<div> </div>
<div>Paul and all others on the Vision2020 list serve-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Et. al. is meant to say something like the above. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/et%20al">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/et%20al</a>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I always assume that all threads are open for anyone to "jump" into. If you want a discussion restricted to a select group, why post it to Vision2020?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyway, I'm sorry for objecting to you stating you were sorry for jumping in...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, it's your turn... Something like "I'm sorry for making you sorry for objecting to me being sorry for jumping in." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then I reply "I'm sorry that you were sorry for making me sorry for objecting to you being sorry for jumping in."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And this is simple compared to the "knots" in this book:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Knots" by R. D. Laing</div>
<div>---------------------------------</div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Just trying to be polite. You had addressed your message to "Sue, et.<br>al.", which I took to mean that you intended for Sue and/or the others
<br>that have been involved in this particular exchange to respond. I<br>realize it's a public forum, I just don't want to step on anyone's toes<br>if they are explicitly looking for a specific person's response to
<br>this. I'm just trying to avoid the "Hey! Weisenheimer! I'm talking to<br>the lady, not YOU!" class of response you might get if we were having<br>this conversation in a crowded room rather than on an email list.
<br><br>I tend to take the Mr. Politeness Boy thing too far sometimes, it's<br>true. I just think it's better to come across too polite than too<br>rude. I'll attempt to be more curt in the future. I also tend to
<br>apologize a lot. Don't know why.<br><br>Anyway, sorry about the trouble. Wait! What am I saying! I am NOT sorry!<br><br>Paul<br><br>Politeness: it's not just for the Japanese... it's also a good idea.
<br><br>Ted Moffett wrote:<br>><br>> Paul et. al.<br>><br>> Why say you are "sorry" for "jumping in the middle?" Any thread<br>> is fair game for anyone to contribute to on a open public list serve,
<br>> correct? Are we now to start a trend of apologizing for expressing<br>> our opinions?<br>><br>> Good grief!<br>><br>> Ted Moffett<br>><br>> On 8/25/07, *Paul Rumelhart* <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">
godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>> Ted,<br>><br>> (Sorry for jumping in the middle here)<br>><br>> I understand your concerns well, since I'm not of her religion - and
<br>> would possibly be looked down upon by her if she found out what my<br>> beliefs actually were. However, if she had simply sent the<br>> message from<br>> home I wouldn't have had a problem with it at all. She's welcome
<br>> to her<br>> beliefs, and I see nothing wrong with asking a group of people<br>> that she<br>> feels, based on her own personal criteria, would be a good match<br>> for the<br>> job.
<br>><br>> Of course, since she sent it from work, it looks official. However,<br>> I've seen nothing to indicate that this is anything more than a<br>> screwup<br>> on her part. She is saying that the Sheriff is a good Christian, the
<br>> Sheriff isn't saying it in an official communication. It looks<br>> obvious<br>> to me that the email was not an official communication, and that there<br>> is no reason to believe that hiring only good Christian men in the
<br>> ongoing fight against all that is evil is an official policy. So,<br>> I see<br>> no reason to reprimand the Sheriffs Office for this except to suggest<br>> that they better enforce their computer usage policies.
<br>><br>> Yes, the lady in question probably could benefit from some interaction<br>> with people not of her religion. I wouldn't assume that a strongly<br>> religious person would treat anyone not of their religion any
<br>> differently, though. From what I've seen, most people that are<br>> strongly<br>> religious like that treat everyone kindly but reserve a certain amount<br>> of extra concern for other members of their own church. It's the
<br>> oddball fanatics that are at the top of the bell curve that make the<br>> news. It's possible that if everyone that worked there was of the<br>> same<br>> flavor of religion (or close enough that minor differences didn't
<br>> matter) except for the new guy or gal, he or she might see some<br>> prejudice or at least a lot of tedious attempts at personal conversion<br>> off the job. However, that's a problem the person would take to
<br>> their<br>> supervisor, and is not my concern.<br>><br>> That being said, if a group of officers started using their own<br>> religious ideals to overstep their bounds as law enforcement officers
<br>> then it would be reasonable to jump on them for it.<br>><br>> I don't see this as being any different than my forwarding a job<br>> announcement at work to a linux mailing list, in the hopes of
<br>> recruiting<br>> good pro-open source types to help in the fight against Evil<br>> Corporate<br>> Monopolies. If I sent it from work, it could be construed as an<br>> official policy by accident. However, there would be nothing
<br>> wrong with<br>> my sending it from home. If we did hire, say, a Microsoft fanboy,<br>> there<br>> is no reason to believe that I would treat him or her any differently<br>> than anyone else. Differences aren't a problem unless they lead to
<br>> actual abusive actions. Then it's the person taking the action<br>> that is<br>> at fault, not the fact that there are differences in the first place.<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>> Ted Moffett wrote:
<br>> ><br>> > Sue et. al.<br>> ><br>> > Assuming this communication was sent from Latah County Law<br>> enforcement<br>> > computers, personal use of work computers, whether in the public or
<br>> > private sector, is sometimes tolerated. But sent from a tax payer<br>> > supported work computer or not, this e-mail sent to a church<br>> business<br>> > list (this was not a purely personal communication) expressing
<br>> > religious and gender bias (the e-mail did not merely inform of job<br>> > openings, but expressed a desire for "Christian men" to fill the<br>> > ranks) from an employee of the Latah Sheriff Dept. raises serious
<br>> > issues that an apology and press release do not fully address.<br>> ><br>> > Expressing preference for a specific religion and gender in a<br>> > communication to recruit fellow employees demonstrates arrogance
<br>> > towards and disregard of the principle of non-discrimination in<br>> > hiring, a principle that all tax payer supported employees of all<br>> > public institutions should be thoroughly aware of and respect.
