<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR><o:SmartTagType
name="place"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
name="City"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>st1\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Michael, you're right about my jab at hansen. I
take no pride in doing it but, I must admit, I do take a
guilty pleasure. Poking at such an unfortunate, benighted soul is
unquestionably beneath me and I'll do my best in the future to refrain from such
"shallow and adolescent" behavior.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As to the rest of your communication, I am only too
willing to admit that the law is the law and that it should be enforced
uniformly and even handedly. Interpretation and enforcement are outside the
scope of my expertise and interest. (Although I do have reservations from a
private property/freedom of association perspective) If the folks who fall under
the totally objective scrutiny of team Huskey/Opyr/Hansen et. al. can make an
argument to continue their actions, great. If they can have the regs modified in
their favor, better yet. If not, cease and desist. I find it odd that in the
case of this latest flap against your fellow church mates none of the
complainants are the neighbors of the designated offenders. That, in fact, the
beef comes from several miles outside the city limits. Sounds very much like
another case of finding any stick with which to give your former buddy's a
whack. All of their fervent protestations to the contrary not
withstanding.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The rest of your post seems to be a variation on
the old ends justifying the means routine. As yet I have seem no Nazi like
behavior from their (CC/NSA) camp. I realize that you have a personnel gripe
with "the fuehrer" but from my simplistic and perhaps under informed
perspective, this could easily be resolved by walking away. (Sorry, your movie
analogy blew right by me. I've not seen it) Your final sentence seems to
implore that since there are people who feel put upon the way that they do
(people with whom I disagree on practically every point of any substance) I
should come around to a more enlightened way of thinking. This is an interesting
rhetorical approach, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to wait for a more
persuasive argument. If that line of reasoning could be made to work I
would have to flap in the breeze created by any group with an agenda. That way
lies the darkness of Democrat party politics. Evil unending. Seriously though,
thank you for taking the time to try and help me see the light. It's always a
pleasure.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Gary</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=metzler@moscow.com href="mailto:metzler@moscow.com">Michael</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:00
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Boarding House
information</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia">Me:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><FONT face=Georgia
size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia">Gary</SPAN></FONT></st1:place></st1:City><FONT
face=Georgia><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Georgia">, I can sympathize with this
way of stating your concern—and I applaud your tone here, outside of insulting
Tom’s cognitive abilities. However, your one sided approach to these
issues (which I assume you would grant) still perplexes me. For the sake
of argument, let’s say that you are right here. Wouldn’t it still matter
whether or not the underlying motivations are guided by legitimate
‘discriminatory’ thoughts? The extent to which public discrimination is
wrong would seem to be at least partly a function of what is motivating the
discrimination in the first place. For an intentionally exaggerated
example: if you were in Nazi Germany before WWII, would it be wrong to use
existing laws or codes to weaken the moral of those Germans affiliated with
the anti-Jew sentiments? <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Wayne</st1:place></st1:City> is right after all about the de facto
legitimacy of current, working law. These codes are not fossils from
another age that need to be stricken by the state’s Supreme Court are they?
If the housing codes are bad and not in the best interest for our public
good, or if they are unjust, or infringe on our rights, then we should be
actively seeking to change the code, right? I’m confronted with the code
as a home builder on a weekly basis, yet I understand both the wisdom within
the code (generally speaking) and also the need to apply it indiscriminately,
which in practice usually means enforcing it whenever a complaint is raised.
Think of another example: What of the use of tax law to finally take
down the Cult law firm in the movie ‘The Firm’? Was this a wrong use of
tax law since it was the only lawful way of exposing more serious sociological
and legal problems? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Georgia size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Georgia size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia">These are tricky questions; but
I think they illuminate the problem in taking such a simplistic critical
stance. There is a difference between discrimination and ‘religious
persecution.’ The latter only reveals the fact that CC is willing to
create any kind of rhetorical smoke available to them. One of the
important questions is that IF there is some kind of discrimination, WHY would
there be this kind of discrimination? I just don’t see how a balanced
criticism could get off the ground without carefully seeking to answer this
question. If Wilson does hope to turn Main street into New Oxford,
which based on my own discussions with him, is a strong likelihood, and if CC
is uniquely marked by imposing violent sociological categories, arrogance, and
alignment with elitist ideology, then it would seem you should temper your
critiques of the ‘intolerista’s’ actions. If all this is true, their
ability to continue reasoning with anyone from CC till the cows come home,
stay off of Wilson’s Blog, and not do any sort of violence should be
applauded. It would seem that you owe them some respect. If on the
other hand, CC is a humble, innocent protestant lamb being led to the
slaughter because of their preaching of Christ crucified, then it seems you
should be much more serious about your criticism. In other words, the
truthfulness of the underlying concern that would possibly motivate any
discrimination, if there be any in the first place, is something that should
drastically effect your position and approach in all of this. Yes? No?
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Georgia size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Georgia size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia">Thank
you<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Georgia size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia">Michael Metzler
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>