[Vision2020] Fwd: Question, V-Peeps . . .

[Art Deco]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Question, V-Peeps . . .
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>


Oh my, Gary.

Your hero, Cultmaster Douglas Wilson, has declared war several times
redeclared that war just last fall on all those that do not subscribe to
his beliefs which includs not only those pesky villains on  V2020,  but
about 99% of the U.S. population.  He seeks to impose his strictures on
everyone's behavior and beliefs including the death penalty for those who
disagree.  What a tolerant man!  What a prince!

And those that oppose his ideas by legal means are the intolerant ones?  We
are to mutely stand by while he attempts to gain his goals by fair means
and foul?

When someone declares war on me, I do not stand by and go "Ho-Hum."   I
suggest those that do so have not appreciated the following and might do
well to think about what it means for everyone.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell
Phillips<http://www.libertystory.net/LSAACTIONPHILLIPS.htm>
,

“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men.” -- Edmund Burke.


Of course, the TPers and other pseudo-libertarians are fond of quoting the
above when they claim their liberties are threatened, but they they get
furiously upset when others following the same principles attack their
sacred cows.

Look in the mirror, Gary: Wilson is allowed with impunity to crusade for
Draconian intolerance and gets a free pass from you while those that oppose
him are condemned for daring to express and to act legally in our
opposition, and when some of Wilson's tactics are used against him (the
serrated edge, e.g.) the howling gets even more furious.

It is revealing that those that posture themselves in believing in liberty
and freedom are among the first to cry foul when those whose ideas they
oppose express themselves.

No one I know is denying Wilson's right to express and to argue for his
beliefs, nor your right to defend and to argue for Wilson's or your own
unique beliefs.  But in effect, you and Rumelhart are arguing against those
opposed to Wilson and his his ideas from doing the same,and in the manner
we choose.  However, if you wish to weep about the treatment the poor
Cultmaster Douglas Wilson is the butt of, perhaps you better drink a lot
more Keystone:  you will need a huge supply of tears in the coming times.

And Paul:

Perspective?

Did the advances in civil rights and recognition of personhood and equity
over the past 100 years for blacks come about by blacks saying to the KKK
and others "Wow!  We really disagree, but let's celebrate our differences
and welcome each other with open arms.".  Has the march toward equal rights
for women, gays, Hispanics progressed because those groups welcomed their
opposition with open arms?  For example, do you think that George Wallace
would have ever changed his mind without all the strife, misery, bloodshed,
etc that directed/forced attention on the plight of blacks?

Get real.

There are some people with whom is is possible to discuss volatile issues
with civilly, and in some cases minds are changed by such discussion.
Civil, but basically secret, discussion with certain cult members has
resulted in change, mostly by those formerly of the cult becoming apostate
despite Wilson's rule that cult members are not allowed to hear or to read
any criticism of the cult and especially of Wilson himself, the inerrant
God figure..

*Cultmaster Douglas Wilson has avowed that he will never change*.  His
writings affirm this.  In fact, as his influence and following, national
and locally, wanes, his assertions, imperatives, and strictures are
becoming more and more strident, and his methods more devious.  And there
are the long standing, numerous examples of Wilson's gross dishonesty.  Why
would any rational person believe that a constructive dialogue could take
place with Wilson which would result in his changing his goals for any of
his drastic plans for abridgement of everyone's freedom and the forceful
worship of his ugly, vengeful God?

This fact is amply illustrated by history:  When any tyrant bases the rules
of his tyranny on religious grounds claiming actions based on and
completely in accord with some alleged God, there is no room to reason with
that tyrant since there is no way to disprove statements where no evidence
is possible. Such believers are also immune to the fact that their beliefs
are logically inconsistent. Disaster has always been the eventual result of
such tyranny, and most likely, will be in the future.  Early opposition to
possible disaster is the watchword.

Belief is one of the foundations of behavior.  Beliefs have behavioral and
thus social and political consequences.  Anyone familiar with historical
and especially current conflict of ideas/belief can scarcely believe that
civil, respectful discourse will change all minds.  Nor will any observant
person fail to realize the use of incivility to bring about attention to
problems and to motivate people to do something about them.  Fact of life
on this planet.