<br>> ><br>> > Given this employee would prefer to have "Christian men" employed by<br>> > the Latah Sheriff's Dept, how well would this employee work<br>> with, for<br>> > example, a Wiccan, atheist or Islamic co-worker? What about a
<br>> > lesbian? And in the "battle against evil," will this employee be<br>> > capable of maintaining total objectivity on the job, regarding<br>> ethical<br>> > issues that are problematic for their religion, given their obvious
<br>> > religious bias?<br>> ><br>> > I doubt it. And this doubt extends to the objectivity that any<br>> > religious fundamentalist or extreme ideologue might be capable of<br>> > applying on the job.
<br>> ><br>> > The fact this employee appeared oblivious to the ethical flaw in<br>> > promoting religious and gender discrimination (though we are<br>> being led<br>> > to believe this employee was not representing the department when
<br>> > sending this communication?) in the hiring process for a public<br>> > service job clearly expresses the insular bias that is unconsciously<br>> > embedded in the mentality of religious fundamentalism.
<br>> ><br>> > Quotes from the communication in question:<br>> ><br>> > "We currently have three open positions down in our jail," she<br>> wrote. "It<br>> > would be great to see them filled with Christian men. The
<br>> Lieutenant<br>> > of the<br>> > jail, Jim Loyd, is a strong Christian and so are several of the<br>> detention<br>> > deputies."<br>> ><br>> > "You are issued a handgun and rifle, and you get to work for
<br>> Sheriff Wayne<br>> > Rausch, a wonderful Christian," she continues. "Working as a cop<br>> is an<br>> > excellent opportunity for Christians to be at the forefront in<br>> the battle
<br>> > against evil."<br>> > --------------------<br>> > Ted Moffett<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > On 8/24/07, *Sue Hovey* <<a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com">
suehovey@moscow.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com">suehovey@moscow.com</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com">suehovey@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com">
suehovey@moscow.com</a>>> > wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Roger, et al. When one is posting a message on a computer which<br>> > belongs to<br>> > the place where you work, the message better be in
<br>> compliance with<br>> > hiring<br>> > practice and the law. Regardless of her views, she should<br>> not be<br>> > posting<br>> > them on a computer that does not specifically belong to her.
<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Sue<br>> > ----- Original Message -----<br>> > From: "lfalen" < <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>
<br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">
lfalen@turbonet.com</a>>>><br>> > To: "keely emerinemix" < <a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com
</a>><br>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a>>>>;<br>> "Debbie Gray"<br>> > <
<a href="mailto:graylex@yahoo.com">graylex@yahoo.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:graylex@yahoo.com">graylex@yahoo.com</a>><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:graylex@yahoo.com">graylex@yahoo.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:graylex@yahoo.com">
graylex@yahoo.com</a>>>>; "Tom Hansen" <<br>> > <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>> <mailto:
<br>> <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>>>>; "MoscowVision 2020"<br>> > <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">
vision2020@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">
vision2020@moscow.com</a>>>><br>> > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:43 AM<br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > > Keely
<br>> > > You and many other may disagree with her, but there was<br>> nothing<br>> > wrong with<br>> > > her expressing her views. It was intended to be a private<br>
> > communication.<br>> > > It was not an official job posting or representing the<br>> > department in any<br>> > > way. What is suspect is the leaking of a private communication
<br>> > to Vera<br>> > > White.<br>> > > Roger<br>> > ><br>> ><br>><br><br></blockquote></div><br>