<DIV>"Spoken" wasn't the operative words here; "falsely" was. What "Decent<BR>of the illegals" means, I have no idea."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Sorry, I should have better phrased it better. The race of the illegal laborers is irrelevant to any argument. <BR></EM></STRONG><BR>> You didn't "invoke" Rainford.<BR><BR>I didn't say that I had.<BR><BR>> Hansen simply posted an editorial written by him.<BR><BR>Precisely.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>So saying laying claim to the reason he was invoked is only an assumption made on your part, unless you had communication with him I was unaware?<BR></EM></STRONG><BR> You are referencing what you want from it, as I am. I happen to<BR>believe<BR>> that Rainford's arguments do not address my primary concerns or<BR>issues with<BR>> illegal labor in the United States.<BR><BR>Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.<BR><BR>> I think Keely and Hansen have
made points that the Mexican Consulate<BR>should<BR>> be placed in <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1209978421_0 style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">Idaho</SPAN>. But I don't agree they override the damage the<BR>Consulate<BR>> would cause by assisting illegal laborers to stay here, and to<BR>attract more<BR>> illegal laborers to <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1209978421_1 style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">Idaho</SPAN> to compete with Idaho Workers.<BR><BR>So, the damage that 2% of a given group might do override the needs of<BR>the other 98%?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>No. The Mexican Consulates exist, not for the 98%, but only the 2%. And I don't agree with those figures. People here legally don't need a Mexican Consulate. <BR><BR></EM></STRONG>> I watched an investigative report on <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1209978421_2 style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">PBS</SPAN> about
Mexican<BR>> Consulates, and I trust their findings, and other readings about<BR>them, then<BR>> over that of Keely or Hansen.<BR><BR>I likewise tend to trust <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1209978421_3 style="CURSOR: hand; BORDER-BOTTOM: #0066cc 1px dashed">PBS</SPAN> over anecdotal evidence, regardless of<BR>the source. This might have been a useful detail to emphasize<BR>earlier. As it happens, I suspect that everything that you claim<BR>about Mexican Consulates is true. I disagree that it is particularly<BR>important.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>True, I should have.</EM></STRONG> <BR><BR>> The fact that Keely is not always honest, and that Hansen is crude,<BR>and<BR>> offensive to persons his disagrees with, and always making stupid<BR>jokes at<BR>> other's expenses, does cloud my judgment of them and things they have<BR>to<BR>> say.<BR><BR>I find Keely to be scrupulously honest. Tom does bait you, I concur,<BR>but
it does take two to prolong silly bickering. Ignore him, at least<BR>the stupid jokes at others expense. I have learned that Tom is an<BR>asset, even though we have our disagreements. The antagonism between<BR>the two of you predates my presence on Vision2020, so I'm not entirely<BR>certain of its cause. No, this isn't an invitation for<BR>explanation/justification. I wish it would stop. It's tiresome.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>I find Keely the opposite. My disagreements with Hansen date to first few posts on the V. I have tried to stop it, and ignore him, call a truce, make a bet to be silent or not make an insult, but it doesn't work. It won't stop until he wants it to stop. That is just the way Hansen is to many people. Before he did this with me, it was Doug Wilson, Dale Courtney, and Douglas Scambler. <BR></EM></STRONG><BR>> The fact that me and you are Aspies, says more about
our<BR>miscommunication<BR>> than a 1000 emails could.<BR><BR>Agreed. I was the lucky one in my family. Both of my younger<BR>brothers suffer from a variety of autism with far more problematic<BR>consequences than any that have plagued me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Inverse here. Aspergers can be a benefit to many people, like Einstein, Al Gore, and Sir Issac Newton, and even Bill Gates. But not for me and most people. <BR></EM></STRONG><BR>> One thing about me, I do like to argue about political issues. But I<BR>am<BR>> always as honest as I can be. I don't always read what people intend,<BR>as<BR>> others misread me. But I am passionate about my positions, and am<BR>serious<BR>> about it most of the time. But I do sometimes, take the oppositional<BR>view,<BR>> for a more interesting discussion.<BR><BR>I enjoy "arguing," but only when it is orderly and logical. I dislike<BR>tangents immensely. Arguments should
proceed in a step-by-step<BR>manner, with no leaping to conclusions by either side. Everything<BR>should be articulated cleanly and precisely. Preferably, all logical<BR>fallacies should be avoided, all innuendo left at the door. Ideally,<BR>it should be processed in small chunks, with neither side advancing<BR>until agreement has been reached about the details up until that<BR>moment, or until both sides have have agreed to disagree, at which<BR>point the argument is essentially over. Again, all digressions should<BR>be squashed. If a mutually interesting tangent does come to the fore,<BR>then start another thread. I've participated in discussions following<BR>this sensible format for literal decades. When I first discovered<BR>newsgroups and online forums, I was overjoyed. Sensible dialogue<BR>seemed possible, and for a while, it actually occurred. Then the<BR>barrier to entry was lowered, so that anyone could
