<DIV>Mr. Crabtree,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Perhaps you can ask Saundra Lund why she supports a website that mocks the common household wife. I would tend to believe that these people that work hard and are under appreciated would deserve better treatment than the mockery of Rosemary and Saundra. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Their past tirades have shown intolerance of the religious, the disabled, the poor, the elderly, and now stay at home moms that choose not to castigate and castrate their own husbands. It appears nobody is safe from these two that seem to have tapped into some bottomless stream of hateful venom as a source of their vindictiveness against Moscow and its people or who see any other point of view. I would try to see their point of view, but my head doesn't go that far up there. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If Rose is true to her own words that she "wouldn't publish racist,<BR>sexist, homophobic, or anonymous remarks."
and you tacked on bigoted and anti-religious, she certainly wouldn't be publishing any of her own thoughts of beliefs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Saundra Lund <sslund@roadrunner.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Hi Again Mr. Crabtree,<BR><BR>You're free to disregard the voluntary V2020 daily limit whenever you see<BR>fit :-) I *try*, but I, too, have occasionally gone over the limit :-)<BR>For instance, I'm not counting my latest response to Donovan towards the<BR>limit -- I think there's a difference between having a discussion and<BR>pointing out when someone has intentionally told a lie.<BR><BR>In any case, to continue where we left of, you wrote in part:<BR>"I can see the possibility where discussion of topics such as gay marriage,<BR>reparations or a woman's role in the ministry or the military, or hate
crime<BR>legislation could be arbitrarily censored."<BR><BR>I don't recall reading anything Rose wrote as indicating that she would<BR>"censor" certain topics, but rather that she wouldn't publish "racist,<BR>sexist, homophobic, or anonymous remarks."<BR><BR>Of course, it's Rose's playground and the topics will be of her choosing,<BR>but I personally think it entirely possible -- and indeed proper -- to have<BR>discussions about gay marriage, reparations or a woman's role in the<BR>ministry or military, or hate crime legislation (to use your examples)<BR>*without* resorting to racist, sexist, homophobic, or anonymous comments.<BR><BR>So, perhaps we just aren't talking about the same thing?<BR><BR>You also wrote:<BR>"Anytime a single person with a strongly held point of view controls the<BR>course of debate it is not a free and open forum for discussion."<BR><BR>Well, I don't know that I would disagree -- Rose has set up her playground<BR>with her limits, and the same
certainly holds true for Dale Courtney's blog<BR>as well: he set up his playground with his limits.<BR><BR>But, that's part of the nature of blogs, isn't it? I've always looked at<BR>blogs more as playgrounds, if you will, for those willing to play by the<BR>blogger's rules than open forums where no one participant has more control<BR>than any other.<BR><BR>Finally, you wrote:<BR>"If that being "intentionally obtuse" I guess I'm guilty as charged."<BR><BR>Again, perhaps we just weren't communicating clearly -- if I now understand<BR>correctly, you seem to be more concerned about *any* blogger's control of<BR>topics, which seems to me to be to be an intrinsic part of blogs. I, OTOH,<BR>was making the point that Rose won't allow the kind of racist, sexist,<BR>homophobic comments Dale welcomes and indeed finds amusing.<BR><BR><BR>Saundra Lund<BR>Moscow, ID<BR><BR>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do<BR>nothing.<BR>- Edmund
Burke<BR><BR>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life plus<BR>70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside<BR>the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the<BR>author.*****<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: g. crabtree [mailto:jampot@adelphia.net] <BR>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 7:24 PM<BR>To: Saundra Lund; 'Art Deco'; 'Vision 2020'<BR>Cc: 'Rose & Don Huskey'; 'Sue Hovey'<BR>Subject: Re: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments . . . and THANKS, SUE HOVEY!<BR><BR>Ms. Lund, in my current unfortunate position as mongoose I'm afraid I'm <BR>going to occasionally thumb my nose at the voluntary three a day rule and <BR>today is one of those days. You post:<BR><BR>"In most cases, I don't see anything subjective at all about excluding<BR>racism, sexism, homophobia, or anonymity."<BR><BR><BR>I'm afraid I would have to beg to differ. I can see the possibility where <BR>discussion of