Cultmaster Douglas Wilson has declared war.  He now pathetically whines
that battle has been joined.  He does not like the the results of that
battle since it has exposed him as a sexist, racist, fearful homophobic,
theocrat, etc, not to mention a crackpot, con artist, egomaniac,
megalomaniac, laughing stock, out of touch clown, and leper to many.

So Paul, you can continue to urge that Wilson be welcomed with open arms.
It is unlikely that will happen.  Such a hope is pissing into the wind.
Hardly anyone wants to have unsafe sex with a STD laden whore.  The price
is too high at any cost, and the hope grossly irrational.

w.




On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:

> **
>
> Seriously?  Get some perspective, please.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 03/25/2012 07:35 PM, Art Deco wrote:
>
> Rumelhart writes:
>
> "To me, the obviously right thing to do is to stop fighting them and to
> welcome them with open arms,"
>
> Just like the Jews should have welcomed the Nazis?
>
> Delusional.
>
> w.
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>  On 03/25/2012 03:34 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>>
>>  Paul wrote:
>>
>> “I don't particularly care what views a person holds about antebellum
>> slavery”
>>
>>
>>
>> Bully for you.  Personally, I believe that revisionist history
>> whitewashing the real horror of antebellum slavery is not only wrong, but
>> it’s also incredibly offensive, disrespectful, and morally indefensible for
>> self-professing Christians.  I subscribe to the maxim that those who don’t
>> remember history are bound to repeat it.
>>
>>
>>  Great.  I'm not trying to get you to agree with the Kirk, I'm trying to
>> get you to be tolerant of the fact that they believe things that you think
>> are utter garbage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul also wrote:
>>
>> “If the Intoleristas had instead been of the frame of mind of "sorry,
>> we're not going to let you turn the Palouse into a theocracy, but we're
>> still happy to have you as part of our community", then they might not have
>> been so quick to accuse some of you of vandalism”
>>
>>
>>
>> There ya go again with your revisionism.  The fact of the matter is
>> that’s exactly what happened for years and years, and you can see where
>> that got us.  Christ Church became bolder & bolder about flouting the law
>> and bolder in their local attacks against all who disagreed with them.  For
>> instance, Wilson et al were beyond livid that two UI historians wrote a
>> book review refuting the nonsense in Wilson’s & Wilkin’s heavily
>> plagiarized monograph, “Southern Slavery As It Was,” and went whining all
>> the way to the governor not threatening the UI (you know the kind of
>> non-threat:  the same game they’ve played at least twice in trying to get
>> V2020 shut down, filing completely bogus zoning complaints against the UI,
>> the “Topless & Proud” stunt using stolen UI resources – they still think
>> that was the best prank ever, etc.), demanding “discipline” (presumably not
>> the way they allow schools to physically discipline students) for the two
>> profs for – gasp – actually doing their jobs & so forth.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since your memory is . . . curiously selective, how about checking out:
>>
>> http://hnn.us/articles/9142.html
>>
>> This is the perspective of one of the “Intolerista” professors Wilson &
>> his minions demanded be disciplined.  Note:  Ramsey certainly didn’t
>> consider himself an “Intolerista,” but that’s the label Wilson painted him
>> with simply for daring to disagree with Wilson’s & Wilkin’s revisionist
>> history by writing a scholarly critique of SSAIW.  That’s the Kirk’s idea
>> of “working together.”
>>
>>
>>  First of all, my memory is not selective.  I'm not trying to choose a
>> winner in this fight of yours, I'm hoping that "you guys", the liberal
>> crowd in this town that I used to have so much respect for, take back the
>> upper ground and at least try to bridge this gap.  I realize that some of
>> the Christ Church members have not played nice all the time. It takes two
>> to tango, is all I'm saying.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul, I had been concerned that you appear to post to V2020 during UI
>> working hours.  Another favorite tactic used by the Kirk to “discipline”
>> dissenters is to “go after” UI & WSU employees in attempts to get them
>> fired for doing things like posting to V2020 during working hours . . . and
>> sometimes, for what they do in their personal hours (i.e., Prof. Dale
>> Graden having the nerve to write a letter to the editor).  As a staff
>> person, you are a much easier target than are professors.
>>
>>
>>  I thank you for your concern.  I will be more careful in the future.  I
>> usually only post quick simple posts when I happen to be checking my
>> personal email at work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I quit worrying, though, because since you only selectively “care” about
