<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Ted,<br>
<br>
One more thing. Could you have just simply objected to me personally
or was it your intention to put me out as a complete schmuck to all the
members of this discussion group? Actually, I'm a pretty nice guy and
I never intended to piss you off. If you objected to this on the
grounds of privacy, then why did you copy it to the public domain
through vision2020?<br>
<br>
Or is it your intention to object to my politics by bringing my ethics
into question?<br>
<br>
To the rest of you. I will not post any commentary again from
vision2020 without express consent. I don't want to violate any
internet protocols, written or not. <br>
<br>
db<br>
<br>
David M. Budge wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid4205297A.8030400@davebudge.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;">
<title></title>
Ted, I have removed the post. My sincerest apologies for causing a
kerfuffle. However, in my defense, I emailed you the minute I made the
post notifying you that I had done so. I did not give out your last
name, your email address, or where you live. And lastly, so few people
read my libertain rantings that I doubt your good reputation has been
besmirched (if that is in fact your underlying objection.)<br>
<br>
This was no accident. I thought your email was cogent and worth
posting. I'll never do it again. <br>
<br>
Sorry again for the heartburn.<br>
<br>
db<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</a>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid86.2127958b.2f369d2c@aol.com"><font
face="arial,helvetica"><font size="2" ptsize="10" family="SANSSERIF"
face="Arial" lang="0"><br>
All:<br>
<br>
Without my consent or even a suggestion that I wanted to participate in
his web blog, Dave Budge posted on his web blog a private e-mail I had
sent only to him. Taking private correspondence and making it
available to the public without permission by posting it on a web site
is certainly a violation of Internet ethics. <br>
<br>
First below my text here is my private e-mail as it appears on his web
blog on the first page when you access his web site. Below that is the
copy of the private e-mail I sent him showing the to address as only to
him, and revealing no consent presented to make the e-mail available to
the public.<br>
<br>
I had never said or wrote that I intended to or wanted to participate
in his web blog. I had never visited his web blog till today, after he
informed me he had answered the private e-mail in question on his web
site. I at first thought he had offered only his insights on these
issues on his web site as a reply, while keeping my e-mail private, as
it was intended. But then I discovered my entire e-mail in question
was posted on his web site. <br>
<br>
This was no accident.<br>
<br>
I have not am not and will not participate in his web blog. I firmly
request that he immediately remove my private correspondence from his
publicly available web site.<br>
<br>
Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
<a href="http://davebudge.com">http://davebudge.com</a><br>
<br>
The first page of Dave Budge's web site as it appeared today, but only
down the page as far as needed to reveal my private correspondence was
posted there:<br>
</font><font color="#000000" back="#ffffff"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="6" ptsize="20"
family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><br>
</font></font>
<p align="center"><font face="arial,helvetica"><font color="#000000"
back="#ffffff" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="6"
ptsize="20" family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><b><a
href="http://davebudge.com/">Dave Budge .com</a><br>
</b></font><font color="#000000" back="#ffffff"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="5" ptsize="16"
family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><br>
</font></font></p>
<p align="left"><font face="arial,helvetica"><font color="#000000"
back="#ffffff" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="5"
ptsize="16" family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><b>2/5/2005<br>
<br>
</b></font><font color="#0000ff" back="#ffffff"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="2" ptsize="10"
family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><a
href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=143">Payment-in-kind</a><br>
<br>
Filed under: <br>
<a href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1">General</a>— David @
10:28 am <br>
I just love this. Idaho state Rep. Tom Trail writes this to his
constituents:<br>
<blockquote type="CITE"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px;">Pay
Your Taxes in Silver and Gold – A north Idaho legislator is introducing
a bill which would allow taxpayers to pay their taxes in silver or
gold. There is a historic precedent – In the early days in the state of
Virginia, taxpayers could pay their taxes in industrial hemp. This law
was in effect for more than 150 years. I suspect the real problem would
be electronically transmitting your silver gold to the tax commission.<br>
</blockquote>
</font><font color="#000000" back="#ffffff"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="2" ptsize="10"
family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font color="#000000" back="#ffffff"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="2" ptsize="10"
family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><br>
<br>
I like the hemp idea much better, but hey, paying one’s taxes with an
inflationed hedged commodity? Sounds good to me. <br>
<a href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=143#comments">Comments (0)</a>
<br>
<br>
</font><font color="#000000" back="#ffffff"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="5" ptsize="16"
family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><br>
<br>
<b>2/3/2005<br>
<br>
</b></font><font color="#0000ff" back="#ffffff"
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="2" ptsize="10"
family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"><a
href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=142">Brookhiser the Great</a><br>
<br>
Filed under: <br>
<a href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1">General</a>— David @