topics such as gay marriage, reparations or a woman's role in <BR>the ministry or the military, or hate crime legislation could be arbitrarily<BR><BR>censored. We see examples of this quite regularly in public education <BR>settings. Anytime a single person with a strongly held point of view <BR>controls the course of debate it is not a free and open forum for <BR>discussion. If that being "intentionally obtuse" I guess I'm guilty as <BR>charged.<BR><BR>g<BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Saundra Lund" <SSLUND@ROADRUNNER.COM><BR>To: "'g. crabtree'" <JAMPOT@ADELPHIA.NET>; "'Art Deco'" <DECO@MOSCOW.COM>; <BR>"'Vision 2020'" <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM><BR>Cc: "'Rose & Don Huskey'" <DONALDROSE@CPCINTERNET.COM>; "'Sue Hovey'" <BR><SUEHOVEY@MOSCOW.COM><BR>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 4:02 PM<BR>Subject: RE: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments . . . and THANKS, SUE HOVEY!<BR><BR><BR>Mr. Crabtree wrote:<BR>"Clearly she intends to subjectively censor the comments made to
her blog."<BR><BR>>From Rose's blog, I repeat:<BR>"I welcome your comments, but this is a monitored website and I will not<BR>publish racist, sexist, homophobic, or anonymous remarks."<BR><BR>In most cases, I don't see anything subjective at all about excluding<BR>racism, sexism, homophobia, or anonymity.<BR><BR>Now, if you like the kind of hate-mongering -- and attacks on minor children<BR>-- your pal Dale allows on his blog, that's your choice.<BR><BR>Personally, I found the comments on Dale's blog, as well as some of his<BR>"editorial" comments, reprehensible and irresponsible. For me, the<BR>negativity far outweighed any newsworthy items I might see there.<BR><BR>Different strokes for different folks, which is why I'm looking forward to<BR>reading Rose's blog. I personally will find the lack of racist, sexist,<BR>homophobic, and anonymous comments a breath of fresh air!<BR><BR>You apparently aren't offended by the racist, sexist, homophobic, anonymous<BR>comments on
Dale's monologue. Different strokes for different folks.<BR><BR>Do you Get It now? If not, then I can only conclude you're being<BR>intentionally obtuse or I'm failing miserably to communicate clearly with<BR>you. In either case . . . that's my three for the day.<BR><BR>And, since I'm at the voluntary V2020 daily limit, I'm going to add here my<BR>sincere gratitude for Sue Hovey's incredibly excellent and thought-provoking<BR>post last night on Jerry Weitz's lawsuit. Thanks, Sue -- you said it well,<BR>and I was honored to meet you at the Knowledge Bowl!<BR><BR><BR><BR>Saundra Lund<BR>Moscow, ID<BR><BR>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do<BR>nothing.<BR>- Edmund Burke<BR><BR>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life plus<BR>70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside<BR>the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the<BR>author.*****<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: g. crabtree [mailto:jampot@adelphia.net]<BR>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 3:29 PM<BR>To: Saundra Lund; 'Art Deco'; 'Vision 2020'<BR>Cc: Rose & Don Huskey<BR>Subject: Re: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments (was RE: It's not<BR>"cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,)<BR><BR>Ms. Lund, how does repeating Rose's explanation from her site change<BR>anything that I have said? Clearly she intends to subjectively censor the<BR>comments made to her blog. The fact that you think it's swell and done for<BR>the most wonderful of reasons doesn't change the fact that it's what she<BR>claims she'll do and Dale doesn't, period. Now, is this explanation clear to<BR><BR>you? If it isn't, what point are you trying to make, exactly?<BR><BR>g<BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Saundra Lund" <SSLUND@ROADRUNNER.COM><BR>To: "'g. crabtree'" <JAMPOT@ADELPHIA.NET>; "'Art Deco'" <DECO@MOSCOW.COM>;<BR>"'Vision 2020'" <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM><BR>Cc: "Rose & Don
