cat walk. There was
> >> not room to do that, so we were back to clearing bins in an unsafe manner.
> >> There are many more examples I could site. FDA's regulations for the moist
> >> part made sense. Our food supply is very important. Most food business(not
> >> all) do their best to insure a safe food supply, but the FDA is short of
> >> inspectors and can not do their job adequately. Imports are not properly
> >> inspected either. When I started as manager of the feed mill in Colfax I put
> >> in a ridged control system and weigh back procedure for drug use. The next
> >> day after I instructed the crew on the proper procedure, I caught an
> >> employee putting a feed scoop in a drug bin walk over to the mixer and dump
> >> it in with Aureomycin falling off all the way. I fired him on the spot.
> >> Roger
> >> -----Original message-----
> >> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:41:23 -0700
> >> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> >>
> >> > NPR is the NATIONAL PUBLIC radio. NPR was set up for exactly this
> >> > reason: to
> >> > have a state run radio station that does not risk genuine objectivity
> >> > due to
> >> > corporate interests. It is the only such radio station in existence, the
> >> > only thing of its kind. Better one than none, I think.
> >> >
> >> > Your question is kind of like asking, Why should we have state colleges?
> >> > Why
> >> > can't all colleges be private? The answer is the existence of state
> >> > colleges
> >> > is a public good: it keeps costs down, etc. I think ONE state run radio
> >> > station should exist; it is a good way to use state funds, it has a
> >> > general
> >> > interest to the public. And really that is all that matters. If you can
> >> > tell
> >> > me of a better way for the US to spend its money, I'll listen. But so
> >> > far
> >> > you have not done that.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:48 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Joe
> >> > > I do not know how many times I have to say I do dont wish to see NPR
> >> > > disappear. They have some very good programming. They receive only a
> >> > > portion
> >> > > of their funding from the government. They can do just fine with out
> >> > > it.
> >> > > Would you please explain to me, just why you think that NPR should
> >> > > receive
> >> > > federal funding and Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc should not.not?Comparing
> >> > > funding
> >> > > of NPR to the military is like comparing apples and oranges.
> >> > > Roger
> >> > > -----Original message-----
> >> > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >> > > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:37:29 -0700
> >> > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> >> > >
> >> > > > I'm not angry, Roger. A bit frustrated but not angry.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Listen slowly. I've taught logic for 20 years. I tell you your
> >> > > > argument
> >> > > is
> >> > > > fallacious and you should believe me. To do otherwise shows a kind
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > arrogance and disrespect for longstanding social institutions.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So it frustrates me. You have, thus far, given very bad arguments
> >> > > > for not
> >> > > > funding NPR. I've pointed out some problems: one might take the very
> >> > > words
> >> > > > you say and support some ridiculous claim. You acknowledge that the
> >> > > > claim
> >> > > is
> >> > > > ridiculous ("Don't fund the military") but fail to see the logical
> >> > > > connection between your very words and the claim. If the words
> >> > > > support
> >> > > your
> >> > > > claim they also support the ridiculous claim; if the ridiculous
> >> > > > claim is
> >> > > > unsupported by your words, so is your claim. But you don't want to
> >> > > > play
> >> > > > because you think I'm biased.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm not angry, I'm just very in-your-face. If you met me, I'd be in
> >> > > > your
> >> > > > face, too, but you'd see I wasn't angry.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Roger, you have voted for an idiot for president twice, you've
> >> > > > supported
> >> > > for
> >> > > > state office a man who is openly disrespectful to our Mormon
> >> > > > community
> >> > > and
> >> > > > another man who is disrespectful to progressives, and you are now
> >> > > > trying
> >> > > to
> >> > > > tell me that the world would be better off without NPR.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I, on the other hand, think the world is better off with better
> >> > > > sources
> >> > > of
> >> > > > information, sources that test our critical thinking skills. You
> >> > > > can't
> >> > > > compare NPR to Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'd be more than happy to consider your opinion that NPR should not
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > funded but so far you have not given one non-fallacious argument in
> >> > > support
> >> > > > of that claim. So what am I to do? Accept your opinion because,
> >> > > > well,
> >> > > you're
> >> > > > a nice guy and everyone is entitled to his position?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No. This is public forum and I'm going to point out that, although
> >> > > > you
> >> > > have
> >> > > > your own opinions which we are entitled to respect, it is my right
> >> > > > and
> >> > > duty
> >> > > > to note that you do not have one damn good reason for believing
> >> > > > them.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:01 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Shame on you. Your argument is illogical. You attribute things to
> >> > > > > me
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > arn't factual. Why do you seem so angry? I do not wish to see NPR
> >> > > > > fail.