>> the Constitutional freedoms that are the basis of this country, you relish
>> attacking those of us (“you people”) who vocally disagree with attempts to
>> use laws to wage culture wars against all who don’t share their particular
>> flavor of Christianity.  They won’t go after you because you have never
>> offered any substantive criticism of their antics.
>>
>>
>>  Your right, I don't care about Constitutional freedoms.  When have I
>> ever posted about that stupid piece of paper and it's so-called
>> "freedoms"?  I suppose it's my complete lack of compassion and empathy for
>> others that's to blame.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *You are, in fact, intolerant of our beliefs and freely toss around
>> inaccurate and dishonest stereotypes & imaginary events about those opposed
>> to any flavor theocracy why while trying to convince us that you are some
>> kind of “Tolerance” poster boy.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Not even close, and definitely no cigar for you  J
>>
>>
>>  Let me get this straight.  You're calling me out for being intolerant of
>> your intolerance.  I really don't know what to say to that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In another post, you wrote:
>>
>> “They coined the term, you all chose to use it as a badge of honor, and
>> you're surprised they refer to you by that name?”
>>
>>
>>
>> Huh – is that your attitude about Traynor Martin being targeted because
>> he wore a hoody in the “wrong” neighborhood?  Or about Shaima Alawadi
>> being targeted because she was an Iraqi woman in American who wore a
>> hajib?  Sounds pretty close to blaming the victims to me.
>>
>>
>>  So, what's the connection between the death of Trayvon Martin and some
>> Christ Church members using the term "intolerista" as a pejorative?  You
>> have claimed the term as your own.  It only makes sense that they would use
>> that term when referring to you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You don’t like the fact that some of Wilson’s targets took his pejorative
>> and accurately & appropriately redefined it – too bad for you, and too bad
>> for Wilson.  I know he & his ilk were desperately hoping his neologism
>> would catch on and become another weapon for his culture war.  It didn’t
>> *because* those of us he targeted had the mother with to take the wind
>> out of his sail – even Wikipedia booted the word & original definition out
>> J  You *weren’t* the target, so I really don’t give a rip that you don’t
>> like that some have claimed the weapon wielded against them.
>>
>>
>>  What I don't like is when you use the term as a rallying cry against
>> another group in this community.  I don't like the fight that has been
>> going on in this community, and I'm working with the people I most identify
>> with to see if I can get anyone interested in stopping it.  So far, I've
>> had zero luck.  If I were a Christ Churcher, I would be trying to convince
>> them to stop doing the things they do to widen this divide.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> One other thing . . . in a more recent post, you wrote:
>>
>> “When you actually converse with someone from Christ Church on these
>> topics, you can often-times see where they are coming from.  You might not
>> agree, but you can see where they are coming from based on their specific
>> world view.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, get over yourself, Paul!  You seem to think you are the *only* one
>> to have done so, and you couldn’t be more wrong.  Nick, Keely, Rose, and I
>> here as well as others not here have *all *engaged in extensive
>> discussion with Wilson and his followers over the years and had cordial
>> relationships with some, not-so-cordial with others (i.e., I take offense
>> at being told by one of Wilson’s head minions that God had deafened &
>> blinded me).
>>
>>
>>
>> But, intelligent people can’t get away from the fact that what they want
>> is a theocracy so that the teeth of the law will force those of us who
>> disagree with their moral code to follow it or Be Punished here on earth.
>>
>>
>>  I doubt that they are the only group in town that would institute laws
>> favorable to them if they had half a chance.  I don't want a theocracy any
>> more than you do, but I don't fault them for wanting one.  They think their
>> God demands it, or that they would have a chance at saving people from
>> eternal torment if they could get that put in place.  Luckily for me, there
>> is a political process that they have to go through, and a Constitution
>> that expressly forbids much of what they would propose.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just as I have no interest in “hanging” with racist Kluckers or the
>> anti-choice crowd that advocates violence or the anti-gay crowd that wants
>> death for gays or the anti-women crowd who thinks women belong barefoot &
>> chained to the stove with the chain only long enough to reach the bedroom,