Huskey" <DONALDROSE@CPCINTERNET.COM><BR>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 2:54 PM<BR>Subject: Rose's Cleaning House & Comments (was RE: It's not "cyberstalking"<BR>unless you harass someone,)<BR><BR><BR>Mr. Crabtree,<BR><BR>Here is an explanation that perhaps you *can* understand since you don't<BR>seem to get it from what Rose apparently wrote to you "directly and<BR>personally":<BR><BR>"I welcome your comments, but this is a monitored website and I will not<BR>publish racist, sexist, homophobic, or anonymous remarks. If you won't claim<BR>it, you don't get to say it on my blog. Well, actually, I might publish some<BR>samples of dim-witted emails in order to expose the intellectual and moral<BR>defectives that, sadly, are not all together uncommon in this neck of the<BR>woods. I have never given a fig if others agree with me or not, and I don't<BR>need external affirmation to validate my beliefs, or prop up my sense of<BR>self-esteem. However, I do expect responders to
demonstrate civility,<BR>intelligence, integrity, and, it is to be hoped, an abundance of good humor.<BR>Please note: the comments section is not quite ready. I will alert readers<BR>as soon as it is. Thanks for your patience."<BR><BR>Is that any clearer for you??? I hope so!<BR><BR>Kudos to Rose for not intending to allow the kind of hate-mongering Dale<BR>Courtney welcomes!<BR><BR><BR>Saundra Lund<BR>Moscow, ID<BR><BR>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do<BR>nothing.<BR>- Edmund Burke<BR><BR>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life plus<BR>70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside<BR>the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the<BR>author.*****<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<BR>On Behalf Of g. crabtree<BR>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 2:39 PM<BR>To: Art Deco; Vision
2020<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass<BR>someone,<BR><BR>I stand (and without a walker no less!) by previously made remarks. Rose's<BR>site does not currently allow comments and she told me directly and<BR>personally that when they were allowed they would be allowed only "within<BR>appropriate parameters" (note the quotation marks, her words not mine)<BR>Dale's site allows commentary and he does not censor the remarks that<BR>appear. When you or Keely make an unsupported assertion it does not<BR>automatically become exposure of lies, but you already knew that didn't you?<BR>I suspect you've been using these sorts of disingenuous tactics since the<BR>Smoot/Hawley debates when you were a somewhat younger crank.<BR><BR>g<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: Art Deco <?xml:namespace prefix = mailto /><mailto:deco@moscow.com><BR>To: Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:51 PM<BR>Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass<BR>someone,<BR><BR>Gary,<BR><BR>Keely has already exposed your lies about Courtney's the nature<BR>web-blots. I only view them when receiving a link from a local person or<BR>from the crackpot tracking service to which I subscribe. You'd be surprised<BR>at how often your hero Cultmaster Wilson and his various toadies show up.<BR><BR>However, I take great, great offense at your statement:<BR><BR>"At your advanced age you shouldn't get so agitated."<BR><BR>I am only 350 or so in locksmith years.<BR><BR>W.<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: keely emerinemix <mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com><BR>To: g. crabtree <mailto:jampot@adelphia.net>; Art Deco<BR><mailto:deco@moscow.com>; Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:39 PM<BR>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless you harass<BR>someone,<BR><BR>Ummm, hey? Gary? Rose's blog says she allows comments. Just
not<BR>bigoted ones. She gets to decide.<BR><BR>Also, while we're on topic here, I can assure you, as someone<BR>slandered and mocked by Dale Courtney quite regularly over the last four<BR>years, his is not about news with a modicum of commentary. It's just nasty<BR>and snide, with a modicum of respect for actual facts.<BR><BR>keely<BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>From: jampot@adelphia.net<BR>To: deco@moscow.com; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 10:29:30 -0700<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking" unless<BR>you harass someone,<BR><BR><BR>My goodness, Wayne all those years of bottled up spleen are<BR>certainly making themselves apparent in today's posting aren't they? (what<BR>is it now, 101? You don't look a day over 98 but you are a testament to the<BR>notion that old and grumpy do go hand in hand) Lets address your little<BR>hissy fit in the order that you excreted it.<BR><BR>You take me to task for the
