<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>Roger -<BR>
<BR>
William Ayers (whose wife of 45 years, Bernadine Dohrn, was also active in the Weathermen Underground) is a faculty member at the University of Illinois at Chicago.<BR>
<A href="http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers">http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers</A><BR>
<BR>
I guess that would suggest that the University of Illinois at Chicago "pals around with terrorists", too. You would have to ask Jeff Harkins for sure, though.<BR>
<BR>
Michelle "Fist Bump" Obama is on staff at the Great Cities Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago.<BR>
<A href="http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/">http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/</A><BR>
<BR>
The Obamas and Ayers have been actively involved in charities concerning education and opportunities for inner-city youth. <BR>
<BR>
This just wreaks of Al-Qaeda, doesn't it?<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps you should address your concerns to the administration of the University of Illinois.<BR>
<BR>
In the meantime, though, perhaps the Barack Obama should do what any other self-respecting candidate does and hire a witch doctor.<BR>
<BR>
Tom Hansen<BR>
Moscow, Idaho<BR>
<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:41:16 -0700<BR>> From: lfalen@turbonet.com<BR>> To: ophite@gmail.com; jampot@roadrunner.com<BR>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma<BR>> <BR>> As briefly mentioned in this article: Obama announced his candidacy for the US Senate from Ayers home. This would suggest a some what closer association that you would like us t believe. Even though Wrght's Church has done some good. His rhetoric is still disgusting and 20 years association wth some one who makes those kinds of statements is questionable.<BR>> Roger<BR>> -----Original message-----<BR>> From: "Andreas Schou" ophite@gmail.com<BR>> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:19:58 -0700<BR>> To: "g. crabtree" jampot@roadrunner.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma<BR>> <BR>> > Gary --<BR>> > <BR>> > Incidentally, this pretty much covers the relationship between Ayers<BR>> > and Obama, from top to bottom:<BR>> > <BR>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin<BR>> > <BR>> > As far as I can tell, it's a recapitulation of the incredibly hostile<BR>> > Stanley Kurtz article, but without scare quotes and the spurious<BR>> > accusation that a Nixon ambassador was funding radical education<BR>> > reform. It proves that two people belonging to the same political<BR>> > party, who lived within three blocks of each other, who served on a<BR>> > board of directors together, crossed paths several times.<BR>> > <BR>> > -- ACS<BR>> > <BR>> > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM, g. crabtree <jampot@roadrunner.com> wrote:<BR>> > > I'm glad you're managing to keep your sense of humor. I was becoming a bit<BR>> > > concerned. From my side of the monitor it looked as though you were having<BR>> > > an extremely difficult time with consistency (same old, same old) and as a<BR>> > > result der weather dude was enjoying your lunch after all!<BR>> > ><BR>> > > nighty nite,<BR>> > > g<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > > From: <joekc@roadrunner.com><BR>> > > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com><BR>> > > Cc: <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 3:36 PM<BR>> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma<BR>> > > Wow, talk about getting emotional, Gary!<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Most of these are versions of the ad hominem fallacy, guilt by association<BR>> > > in particular, which<BR>> > > you noted was fallacious. And these are the BEST arguments that have been<BR>> > > presented!?!<BR>> > ><BR>> > > I'm not saying that Obama's "connection" with Ayers is good. I'm saying it<BR>> > > is irrelevant to whether<BR>> > > or not he should be president. And I said it was irrelevant when the issue<BR>> > > was first posted.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > And how could you, or No Weatherman, have the nerve to say that someone's<BR>> > > "association" with<BR>> > > a "nut ball pastor and mentor" is reason for condemnation? Let's get<BR>> > > serious. If it is, you are in<BR>> > > a heap of trouble! Since you are not, it is a bad argument. Again, guilt by<BR>> > > association.