<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Scott, I freely (and sheepishly) admit that I was
taking a rather mild jab at Joe and yourself with the "wind" comment but,
considering the general overall tone of V2020, I really didn't think it rose to
the level of provoking profanity and violence. I appreciate your response
and enjoy your challenges and look forward to future discussions. Joe, on the
other hand, not so much. I feel sure that I could do quite well with
a more toned down version of his unique form of tolerance and
rhetoric. It must be quite an adventure to be one of his students and have the
temerity to hold an opinion that differs from his.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></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="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sdredge@yahoo.com href="mailto:sdredge@yahoo.com">Scott Dredge</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> Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:12
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] thin
skinned?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I went through the entire thread again, but I didn't take
offense to anything Gary wrote and I'm surprised that Joe did. I simply
narrowed the scope of my questioning back to Gary and he responded directly to
my question and then clarified his position which was on complications with
polygamous marriages. Truthfully, I just wanted to focus on substantive
parts of the topic and off of the generalized "weak argument" (my fault for
throwing this into the mix) and "blowing in the wind" statements. Joe, I
think you misinterpreted Gary's post. Or maybe Gary insulted me too and
I just missed it. In any event, I appreciate Gary's exchange on this
topic.<BR><BR>-Scott<BR><BR><B><I>"g. crabtree"
<jampot@adelphia.net></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">Joe,
I am sure that you would have preferred to keep this communication on
<BR>the down low, but I really thought that some of our friends on the
Vision <BR>would enjoy getting to see a different side of our mild mannered,
oh so <BR>reasonable, philosophy professor, the esteemed Dr. Joseph
Campbell. If this <BR>is in bad form or a breach of net etiquette, I'll try
to deal with the <BR>sorrow.<BR><BR>The Declaration states that "Natures
God" entitles us to hold some truths <BR>to be self evident and that we are
endowed by our Creator with certain <BR>unalienable rights. Nowhere does it
state that I have to be personally <BR>acquainted with anyone seeking to
exercise the aforementioned truths and <BR>rights. If it did, they wouldn't
be self-evident and unalienable now would <BR>they? Also the Declaration was
a document between the original thirteen <BR>colonies and the monarch of
Great Briton and as such has precious little to <BR>do with current law,
making your original argument just that much more <BR>awkward.<BR><BR>As to
your ridiculous threat to come to my place of employment and do great
<BR>physical harm to my poor proboscis, a protuberance which has done you
<BR>absolutely no injustice, might I suggest that you reconsider this
extremely <BR>poorly thought out scheme? I feel sure that there would be
regrets in the <BR>aftermath. After all, since when has "not knowing what
one is talking about" <BR>on this forum been a valid rationale for violence?
If after giving this <BR>matter some serious further thought you still feel
that this course of <BR>action is wise and the only way to salve your
"sacred Honor" so be it. I'm <BR>easy to find, tough guy.<BR><BR>G.
Crabtree<BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Joe Campbell"
<JOEKC@ADELPHIA.NET><BR>To: "g. crabtree" <JAMPOT@ADELPHIA.NET><BR>Sent:
Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:13 PM<BR>Subject: OFFLINE: [Vision2020] Re: David
Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad <BR>dayin IDAHO<BR><BR><BR>You don't know
what the hell you are talking about. I asked you a question: <BR>Do you know
of one f--king person who is a polygomist fighting for the right <BR>to
marry? Answer: No, you don't! Whether you do or not, I certainly don't
<BR>know anyone who is a polygomist who is fighting for the right to marry.
I <BR>know several gays and lesbians who are fighting for the right to
marry. And <BR>so I bet do you! That accounts for the relevant
difference.<BR><BR>Before you insult me on-line again make sure you know
what you are talking <BR>about or I will come to your place of work and
punch you right in the nose.<BR><BR>--<BR>Joe Campbell<BR><BR>---- "g.
crabtree" <JAMPOT@ADELPHIA.NET>wrote:<BR><BR>=============<BR>Well Scott, it
sounds to me like you and Joe base your thinking on your <BR>feelings on any
given day. This is why I was asking him about the <BR>declaration and how it
applied to a variation of this discussion. My <BR>thoughts on the matter are
that the government should not be in the business <BR>of sanctioning
relationships of any kind. As far as equal rights go, what's <BR>OK for a
man & a women should be good for a man & a man. Or a man & a man
& <BR>a man. Or a woman, a snake & a apple. Just how equal do you
want to get? My <BR>objections stem from problems that I see when it comes
to insurance, social <BR>security, inheritance, and child custody along with
a host of other issues. <BR>Same gender marriage will cause far more
problems then it will solve. To <BR>call my argument weak and base your
assertion on your "feelings" all the <BR>while offering no coherent argument
of your own (in fact stating that with <BR>regard to a large portion of the
discussion that you have "no opinion") <BR>seems a mite vapid. Perhaps the
reason that you have no opinion and Joe <BR>elects to stick with one issue
at a time is because you all are waiting for <BR>someone to tell you which
way the wind is blowing?<BR><BR>gc<BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From:
Scott Dredge<BR>To: g. crabtree ; Joe Campbell ; Ed<BR>Cc:
vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:02 AM<BR>Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad <BR>dayin
IDAHO<BR><BR><BR>This is the same weak argument that Dale Courtney and Doug
Wilson offer <BR>up. Do you, Gary, believe that polygamy (including all same
sex polygamy) <BR>should be legalized in the name of equal rights? Yes or
No?<BR><BR>I support equal rights under the law for same sex couples. I have
no <BR>opinion about legalizing polygamy. Make your case for polygamous
equality <BR>compared to a marriage between two consenting adults and I
might form one.<BR><BR>-Scott<BR><BR>"g. crabtree"
<JAMPOT@ADELPHIA.NET>wrote:<BR>So Joe, If the Declaration of Independence is
to be your ultimate guide <BR>in<BR>this matter, I am sure that you have no
objection to three men/women who<BR>love and respect one another enjoying
the right to marriage and their <BR>own<BR>version of the pursuit of
happiness. After all, why should couples enjoy<BR>special rights? Like you
say, equal rights for
all.<BR><BR>gc<BR></JAMPOT@ADELPHIA.NET></JAMPOT@ADELPHIA.NET></JAMPOT@ADELPHIA.NET></JOEKC@ADELPHIA.NET></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<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>