sentence:<BR><BR><BR>"Apparently it's more fun to simply broadcast your<BR>irrefutable wisdom to the world and not have to deal with the unpleasantness<BR>of actual debate."<BR><BR>Mr. Courtney's blog is a news/items of interest site with a<BR>modicum of commentary tossed in on the side. Not screeds and lengthy<BR>personnel political rants. A greatly appreciated aspect to his using this<BR>format is that items of interest to him are not directed to and clogging up<BR>the greater groups inbox unlike certain others who shall remain nameless.<BR><BR>In my memory of Dale's posts to the V he did a fine job of<BR>expressing and defending his view points, as did Rose. The difference was<BR>that Dale was the lone mongoose in the viper pit and Rose sang with the<BR>choir. I perfectly understand how being the minority voice can become<BR>tiresome and, eventually, not worth the effort. In conversations I have had<BR>with Dale I have done my best, sorry as it is, to convince and
encourage him<BR>to rejoin the fray. Lord knows I would enjoy an additional conservative<BR>voice here to help sing the counterpoint to the rest of ya'lls dreary dirge.<BR>Do I have "distain and censure" for Rose and her new endeavor? Not hardly,<BR>I'm not wild about the fact that it doesn't allow for comments (as Dale's<BR>does) but I have been assured that this is but a temporary thing and will<BR>change "soon." I have been informed that comments must fall within<BR>"appropriate parameters" and this IS a type of censorship I'm not<BR>particularly fond of. I truly fail to see how anything I have posted might<BR>be construed as being in favor of limiting anyone's free expression. You<BR>seem to be laboring under the erroneous and fatuous assumption that Rose and<BR>I are enemies of some sort. Nothing could be further from the truth. We get<BR>on rather well, all things considered and I wish her nothing but the best in<BR>her latest whimsy and I hope that it doesn't suffer
the same ignoble fate<BR>that lil' Joannie's did.<BR><BR>Whether I have "exhibited yourself for all to see as a<BR>phony" is for others to decide. What I have been trying to express is my<BR>contention that more light (and heat) is shed in an unmediated, unrestrained<BR>setting and that it's the venue that I, personally prefer (even if it means<BR>having to endure silly fonts & unrestrained use of color) for hashing out<BR>the topics de jour as opposed to having to listen (read) someone hold forth<BR>ad nauseum.<BR><BR>Now hows about you have yourself a nice little nap and try<BR>and get a little more fiber in your diet and see if your cranky and<BR>constipated outlook don't take a remarkable turn for the better. At your<BR>advanced age you shouldn't get so agitated.<BR><BR>g<BR><BR>From: Art Deco <mailto:deco@moscow.com><BR>To: Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:57 AM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not
"cyberstalking"<BR>unless you harass someone,<BR><BR><BR>Well, Gary,<BR><BR>I am surprised that you have the stupidity to<BR>mention and to champion Dale Courtney's web-blots so soon after you wrote<BR>the following about Rose Huskey and others:<BR><BR>"Apparently it's more fun to simply broadcast your<BR>irrefutable wisdom to the world and not have to deal with the unpleasantness<BR>of actual debate."<BR><BR>Are you too busy playing with your keys to see that<BR>Courtney runs his own web-blots in part because he was not able to<BR>effectively defend his positions on V 2020, and so that he may remove<BR>comments that he doesn't like, or remove comments that point out where he<BR>either misquotes, quotes out of context, or quotes incompletely to give the<BR>wrong impression. It's all right for Dale Courtney, but not for Rose<BR>Huskey?<BR><BR>Further, you pretended a few days ago to be<BR>staunchly anti-censorship and a true defender of freedom of speech<BR>"Censorship
sucks" were your words. Now you express disdain and censure for<BR>those who dare, like your hero Courtney, to express themselves in a blog - a<BR>decidedly anti-free-expression position on your part.<BR><BR>You sir, have just exhibited yourself for all to see<BR>as a phony, whose writings express a desire to control what others say and<BR>do almost as much as do the cultmaster's!<BR><BR><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID 83843<BR><BR>(208) 882-7975<BR>waf@moscow.com<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: g. crabtree <mailto:jampot@adelphia.net><BR>To: Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen@moscow.com>;<BR>heirdoug@netscape.net ; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:28 AM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not "cyberstalking"<BR>unless you harass someone,<BR><BR>I know I'm probably going to regret this but my<BR>curiosity is hopelessly piqued. Just exactly what action did you take that<BR>would serve as a shining example for others