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > And how about this argument: "McCain was born in Iraq. If I'm wrong, prove<BR>> > > it." Is that worthy of<BR>> > > consideration? Is your failure to prove me wrong relevant? No. The argument<BR>> > > is a complete joke.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > The only thing that isn't surprising is that you think that these are all<BR>> > > good arguments. Oh, dear!<BR>> > > That will keep me laughing for the rest of the day! Thanks!<BR>> > ><BR>> > > --<BR>> > > Joe Campbell<BR>> > ><BR>> > > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com> wrote:<BR>> > >> >"You implied below that No Weatherman's posts we challenging and that is<BR>> > >> >why myself and others<BR>> > >> >do not respond to them, Gary. Name one good argument that he has given.<BR>> > >> >Just one."<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> Talk about distorting posts, I said nothing about "good arguments." My<BR>> > >> exact quote was "that he has the unmitigated gall to bring up topics along<BR>> > >> with<BR>> > >> citations that you find uncomfortable and difficult to reconcile."<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> That said lets look at some of the topics NW has presented:<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> BHO's affiliation with Bill Ayers. Unquestionably a legitimate issue to<BR>> > >> examine.<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> The One's twenty plus year even closer affiliation with his nut ball<BR>> > >> pastor<BR>> > >> and mentor, Jeremiah Wright and his crackpot hate whitey/hate America<BR>> > >> church.<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> Next we have the dual citizenship topic. I would have thought this you and<BR>> > >> your pals could have handled immediately. Either your savior does not have<BR>> > >> dual citizenship or he does. If not, present your documentation and case<BR>> > >> closed, you win your "argument." If so, a definite subject for inquiry and<BR>> > >> comment.<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> Which of these have you reconciled? Have you made a convincing case that<BR>> > >> Ayers isn't a terrorist? Have you squared Wright's rhetoric with a<BR>> > >> potential<BR>> > >> president of all the people in America, not just the one covered by his<BR>> > >> mentors questionable theology? Have you even answered the simple yes/no<BR>> > >> question of the dual citizenship?<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> To turn the topics into a winnable arguments, which you seem to be so<BR>> > >> desperate to do, tell me why it's good that our future president be<BR>> > >> closely<BR>> > >> associated with a bomb planting terrorist. Why it's a boon to a<BR>> > >> presidential<BR>> > >> resume to spend twenty years as a religious follower of an America hating<BR>> > >> racist. Any answer that starts with "Well, McCain...," which is all that<BR>> > >> I've heard up to now, is no answer at all, it's a different discussion.<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> Have a good weekend,<BR>> > >> g<BR>> > >><BR>> > >><BR>> > >><BR>> > >> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > >> From: <joekc@roadrunner.com><BR>> > >> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com><BR>> > >> Cc: <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 8:11 AM<BR>> > >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma<BR>> > >><BR>> > >><BR>> > >> It is fine with me if you want to distort my posts. I'm powerless to stop<BR>> > >> it. But would it be too<BR>> > >> much trouble to have some substantive contributions, to attempt to back up<BR>> > >> some of your claims?<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> You implied below that No Weatherman's posts we challenging and that is<BR>> > >> why<BR>> > >> myself and others<BR>> > >> do not respond to them, Gary. Name one good argument that he has given.<BR>> > >> Just<BR>> > >> one.<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> He strikes me as a narrow-minded bigot. The fact that you defend him is<BR>> > >> curious. So since you<BR>> > >> think he is fine and makes good points, list one argument that he made<BR>> > >> which<BR>> > >> is not fallacious.<BR>> > >> Just one. You cannot do it which is why you haven't done so yet.<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> --<BR>> > >> Joe Campbell<BR>> > >><BR>> > >> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com> wrote:<BR>> > >> > I didn't say I felt unqualified to say anything about Mr. Witmer, I said<BR>> > >> > that I had no idea if he was NW.