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > hope that they continue to survive. Only a fraction of their
> >> > > > > funding
> >> > > comes
> >> > > > > from the government. Why should they recieve federal funding and
> >> > > > > Fox,
> >> > > ABC,
> >> > > > > NBC, CBS, etc. do not? None of them should receive federal
> >> > > > > funding.
> >> > > That is
> >> > > > > the only way to insure a free press.
> >> > > > > Roger
> >> > > > > -----Original message-----
> >> > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >> > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:09:00 -0700
> >> > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >> > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > The point is NOT supported by you or anyone else. You radical
> >> > > > > > right
> >> > > wing
> >> > > > > > folks think your views should be adopted for no other reason
> >> > > > > > than
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > believe them; because you believe it is true I should also. But
> >> > > > > > that
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > not
> >> > > > > > the case. We have a history of objective standards for judging
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > merits
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > reasons and argument. It is called the discipline of logic. If
> >> > > > > > you
> >> > > had
> >> > > > > more
> >> > > > > > respect for the history of Western civilization and public
> >> > > institutions
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > would realize that. The fact that you ignore those is no ones
> >> > > > > > fault
> >> > > but
> >> > > > > your
> >> > > > > > own. Shame on you. Worse, you want to promote further ignorance
> >> > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > disallowing legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting education.
> >> > > > > > That
> >> > > way
> >> > > > > > even fewer people will be able to see through your irrational
> >> > > rhetoric.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > But here in a nut shell is the issue for all fair minded people
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > see.
> >> > > > > You
> >> > > > > > have nothing but fallacious arguments and unsupported
> >> > > > > > accusations to
> >> > > > > support
> >> > > > > > your claims. Nothing at all. The nameless "Glenn" is in the
> >> > > > > > exact
> >> > > same
> >> > > > > boat.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The real issue is, like with respect to military funding,
> >> > > > > > whether the
> >> > > > > source
> >> > > > > > funded provides a public good. Whether it is "slightly right" or
> >> > > > > "slightly
> >> > > > > > left" is completely irrelevant. Shame on you!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > The point is that is they should not be funded period. It
> >> > > > > > > makes no
> >> > > > > > > difference whether they are right, left or down the center.
> >> > > > > > > Roger
> >> > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> >> > > > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:42:44 -0700
> >> > > > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > No Roger, Glenn did not answer the question. Glenn made
> >> > > > > > > > several
> >> > > > > > > fallacious
> >> > > > > > > > points, some of which were pointed out and all of which are
> >> > > ignored
> >> > > > > > > below.
> >> > > > > > > > And do you also support slavery, another view that "Glenn"
> >> > > supports?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Why bother pretending to engage in discussions about these
> >> > > > > > > > issues
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > IGNORE criticisms of points made? Here is another refutation
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > one
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > your
> >> > > > > > > > points. Please respond.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > You write that NPR is "[s]lightly left of center" [even
> >> > > > > > > > though
> >> > > you
> >> > > > > admit
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > listening to it only "occasionally" and do not provide ONE
> >> > > example
> >> > > > > > > > supporting this claim]. If this is a reason to not fund NPR
> >> > > > > > > > via
> >> > > > > taxpayer
> >> > > > > > > > money, then the following would also be a good argument: The
> >> > > military
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > slightly right of center, so it should not receive any
> >> > > > > > > > public
> >> > > > > funding.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > So which is it: should we end public support for the
> >> > > > > > > > military or
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > recognize that your argument is a bad one?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, lfalen
> >> > > > > > > > <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I have not been on the computer all week, but I think that
> >> > > Glenn
> >> > > > > > > answered
> >> > > > > > > > > your question.