>> I have no interest in “hanging” with those who want nothing more here on
>> earth than theocracy and “forced salvation” for “Believers” and
>> “unbelievers” alike.
>>
>>
>>  Aside from the groups that actively promote violence, I would have no
>> problem hanging out with a group whose beliefs or ideals I disagree with.
>> I don't see this as a bad thing.  I'd hate it if everyone in the world
>> though the exact same way I did.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Does that mean I wouldn’t shove someone – anyone -- out of the way of a
>> bus, or not turn my garden hose on their house fire, or drive past someone
>> with car trouble?
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course not, no matter how much you desperately want to convince people
>> otherwise.
>>
>>
>>  I am not surprised at all that you would help someone out whose ideals
>> you disagree with.  It's the fact that "you guys" are good people that
>> really puzzles me in this.  To me, the obviously right thing to do is to
>> stop fighting them and to welcome them with open arms, despite your
>> differences.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Saundra
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com<godshatter at yahoo.com>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:07 AM
>> *To:* Tom Hansen
>> *Cc:* Saundra Lund; vision2020
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Question, V-Peeps . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a nice example of the intolerance I'm talking about.  I don't
>> particularly care what views a person holds about antebellum slavery, or
>> who they think should be in charge of the finances in their marriage.  I'll
>> still sit down and have a beer with them.
>>
>> If the Intoleristas had instead been of the frame of mind of "sorry,
>> we're not going to let you turn the Palouse into a theocracy, but we're
>> still happy to have you as part of our community", then they might not have
>> been so quick to accuse some of you of vandalism when they reported the
>> incidents to the police.  Go out of your way to make yourself someone's
>> enemy, and they will think of you first when something like that happens to
>> them.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 03/25/2012 04:37 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
>>
>> *Intoleristas*
>>
>> *(in tol er és ta), n.*
>>
>>    - A person holding anti-slavery sentiments
>>    - A committed feminist.
>>    - A supporter of the Constitution, human rights, and equality for
>>    all, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, economic status, or
>>    sexual orientation.
>>    - A person with a wholesome proclivity for outing shifty hypocrites,
>>    shameless liars, and sham historians.
>>    - A person who is neither intimidated nor silenced by right-wing,
>>    theocratic bullies, or their sycophantic toadies.
>>    - A person who wears the title proudly as a reminder that he/she is
>>    about the business of democracy.
>>
>> *"It is not so much what we are as much as what we are about."*
>>
>>
>>
>> A flash from the past . . .
>>
>> http://www.tomandrodna.com/sounds/Intoleristas_020405.mp3
>>
>>
>>
>> Who can forget . . .
>>
>> http://www.notonthepalouse.com/documents/Crouch_LMT_071506.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Let the whine flow . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.notonthepalouse.com/Wilson_MPDcomplaint_071506.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.tomandrodna.com/stuff/Dickison_RecReq.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.tomandrodna.com/writofmandate
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> There is, literally, loads and loads more, Mr. Rumelhart . . . like
>> letters sent from the un-pastor to then-Governor Kempthorne and then-UI
>> President White . . . Doug "Charlie Brown" Wilson's speech at the Public
>> Civility Forum at the Hamilton Indoor Recreation Center a few years ago . .
>> . the Great Christ Church Debate between the Un-Pastor and the
>> Intoleristas' own Keely Mix on KRFP.  I could go on and on and on and . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll jus' leevya with His Whineyness' own words . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.tomandrodna.com/protest/Doug_Wilson_Liers_013107.mp3
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the promo, though.
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: image.jpeg]
>>
>>
>>
>> Seeya there, Moscow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>>
>> Wallace, Idaho
>>
>>
>>
>> "If not us, who?
>>
>> If not now, when?"
>>
>>
>>
>> - Unknown
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  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
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120326/e1997015/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 248047 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120326/e1997015/attachment-0001.jpe>