<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > I don't believe that I have ever attempted to tell others what it is<BR>> > >> > that<BR>> > >> > you think. I'm not sure how I possibly could considering the emotional<BR>> > >> > nature of your posts.<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > Lastly, I find your remark '...for someone who finds something to say<BR>> > >> > after<BR>> > >> > everyone one of my posts..." curious. You do realize that since the last<BR>> > >> > couple of meltdowns & protracted pouts I only respond to the posts in<BR>> > >> > which<BR>> > >> > you address me specifically by name don't you?<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > g<BR>> > >> > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > >> > From: <joekc@roadrunner.com><BR>> > >> > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com><BR>> > >> > Cc: <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > >> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 6:37 AM<BR>> > >> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > See what I said! I knew you would help me to make my point! I find it<BR>> > >> > interesting that, since<BR>> > >> > you've never met Chris Witmer, you don't feel qualified to say anything<BR>> > >> > about him. Yet, even<BR>> > >> > though you've never met me, you do feel qualified so say something!<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > Again, there are lots of people from churches who post on Vision 2020,<BR>> > >> > myself included. All I<BR>> > >> > really have a problem with is dishonesty, and hypocrisy, and unwarranted<BR>> > >> > arrogance. But don't<BR>> > >> > let me stop you from telling everyone what I really think since you're<BR>> > >> > the<BR>> > >> > expert there!<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > I'm amazed that for someone who finds something to say after everyone<BR>> > >> > one<BR>> > >> > of<BR>> > >> > my posts, you<BR>> > >> > never answer the serious questions or challenges. Just yesterday there<BR>> > >> > were<BR>> > >> > two.<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > 1) What was wrong with my abortion analysis?<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > 2) Name one valid argument for a worthwhile point that Dr. No has given?<BR>> > >> > Just one.<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > --<BR>> > >> > Joe Campbell<BR>> > >> ><BR>> > >> > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com> wrote:<BR>> > >> > > From what I've read in your previous posts I take it that you believe<BR>> > >> > > that<BR>> > >> > > No Weatherman is a nom de guerre that hides the identity of Chris<BR>> > >> > > Witmer.<BR>> > >> > > I<BR>> > >> > > suppose that this could be the case but, having never had the pleasure<BR>> > >> > > of<BR>> > >> > > meeting Mr. Witmer, I certainly couldn't say with any degree of<BR>> > >> > > confidence<BR>> > >> > > that it is or isn't and I'd love to see or hear the evidence that you<BR>> > >> > > might<BR>> > >> > > have to support your conviction. It could just as easily be someone<BR>> > >> > > else.<BR>> > >> > > For all I know it could be you setting up the ultimate straw man and<BR>> > >> > > for<BR>> > >> > > all<BR>> > >> > > you know it could be me padding the visions ranks. I seriously doubt<BR>> > >> > > you<BR>> > >> > > have anything other than a gut feeling and I'm afraid that is not<BR>> > >> > > something<BR>> > >> > > that is going to sway me very much. So, now that I've "made your<BR>> > >> > > point"<BR>> > >> > > what<BR>> > >> > > was it exactly? It reads as though you have a problem with an<BR>> > >> > > individual<BR>> > >> > > who<BR>> > >> > > may or may not be affiliated with a local church posting topics and<BR>> > >> > > expressing a point of view regarding the democrat candidate for<BR>> > >> > > president<BR>> > >> > > and I'm perplexed as to how this would wad up your panties or drive<BR>> > >> > > you<BR>> > >> > > "fricken nuts." People from churches get to have and express opinions<BR>> > >> > > just<BR>> > >> > > the same as everyone else. Maybe I'm not as intelligent as you give me<BR>> > >> > > credit for since I really don't understand why it upsets you the way<BR>> > >> > > you<BR>> > >> > > claim that it does.<BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > > g<BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > >> > > From: <joekc@roadrunner.com><BR>> > >> > > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com><BR>> > >> > > Cc: <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > >> > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:33 PM<BR>> > >> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma<BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > > I have supported J. Ford for personal reasons. But as has been pointed<BR>> > >> > > out.<BR>> > >> > > Other than that I'm<BR>> > >> > > not sure what you're talking about. But since you seem to have all of<BR>> > >> > > my<BR>> > >> > > posts saved and<BR>> > >> > > categorized -- or one of your friends does -- no doubt you'll bring<BR>> > >> > > one<BR>> > >> > > up<BR>> > >> > > if I'm mistaken!<BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > > I am not reading Dr. No's posts for the simple reason that what little<BR>> > >> > > I<BR>> > >> > > did<BR>> > >> > > read contained, as I<BR>> > >> > > noted, obvious and numerous fallacies. There is not much of a<BR>> > >> > > challenge<BR>> > >> > > there and little interest.<BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > > He does get my panties in a wad, I'll admit. But not because of his<BR>> > >> > > arguments, or even his insults.<BR>> > >> > > I still can't get over how a local church could so blatantly act like<BR>> > >> > > a<BR>> > >> > > political machine. That they<BR>> > >> > > can continue to do so while most people, intelligent though most may<BR>> > >> > > be,<BR>> > >> > > 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<BR>> > >> > > going<BR>> > >> > > to tell me that you don't<BR>> > >> > > know who No Weatherman is, and with what church he is affiliated? We<BR>> > >> > > may<BR>> > >> > > have our differences<BR>> > >> > > but, previous name-calling aside, I certainly consider you to be<BR>> > >> > > intelligent. But my guess is, you'll say "No" and "No." And that just<BR>> > >> > > makes<BR>> > >> > > 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<BR>> > >> > > about<BR>> > >> > > 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<BR>> > >> > > challenging, could you just<BR>> > >> > > repeat for me what you take to be his best point, and the best<BR>> > >> > > argument<BR>> > >> > > for<BR>> > >> > > that point. Just one.<BR>> > >> > > If it is not an easily identifiable fallacy, I'll be shocked. But<BR>> > >> > > prove<BR>> > >> > > me<BR>> > >> > > wrong! Just one example.<BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > > --<BR>> > >> > > Joe Campbell<BR>> > >> > ><BR>> > >> > > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com> wrote:<BR>> > >> > > > What is not so much offensive as hilarious is someone who chooses to<BR>> > >> > > > hop<BR>> > >> > > > up<BR>> > >> > > > onto their moral high horse concerning one anonymous contributor<BR>> > >> > > > while<BR>> > >> > > > having ignored or lauded so many others. Where was your massive<BR>> > >> > > > concern<BR>> > >> > > > when<BR>> > >> > > > we were regularly receiving missives from B. Herodotus, P.Place, T.<BR>> > >> > > > Scimitar, J. Flores, and last but far from the least (prolific)<BR>> > >> > > > J.Ford?<BR>> > >> > > > I<BR>> > >> > > > seem to recall several instances of your leaping to the defense of<BR>> > >> > > > at<BR>> > >> > > > least<BR>> > >> > > > one of these miscreants. Clearly the problem that you are having<BR>> > >> > > > with<BR>> > >> > > > Mr.<BR>> > >> > > > Weatherman is that he has the unmitigated gall to bring up topics<BR>> > >> > > > along<BR>> > >> > > > with<BR>> > >> > > > citations that you find uncomfortable and difficult to reconcile.<BR>> > >> > > > So,<BR>> > >> > > > rather<BR>> > >> > > > then respond to the matter at hand, you attempt to divert the<BR>> > >> > > > discussion<BR>> > >> > > > with phony outrage at the commentators anonymity and/or his<BR>> > >> > > > potential<BR>> > >> > > > affiliations. I guess if you can't answer the questions, attack and<BR>> > >> > > > vilify<BR>> > >> > > > the questioner. I personally prefer to evaluate the argument, taking<BR>> > >> > > > into<BR>> > >> > > > consideration the lack of a name or a face as just one more piece of<BR>> > >> > > > information. So far, the mysterious nature of the anti-weather dude<BR>> > >> > > > has<BR>> > >> > > > no<BR>> > >> > > > bearing on BHO's unsavory affiliations and his and his supporters<BR>> > >> > > > inability<BR>> > >> > > > to account for them.