7:18 pm <br>
<br>
Rick Brookhiser over that the NRO blog points this out:<br>
<blockquote type="CITE"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px;">ACRONYMS
[Rick Brookhiser]<br>
I became less tired of our modern acronyms–SOTU, POTUS, SCOTUS–when I
saw that John Quincy Adams’s diary called the president PUS. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I wonder why The New York Observer never lets Rick add any humor to his
columns. I think he’s missed his calling. <br>
<a href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=142#comments">Comments (0)</a>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=141">Wingnuts and Moonbats</a><br>
<br>
Filed under: <br>
<a href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?cat=1">General</a>— David @
6:45 pm <br>
<br>
A friend writes me this:<br>
<blockquote type="CITE"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px;">Dave:<br>
<br>
I sometimes view political systems like ecosystems: the more diversity
the more strength and resilience in the system to survive change. So I
really don’t want to see one party gain too much control, like the
Republican’s have right now.<br>
I particularly dislike the conservative to liberal linear manner of
pigeonholing viewpoints. At least we should adopt an XY coordinate
system of describing political ideology. One way of doing this is to
have four directions of political thought, depending on extent of
government regulation of various aspects of life. The current
Republican’s would be strong on government regulation of individual
freedom, while advocating less regulation of capitalism. The Green
party promotes less regulation of personal freedom, similar to some
Libertarian views, but much stronger on government regulation of
capitalism. Libertarians of course want the least government possible
in all respects. And finally, for our fourth political direction on the
XY grid we have Socialism in the strong sense, government regulation of
much of people’s lives.<br>
Odd that the current USA Republican party calls people “Socialists” as
a dirty word when Republican’s promote Socialist style government
control of peoples personal choices and lives. I see the current
Republican’s as a fascist oriented party clamping down on individual
freedoms similar to a Socialist dictatorship (not there yet but heading
that direction), while promoting the capitalist sector at the same
time, appealing to some Libertarians,.<br>
The Democratic party here in the USA currently is a watered down
mixture of Libertarian views on personal freedom on some issues, Green
party views on Capitalism, and a few Socialist ideas like universal
health care, that given the current world political spectrum is really
a very middle of the road government program to care for low income
people who cannot afford the outrageous costs of medical care in our
modern world.<br>
That a government offers universal health care hardly makes it a
Socialist State in the strong sense of this word, which implies
government ownership of the major sectors of the economy. Many
governments that are accurately described as political democracies
today offer some form of universal health care, while maintaining a
strong capitalist sector, and protecting rights of free speech, free
association and personal freedom for the individual.<br>
Ted</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
A copy of my private e-mail to Dave Budge:<br>
<br>
Subj: <b>Re: Ted In Moscow: Re: Just saying "hi" </b> <br>
Date: 2/3/2005 1:23:06 PM Pacific Standard Time <br>
From: <a href="mailto:Tbertruss">Tbertruss</a> <br>
To: <a href="mailto:dave@davebudge.com">dave@davebudge.com</a> <br>
<br>
<br>
Dave:<br>
<br>
I sometimes view political systems like ecosystems: the more diversity
the more strength and resilience in the system to survive change. So I
really don't want to see one party gain too much control, like the
Republican's have right now.<br>
<br>
I particularly dislike the conservative to liberal linear manner of
pigeonholing viewpoints. At least we should adopt an XY coordinate
system of describing political ideology. One way of doing this is to
have four directions of political thought, depending on extent of
government regulation of various aspects of life. The current
Republican's would be strong on government regulation of individual
freedom, while advocating less regulation of capitalism. The Green
party promotes less regulation of personal freedom, similar to some
Libertarian views, but much stronger on government regulation of
capitalism. Libertarians of course want the least government possible
in all respects. And finally, for our fourth political direction on
the XY grid we have Socialism in the strong sense, government
regulation of much of people's lives.<br>
<br>
Odd that the current USA Republican party calls people "Socialists" as
a dirty word when Republican's promote Socialist style government
control of peoples personal choices and lives. I see the current
Republican's as a fascist oriented party clamping down on individual
freedoms similar to a Socialist dictatorship (not there yet but heading
that direction), while promoting the capitalist sector at the same
time, appealing to some Libertarians,.<br>
<br>
The Democratic party here in the USA currently is a watered down
mixture of Libertarian views on personal freedom on some issues, Green
party views on Capitalism, and a few Socialist ideas like universal
health care, that given the current world political spectrum is really
a very middle of the road government program to care for low income
people who cannot afford the outrageous costs of medical care in our
modern world. <br>
<br>
That a government offers universal health care hardly makes it a
Socialist State in the strong sense of this word, which implies
government ownership of the major sectors of the economy. Many
governments that are accurately described as political democracies
today offer some form of universal health care, while maintaining a
strong capitalist sector, and protecting rights of free speech, free
association and personal freedom for the individual.<br>
<br>
Ted<br>
<br>
</font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
<hr width="90%" size="4">
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>