participate, no<BR>matter how ill-equipped, and "anyone" did. Trolls and flamers and<BR>then spammers destroyed the medium, except for in small, usually<BR>intimate forums. Vision2020 has the potential, and probably in<BR>private pockets this potential is realized, but seldom out in the open<BR>where it would have the most utility.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Only in a perfect world. That might work a little better in person, but online, with a hundred people interacting and no body language, I think it is hard. I don't intentionally miss what people are saying, or intentionally mislead people of my arguments, but it just happens, especially online. I don't think it is possible to say anything without making assumptions. We all must make assumptions. <BR><BR></EM></STRONG>Anyway, the above delineates what I seek n Vision2020, or in any<BR>dialogue. Your mileage may differ. It probably does.<BR><BR><STRONG><EM>You probably stay on the
V for a different reason than I do.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Best Regards,</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>Donovan<BR></EM></STRONG><BR><B><I>Chasuk <chasuk@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Donovan Arnold<BR><DONOVANJARNOLD2005@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR><BR>> are just being intentionally obtuse. You know the term slanderous can be<BR>> applied to a written or verbal statement. Slanderous is a synonym for<BR>> libelous in the American Thesaurus if you want to play technical games. This<BR>> sort of thing is so fruitless and trivial. Decent of the illegals is<BR>> irrelevant and pointless in this argument.<BR><BR>"Spoken" wasn't the operative words here; "falsely" was. What "Decent<BR>of the illegals" means, I have no
idea.<BR><BR>> You didn't "invoke" Rainford.<BR><BR>I didn't say that I had.<BR><BR>> Hansen simply posted an editorial written by him.<BR><BR>Precisely.<BR><BR>You are referencing what you want from it, as I am. I happen to believe<BR>> that Rainford's arguments do not address my primary concerns or issues with<BR>> illegal labor in the United States.<BR><BR>Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.<BR><BR>> I think Keely and Hansen have made points that the Mexican Consulate should<BR>> be placed in Idaho. But I don't agree they override the damage the Consulate<BR>> would cause by assisting illegal laborers to stay here, and to attract more<BR>> illegal laborers to Idaho to compete with Idaho Workers.<BR><BR>So, the damage that 2% of a given group might do overide the needs of<BR>the other 98%?<BR><BR>> I watched an investigative report on PBS about Mexican<BR>> Consulates, and I trust their findings, and other readings about them,
then<BR>> over that of Keely or Hansen.<BR><BR>I likewise tend to trust PBS over anecdotal evidence, regardless of<BR>the source. This might have been a useful detail to emphasize<BR>earlier. As it happens, I suspect that everything that you claim<BR>about Mexican Consulates is true. I disagree that it is particularly<BR>important.<BR><BR>> The fact that Keely is not always honest, and that Hansen is crude, and<BR>> offensive to persons his disagrees with, and always making stupid jokes at<BR>> other's expenses, does cloud my judgment of them and things they have to<BR>> say.<BR><BR>I find Keely to be scrupulously honest. Tom does bait you, I concur,<BR>but it does take two to prolong silly bickering. Ignore him, at least<BR>the stupid jokes at other's expense. I have learned that Tom is an<BR>asset, even though we have our disagreements. The antagonism between<BR>the two of you predates my presence on Vision2020, so I'm not entirely<BR>certain of its cause.
No, this isn't an invitation for<BR>explanation/justification. I wish it would stop. It's tiresome.<BR><BR>> The fact that me and you are Aspies, says more about our miscommunication<BR>> than a 1000 emails could.<BR><BR>Agreed. I was the lucky one in my family. Both of my younger<BR>brothers suffer from a variety of autism with far more problematic<BR>consequences than any that have plagued me.<BR><BR>> One thing about me, I do like to argue about political issues. But I am<BR>> always as honest as I can be. I don't always read what people intend, as<BR>> others misread me. But I am passionate about my positions, and am serious<BR>> about it most of the time. But I do sometimes, take the oppositional view,<BR>> for a more interesting discussion.<BR><BR>I enjoy "arguing," but only when it is orderly and logical. I dislike<BR>tangents immensely. Arguments should proceed in a step-by-step<BR>manner, with no leaping to conclusions by either side.
Everything<BR>should be articulated cleanly and precisely. Preferably, all logical<BR>fallacies should be avoided, all innuendo left at the door. Ideally,<BR>it should be processed in small chunks, with neither side advancing<BR>until agreement has been reached about the details up until that<BR>moment, or until both sides have have agreed to disagree, at which<BR>point the argument is essentially over. Again, all digressions should<BR>be squashed. If a mutually interesting tangent does come to the fore,<BR>then start another thread. I've participated in discussions following<BR>this sensible format for literal decades. When I first discovered<BR>newsgroups and online forums, I was overjoyed. Sensible dialogue<BR>seemed possible, and for a while, it actually occurred. Then the<BR>barrier to entry was lowered, so that anyone could participate, no<BR>matter how ill-equipped, and "anyone" did. Trolls and flamers and<BR>then spammers destroyed the medium, except for in small,
usually<BR>intimate forums. Vision2020 has the potential, and probably in<BR>private pockets this potential is realized, but seldom out in the open<BR>where it would have the most utility.<BR><BR>Anyway, the above delineates what I seek n Vision2020, or in any<BR>dialogue. Your mileage may differ. It probably does.<BR><BR>Chas<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><p> 
<hr size=1>Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ "> Try it now.</a>