<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Maybe you can help me out, then. Say Ayers is still a closet "domestic terrorist". Say he'd really like to be blowing up the Pentagon again, but hasn't the time and besides, his arthritis is bothering him. Say Obama looks to him for advice.<br><br>What is the actual fear? What do you think Obama will do as President that is such a horrible thing? Unlock the Pentagon door for him? Sell him weapons like we did during the Iran/Contra affair? Order our military to stand down and open our borders to the Muslim terrorists?<br><br>Paul<br><br>--- On <b>Mon, 10/27/08, lfalen <i><lfalen@turbonet.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">From: lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Plea to Saundra Lund<br>To: "Paul
Rumelhart" <godshatter@yahoo.com>, "No Weatherman" <no.weatherman@gmail.com><br>Cc: "Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><br>Date: Monday, October 27, 2008, 11:24 AM<br><br><pre>Paul<br>Forget the 8 years old malarkey. The point is, his associate with him when he<br>was an adult.<br>Roger<br>-----Original message-----<br>From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter@yahoo.com<br>Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:05:28 -0700<br>To: No Weatherman no.weatherman@gmail.com<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Plea to Saundra Lund<br><br>> So what is your thesis, here? That Barack Obama is a closet domestic <br>> terrorist? That he wants to take down the government from the top <br>> down? That he wants to open our defenses and invite the terrorists in <br>> to trash our country as they please? I don't get what the<br>implications <br>> are of Obama knowing someone else who was a "domestic terrorist"<br>when <br>> Obama was eight years
old.<br>> <br>> What's the actual point you're trying to make?<br>> <br>> Paul<br>> <br>> No Weatherman wrote:<br>> > Ms. Lund:<br>> ><br>> > I made it clear from the beginning that I had only one objective in<br>> > this exercise — to force the question of Barack Obama's<br>long-standing<br>> > personal and professional relationship with domestic terrorists.<br>> ><br>> > Joe Campbell accused my of making a "guilt by association"<br>argument<br>> > while he pronounced me "guilty by association" because of<br>his<br>> > delusional perception that I belong to a local church. He called me a<br>> > "neo-Nazi" even though I have decried anti-Semitism with<br>every other<br>> > post or so.<br>> ><br>> > My objective changed early on when the name calling began in concert<br>> > with the continued gang banging of Gov Palin. Now I consider myself<br>>
> balance to your catty, shrill, dishonest, disingenuous, and<br>> > discombobulated and hormonally imbalanced posts as well as Mr.<br>> > Hansen's and Dr. Gier's.<br>> ><br>> > You now claim that you object to the "***quantity***" of my<br>posts. But<br>> > this was not the case last month when you wrote this literary<br>> > masterpiece:<br>> ><br>> > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-October/057066.html<br>> ><br>> > Let's see, you called me a "monster," a "racist<br>monster . . . puffed<br>> > with pathetic notions of grandiosity." You called me a<br>"troll," a<br>> > "piece of moral slime properly to be shunned by all decent<br>people."<br>> > You declared that shunning me was a religious duty of yours lest you<br>> > be "bad Samaritans" who add to my "hate-mongering<br>propensities."<br>> ><br>> > Funny, though, you never mentioned the
"***quantity***" of<br>my posts.<br>> ><br>> > Personally, I think you're unhinged by Palin envy though I would<br>not<br>> > begin to speculate why.<br>> ><br>> > They say that friends don't let friends drive drunk. You seem to<br>me to<br>> > be inebriated by hate for Palin. If I was your friend I'd pull<br>you off<br>> > the road ASAP before you end up hurting yourself.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Saundra Lund<br><sslund_2007@verizon.net> wrote:<br>> > <br>> >> Roger,<br>> >><br>> >> I think you're completely wrong on this. I think what Tom<br>and many, many,<br>> >> many other forum members really object to is the ***quantity***<br>of the<br>> >> troll's posts. The anonymous coward made it clear from the<br>beginning that<br>> >> he wasn't interested in honest dialogue or debate but
rather<br>in simply<br>> >> hurling invective and insulting those who disagree with him. <br>When someone<br>> >> pointed out to him that the convention in the V2020 living room<br>was to try<br>> >> to limit posts to 2-3 per day, he said he'd post as much as<br>he wanted. And,<br>> >> he's proceeded to do so: just in October, he's posted<br>OVER THREE HUNDRED<br>> >> TIMES. Get a clue: he's nothing more than a cowardly rude<br>troll with an<br>> >> agenda to disrupt and destroy this forum with his invective.<br>> >><br>> >> While I refuse to interact with nameless cowards, I also refuse<br>to allow<br>> >> this troll to turn this COMMUNITY forum into his own one-sided<br>playground.<br>> >> Only when it became undeniable that the troll has absolutely no<br>respect for<br>> >> the way the V2020 community works did I start standing up to the<br>bully
by<br>> >> posting news from the other side, and even then, my<br>"count" is still way<br>> >> under a hundred for this month -- and barely over a daily average<br>of three<br>> >> posts per day. And, I'll add that I've received more<br>than a few offlist<br>> >> responses from folks all along the political spectrum thanking me<br>for the<br>> >> articles I've been posting in response to the troll's<br>firestorm.<br>> >><br>> >> I see your subsequent post where you suggest that people apply<br>Donovan's<br>> >> (joking or not) suggestion about dealing with the troll's<br>record posting<br>> >> frequency by doing the same to me. Shame on you, Roger --<br>you've been<br>> >> around here long enough to know that I am a genuine participant<br>who has<br>> >> posted according to our "on our honor" posting<br>guidelines for years now.<br>> >><br>>
>> I do find it telling that you once again come out in defense of<br>those with<br>> >> whom you agree while ignoring their multitude transgressions and<br>insults<br>> >> against those with whom you disagree.<br>> >><br>> >> So, what -- if any -- suggestions do you have to deal with trolls<br>like the<br>> >> one trick pony No Weatherman's attempts to take over this<br>forum for his own<br>> >> anti-Obama agenda by posting OVER THREE HUNDRED TIMES in fewer<br>than 20 days?<br>> >> He's drowning out legitimate conversation and driving away<br>list members and<br>> >> their participation in this COMMUNITY forum, which is<br>indisputably one of<br>> >> his goals.<br>> >><br>> >> Yes, you're completely wrong Roger -- those of us who object<br>to the cowardly<br>> >> anonymous troll's attempt to take over this forum would be<br>just as<br>>
>> frustrated by the volume regardless of the topic or political<br>direction.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Saundra Lund<br>> >> Moscow, ID<br>> >><br>> >> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good<br>people to do<br>> >> nothing.<br>> >> ~ Edmund Burke<br>> >><br>> >> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008<br>through life plus<br>> >> 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or<br>reproduce outside<br>> >> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of<br>the<br>> >> author.*****<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> -----Original Message-----<br>> >> From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com<br>[mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<br>> >> On Behalf Of lfalen<br>> >> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11:09 AM<br>> >> To: No
Weatherman; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Plea to Visionaires<br>> >><br>> >> Tom apparently only wants left wing views to be aired. Anything<br>else is<br>> >> racist and profane. I would like Ton to demonstrate where No<br>Wheathermans<br>> >> posts have been any more objectionable than some of his. I<br>submit that they<br>> >> are objectionable and profane because he disagrees with the<br>veiws<br>> >> expressed. No Wheatherman seems to me to do a petty good job of<br>> >> documentation when listing facts. Everyone have the right to an<br>> >> opinion(within reason) without documentation as long as it not<br>presented as<br>> >> fact.<br>> >> Roger<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>> > 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>> 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></pre></blockquote></td></tr></table>