<div>Recall the anonymous participant "greytreecrab," I think it was? This was likely a play on the name of a </div>
<div>a regular Vision2020 participant, who I don't need to name for anyone who follows Vision2020.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I always (nearly) sign my full name to my posts. While some on this list know that I am not an anonymous participant just from my e-mail address or first name, there may be many who would not know this, especially those new to this area or new to Vision2020.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On this point, there are Vision2020 participants who usually sign their posts with only their first name. I don't personally know some of these participants. The only reason I assume they not hiding their identity is that others on the list appear to personally know them. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Still, I think everyone should sign their posts with their full name. This helps to promote openness and honesty on the list, especially for those new to Vision2020. Those who sign their posts with only their first name cast an aura on the list of it being a insiders club for a local gossip session, I think, which in fact it sometimes actually is... This perhaps does not encourage new participants, which Vision2020 needs. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some people may have good reasons for not signing their full name, or using a pseudonym, personal safety or work restrictions, for example.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given that I have been deceived in the past by anonymous participants, if I suspect a participant is hiding their identity, I now mostly ignore these posts, though sometimes I will extend trust to a new participant, without checking on their identity as presented, if the post content does not seem "suspicious."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To change the subject away from the subject heading of this post (which I usually try to avoid), and address a comment in the post below, about local churches and their political activity: </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some local churches function as a political machine in a manner (lock step, authoritarian, with a political agenda that can impact local government) that is quite different than some other local churches. This fact is why there is a special focus among some in the local community towards certain churches regarding their efforts to impact the nature of the community. But as the comments below state, this is "so dang obvious," so excuse me for the redundancy that nonetheless appears to need restating over and over...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/2/08, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:joekc@roadrunner.com">joekc@roadrunner.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:joekc@roadrunner.com">joekc@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I have supported J. Ford for personal reasons. But as has been pointed out. Other than that I'm<br>not sure what you're talking about. But since you seem to have all of my posts saved and<br>
categorized -- or one of your friends does -- no doubt you'll bring one up if I'm mistaken!<br><br>I am not reading Dr. No's posts for the simple reason that what little I did read contained, as I<br>noted, obvious and numerous fallacies. There is not much of a challenge there and little interest.<br>
<br>He does get my panties in a wad, I'll admit. But not because of his arguments, or even his insults.<br>I still can't get over how a local church could so blatantly act like a political machine. That they<br>can continue to do so while most people, intelligent though most may be, fail to notice what<br>
strikes me as being so dang obvious.<br><br>Just to make my point, I'll ask you straight up, Gary. Are you really going to tell me that you don't<br>know who No Weatherman is, and with what church he is affiliated? We may have our differences<br>
but, previous name-calling aside, I certainly consider you to be intelligent. But my guess is, you'll say "No" and "No." And that just makes my point. I am stunned that they could pull the wool over<br>
even your eyes, a crafty, no-nonsense man of the people. Just thinking about it, let alone being<br>reminded of it on a daily basis, drives me fricken nuts.<br><br>And since I'm not reading Dr. No's posts and you consider him to be so challenging, could you just<br>
repeat for me what you take to be his best point, and the best argument for that point. Just one.<br>If it is not an easily identifiable fallacy, I'll be shocked. But prove me wrong! Just one example.<br><br>--<br>Joe Campbell<br>
<br></blockquote></div>