> >> > > > > > > > > In response ro Nick- I do not know it Nader is right or
> >> > > > > > > > > not.I
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > only
> >> > > > > > > > > listened to NPR occasionally. What I have caught is Fresh
> >> > > > > > > > > Air
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > All
> >> > > > > > > Things
> >> > > > > > > > > Considered. They both at the times I heard them seemed to
> >> > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > lightly
> >> > > > > > > left of
> >> > > > > > > > > center. Nader only mentioned Charlie Rose. I am sure there
> >> > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > lot of
> >> > > > > > > other
> >> > > > > > > > > hosts besides Rose. I have never heard him. In any event
> >> > > > > > > > > this
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > irrelevant. It would not make any difference if they were
> >> > > equally
> >> > > > > > > balanced
> >> > > > > > > > > or were 100% to the right. They should not be geting any
> >> > > funding
> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > taxpayers. In case you don't realize it we are in a money
> >> > > crunch.
> >> > > > > Let
> >> > > > > > > spend
> >> > > > > > > > > only on those thing that are essential and can not be done
> >> > > > > adequately
> >> > > > > > > by the
> >> > > > > > > > > private sector. I want to see our veterans taken care of
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > just
> >> > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > many that we should be spending on. Your ideal Nation of
> >> > > > > > > > > Sweden
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > > > geting
> >> > > > > > > > > the message and cutting back on services before they wind
> >> > > > > > > > > up
> >> > > like
> >> > > > > > > Greece and
> >> > > > > > > > > Ireland. I hope they succeed, that is the ancestral home
> >> > > > > > > > > of the
> >> > > > > > > Falen's.
> >> > > > > > > > > They come from Ostergotlund.
> >> > > > > > > > > You may know where that is.
> >> > > > > > > > > Roger
> >> > > > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> >> > > > > > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:27:38 -0700
> >> > > > > > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> >> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et
> >> > > > > > > > > al?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > State one left wing point of view that NPR broadcasts,
> >> > > > > > > > > > Roger.
> >> > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > They broadcast news. You are so used to listening to the
> >> > > > > > > > > > lies
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > Fox
> >> > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > you confuse them for "points of view."
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM, lfalen <
> >> > > lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > If NPR wants to broadcast left wing points of view
> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > supporters
> >> > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > willing to fund it, more power to them.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Roger
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> >> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Robert Dickow" dickow at turbonet.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:18:10 -0700
> >> > > > > > > > > > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et
> >> > > > > > > > > > > al?
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I hear that the conservative congressmen have
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposed
> >> > > > > > > withdrawing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > government funding for NPR. Apparently a newscaster
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > fund
> >> > > > > drive
> >> > > > > > > > > person
> >> > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > somebody made some disparaging remarks about the Tea
> >> > > Party.
> >> > > > > Fie!
> >> > > > > > > Fie!
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Now,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > denying public broadcasting all those scarce
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > taxpayer
> >> > > dollars
> >> > > > > > > sounds
> >> > > > > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable and just response to such offenses if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you're a
> >> > > > > > > > > conservative
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Republican sympathetic with the Tea Party movement,
> >> > > right? Uh
> >> > > > > > > > > huh.sure.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > How
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > dumb can anybody be?! NPR won't suddenly go belly up
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > go
> >> > > > > off
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > air,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > slinking off into the shadows with its tail between
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > its
> >> > > legs.
> >> > > > > > > Private
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > donors-- those dwindling middle class stalwarts--
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > valiantly
> >> > > > > > > step
> >> > > > > > > > > up
> >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the plate in ever greater numbers. So what will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > actually
> >> > > > > happen,
> >> > > > > > > > > then, is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > that NPR will be unfettered and free to unleash all
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > their
> >> > > > > rabid
> >> > > > > > > > > commie
> >> > > > > > > > > > > pinko
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > liberal gun-hating womens libber staffers to say all
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > rabid
> >> > > > > > > commie
> >> > > > > > > > > > > pinko
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > tea-barfing they've always wanted to say but didn't
> >> > > because
> >> > > > > they
> >> > > > > > > felt
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > compelled to be balanced in their commie pinko
> >> > > tree-hugging
> >> > > > > > > opinions
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > bleeding-heart liberal union thug biased news
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > reporting.
> >> > > > > Clearly,
> >> > > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > government measure will not serve the common good.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > And I
> >> > > may
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > forced to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > mix even more metaphors in the future.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Dickow, troublemaker
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 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