<BR>> > >> > > ><BR>> > >> > > > g<BR>> > >> > > > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > >> > > > From: <joekc@roadrunner.com><BR>> > >> > > > To: <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > >> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:33 PM<BR>> > >> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma<BR>> > >> > > ><BR>> > >> > > ><BR>> > >> > > > > I'm not reading this but I just wanted to point out that if Doug<BR>> > >> > > > > Wilson<BR>> > >> > > > > thought that this was<BR>> > >> > > > > inappropriate, then the posts would stop in a heartbeat.<BR>> > >> > > > > Otherwise,<BR>> > >> > > > > I'm<BR>> > >> > > > > not sure what to say<BR>> > >> > > > > about No Wetherman's bad joke on the Courtney blog. {Just because<BR>> > >> > > > > you<BR>> > >> > > > > don't use your name, Dr.<BR>> > >> > > > > No, it does not mean that many of us do not know who you are.}<BR>> > >> > > > ><BR>> > >> > > > > So, I ask you Area Man and Roger Falen, Harkins and Crabtree: do<BR>> > >> > > > > you<BR>> > >> > > > > not<BR>> > >> > > > > find it offensive that<BR>> > >> > > > > someone might post such comments without revealing his name? If it<BR>> > >> > > > > turns<BR>> > >> > > > > out that this person<BR>> > >> > > > > was affiliated with a church, one that might be a political group<BR>> > >> > > > > instead<BR>> > >> > > > > of a religious one, would<BR>> > >> > > > > that offend you? Do you think that such groups should reap the<BR>> > >> > > > > benefits<BR>> > >> > > > > sanctioned by the first<BR>> > >> > > > > amendment? Warning: If you say that this is OK, then you are<BR>> > >> > > > > sanctioning<BR>> > >> > > > > a<BR>> > >> > > > > similar approach by<BR>> > >> > > > > a pro-Obama spokesman, perhaps on a national level. What do you<BR>> > >> > > > > think<BR>> > >> > > > > in<BR>> > >> > > > > this light?<BR>> > >> > > > ><BR>> > >> > > > > --<BR>> > >> > > > > Joe Campbell<BR>> > >> > > > ><BR>> > >> > > > > ---- No Weatherman <no.weatherman@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> > >> > > > >> At the risk of offending those of you who have already taken<BR>> > >> > > > >> offense<BR>> > >> > > > >> by my cowardly, anonymous, and purely factual presence in this<BR>> > >> > > > >> one-sided conversation, please allow me to ask a terribly awkward<BR>> > >> > > > >> question that I hope will cut to the heart of this issue about<BR>> > >> > > > >> when<BR>> > >> > > > >> life begins.<BR>> > >> > > > >><BR>> > >> > > > >> We all know that Barrack Hussein Obama is the illegitimate son<BR>> > >> > > > >> (one<BR>> > >> > > > >> of<BR>> > >> > > > >> many) of a Kenyan father who knocked up a teenager from Kansas.<BR>> > >> > > > >><BR>> > >> > > > >> Let's say that Roe v. Wade was in place back then and that<BR>> > >> > > > >> Obama's<BR>> > >> > > > >> mother attempted to terminate her pregnancy, via a saline<BR>> > >> > > > >> abortion,<BR>> > >> > > > >> but things went sadly awry — the baby, or as some on this list<BR>> > >> > > > >> prefer<BR>> > >> > > > >> to call it, the "potential human being," refused to die.<BR>> > >> > > > >><BR>> > >> > > > >> What moral obligations, if any, do you believe should be on the<BR>> > >> > > > >> attending physicians:<BR>> > >> > > > >><BR>> > >> > > > >> 1. Kill the baby.<BR>> > >> > > > >> 2. Abandon the baby (which is number 1 by another name).<BR>> > >> > > > >> 3. Save the baby.<BR>> > >> > > > >> 4. Other.<BR>> > >> > > > >><BR>> > >> > > > >> As I said, this is a terribly awkward question but it helps put<BR>> > >> > > > >> flesh<BR>> > >> > > > >> and bones on this sensitive subject and it's not beyond the realm<BR>> > >> > > > >> of<BR>> > >> > > > >> possibility because it happens more often than Americans want to<BR>> > >> > > > >> know:<BR>> > >> > > > >><BR>> > >> > > > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s&feature=related<BR>> > >> > > > >><BR>> > >> > > > >> Barrack Hussein Obama said that this question was above his pay<BR>> > >> > > > >> grade,<BR>> > >> > > > >> but we all know he was just avoiding the uncomfortable truth.<BR>> > >> > > > >> That<BR>> > >> > > > >> "potential human" in the womb is a precious human life and Obama<BR>> > >> > > > >> should get on his knees every night and thank his maker that his<BR>> > >> > > > >> mother couldn't resort to Roe v. Wade to kill him.<BR>> > >> > > > >><BR>> > >> > > > >> Part of the daily fudge.<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>> > >> > > > > 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>> > ><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>> 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></body>
</html>