to emulate? Is it the thinly<BR>veiled vulgarities in your post? Is it maintaining a hate web site against a<BR>small local protestant congregation? Is it endlessly posting of news tidbits<BR>that you think should be of interest to others? Is it your tireless and<BR>constant monitoring of Dale Courtney's web site? I'd really like to know<BR>what it is so I could thank you properly for your ongoing good works. (once<BR>their identified)<BR><BR>g<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: Tom Hansen <mailto:thansen@moscow.com><BR><BR>To: heirdoug@netscape.net ;<BR>vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 5:44 AM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] It's not<BR>"cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,<BR><BR><BR>No-Clue -<BR><BR><BR><BR>You keep submitting gutless threats. Is<BR>that all there is to you? My guess is "Yes".<BR><BR><BR><BR>I am going to repeat a comment I made to you<BR>a long time ago:<BR><BR><BR><BR>"SH*T OR GET THE HELL OFF THE
POT!"<BR><BR><BR><BR>Loosely translated that means: Be a<BR>FRIGGIN' man for once in your spineless, ignorantly childish life! Crawl<BR>out from under that rock of yours and DO SOMETHING. Either take action or<BR>SHUT the EFF UP!<BR><BR><BR><BR>I have set an example for you to follow when<BR>I took action in the past (and will continue to do so in the future).<BR><BR><BR><BR>Jeesh!<BR><BR><BR><BR>Tom Hansen<BR><BR>Moscow, Idaho<BR><BR><BR><BR>"Uh, how about a 1-strike law. Death doesn't<BR>seem too extreme for a Level-3 sex offender."<BR><BR>- Dale "Comb-Over" Courtney (August 3, 2005)<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR><BR>From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com<BR>[mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com] On Behalf Of heirdoug@netscape.net<BR>Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:17 PM<BR>To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: [Vision2020] It's not<BR>"cyberstalking" unless you harass someone,<BR><BR><BR><BR>And I quote, ".... course of conduct<BR>constitute an
implied threat."<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Wow J.,<BR><BR><BR><BR>That would have to be the best example of<BR>point proving since Joan's "jack-boot-vasectomy-procedure" from many months<BR>past.<BR><BR><BR><BR>There is nothing like being the poster girl<BR>for the Intoleristas! Is there.<BR><BR>D.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>I'd tell you go do yourself, but you'd have<BR>to grow some first. Which isn't<BR>about to happen this late in the game, now<BR>is it?<BR><BR>The end.<BR><BR>J :]<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR><BR>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail<BR><HTTP: aol?redir="htt<br" 100122638x1081283466x1074645346 promoclk pr.atwola.com>p://www.aim.com/fun/mail/> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and<BR>email virus protection.<BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step<BR>Internet,<BR>serving the communities of the
Palouse<BR>since 1994.<BR>http://www.fsr.net<BR><BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step<BR>Internet,<BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR><BR>http://www.fsr.net<BR><BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step<BR>Internet,<BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR><BR>http://www.fsr.net<BR><BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now!<BR><HTTP: messenger
default.aspx?locale="en-us&source=<br" launch80 imagine-msn.com>wlmailtagline><BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>=======================================================<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><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>=======================================================<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><BR></mailto:thansen@moscow.com></mailto:thansen@moscow.com></mailto:jampot@adelphia.net></mailto:vision2020@moscow.com></mailto:deco@moscow.com></mailto:vision2020@moscow.com></mailto:deco@moscow.com></mailto:jampot@adelphia.net></mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com></mailto:vision2020@moscow.com></mailto:deco@moscow.com><p> 
<hr size=1>8:00? 8:25? 8:40? <a href="
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=oni_on_mail&#news"> Find a flick</a> in no time<br> with the<a href="
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=oni_on_mail&#news">Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.</a>