<div>Two comments.</div><div><br></div><div>1/ I'm "attempting to shift the specifics"? I gave a few criticisms to one of your posts and now I'm following up on your reply. I'm "shifting the specifics" because I didn't - in this post - follow up on another, something I thought I adequately dealt with? Sweet, Marie!</div>
<div><br></div><div>I said my mind wrt to the "100 individuals" example. I've worked in a lot of restaurants. I find it hard to believe that most people would use more water while eating at home than while eating out. I don't care how efficient the toilets are. But this is an empirical issue. Folks have kindly sent me some links with information that might help settle it. Maybe we can revisit this matter when one of us has something more specific to add to the debate.</div>
<div><br></div><div>2/ Suppose that you're right and that IF they build the mall as you say, water usage remains more or less the same. And suppose we have good reason to think that they will build it as they/you say they should. I'm still against the SALE of water RIGHTS to WA businesses, given our current situation. Here's my argument.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think that my rights to water are as strong as my rights to anything that Moscow or the world has to offer. I need water to survive, not just to clean myself and my dishes. I live in a community where our water level is shrinking - that much is known - yet we don't know the rate. We don't know whether we will run out of water in 30 years or 50 years or 150 years or 300 years given current usage (plus rate of growth), which is to say we just don't know the size of our current and future water supply. So it would tick me off to find out, given our lack of knowledge, that our council and mayor are willing to SELL rights to that water supply to a WA business venture. That seems to me to be reckless and careless, even if I'm confident that the sale won't result in an increase of water usage. That confidence - even if I had it, which I don't - has little to do with it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Here is an analogy. Suppose my wife decided to sell the rights to my CD collection to my best friend David. Now I know that David won't abuse this right. He won't take any of my CDs. But CDs are pretty precious to me and I'd still be pissed at my wife for selling the right to my CDs to David. I'd feel vulnerable to David since my supply would now be dependent on his good graces. No matter how much I trusted David, I'd still feel vulnerable and, thus, I'd feel betrayed by my wife.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Suppose my wife sold the rights to my CD collection to YOU, Gary. Well, then I'd be really pissed. And your assurances that you won't abuse those rights wouldn't do any good at all.</div><div>
<br></div><div>Add to this the fact that we, Moscow, already have a mall that is pretty good and getting better and that the competition is unlikely to improve our choices a whole lot - I've seen the other malls and I know what's available - AND the fact that we are selling water rights to a WA based business in direct competition with MANY Moscow based businesses AND the fact that the mall will be an eyesore, add this all up and I have a pretty good case, regardless of what you've said and speculated about so far.</div>
<div><br></div>Joe Campbell<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:35 AM, g. crabtree <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div class="im">
<div>"Will they be able to pump water on thief own without buying from
<br>Moscow? If so, why on earth do they want to pay us for it?"</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
</div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">I'm sure they can pump on their own as they have
already acquired the water right. Why they may not want to and buy from us would
be not having to maintain wells, pumps, and the other components of a self
contained water system.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">You are attempting to shift the specifics of the
discussion. Our original debate involved restaurants water use vs. water
use for 100 individuals. The reason I expect to see the reduced energy/reduced
water consumption devices without having seen the building plans is because I
have been in several recently constructed restaurants. These sorts of fixtures
are the rule, not the exception.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div><font color="#888888">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">g</font></div>
</font><div><div class="im"><font face="Arial" size="2">----- Original Message ----- </font>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">From: "Joe Campbell" <</font><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">To: "a" <</font><a href="mailto:smith@turbonet.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">smith@turbonet.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Cc: "g. crabtree" <</font><a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">>;
<</font><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">>;
<</font><a href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">garrettmc@verizon.net</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">></font></div>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><font face="Arial" size="2">Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:01 PM</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for
Starting Work</font></div></div></div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div><font face="Arial"><br><font size="2"></font></font></div><font face="Arial" size="2">> Again most of your responses are based on presumptions that you
cannot <br>> gaurentee -- mere wishful thinking on your part, as far as
I can tell. <br>> Will they be able to pump water on thief own without
buying from <br>> Moscow? If so, why on earth do they want to pay us
for it? And IF they <br>> stock the mall with "low energy" whatever,
sure that would be better <br>> than not. But why on earth should I
expect that to happen? Have you <br>> seen the building plans?<br>>
<br>> Joe Campbell<br>> <br>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 3:56 PM, "a"
<</font><a href="mailto:smith@turbonet.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">smith@turbonet.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">> wrote:<br>>
<br>>> "Selling water to a WA mall seems like bad usage. I dont see
the <br>>> benefit."<br>>><br>>> And having them pump
their own rather than buy from the city helps <br>>> your argument
how?<br>>><br>>> "I can promise you that more water is used when
eating out than <br>>> while eating at
home."<br>>><br>>> A promise you just can't keep, I'm afraid. When
the 100 people of <br>>> your original statement are factored
in, a new restaurant with <br>>> urinals, low gpf toilets,
water saving sink fixtures, and energy and <br>>> water efficent
dishwashers will use far less water then those same <br>>> people
will at home. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of <br>>>
the head of Moscow's Public Works dept. Someone a bit more qualified
<br>>> on the topic then you or I wouldn't you
say?<br>>><br>>> g<br>>><br>>><br>>> -----
Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell" <</font><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2"> <br>
>>
><br>>> To: "a" <</font><a href="mailto:smith@turbonet.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">smith@turbonet.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">><br>>> Cc: "g. crabtree" <</font><a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">>;
<</font><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">>;
<</font><a href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">garrettmc@verizon.net</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2"> <br>>>
><br>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:33 AM<br>>> Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting
Work<br>>><br>>><br>>>> I'm not saying we should stop ALL
building, just that we should be <br>>>> careful about water use.
Yet again you score points by distorting <br>>>> my
view.<br>>>><br>>>> Selling water to a WA mall seems like bad
usage. I dont see the <br>>>>
benefit.<br>>>><br>>>> Also, Troy is in a better situation
than us since a surface capture <br>>>> reservoir is more
efficient than hoping the water finds it's way <br>>>> to
the aquifer!<br>>>><br>>>> And have you ever washed dishes for
a living? I can promise you <br>>>> that more water is used
when eating out than while eating at home.<br>>>><br>>>> Joe
Campbell<br>>>><br>>>> On Mar 12, 2009, at 2:16 PM, "a"
<</font><a href="mailto:smith@turbonet.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">smith@turbonet.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">>
wrote:<br>>>><br>>>>> Point 3 is wrong in only the most
insignifigant way, if that. The <br>>>>> City of Troy,
population 798, does get its water via surface <br>>>>>
capture reservoir (although it's a matter of serious consideration
<br>>>>> whether some of the water captured would be going to
recharge <br>>>>> ground water sources) Rural Troy draws
water from the same <br>>>>> shallow aquaifer that is
part of Moscow/Pullman's (and the wells <br>>>>> Hawkin's
would sink if they do not purchase water from us) water
<br>>>>> supply.<br>>>>><br>>>>> I did not
discuss water "cost" to build so I'm hard pressed to <br>>>>>
see where I might have been wrong. If that is going to be part of
<br>>>>> the argument then we better place a moratorium on
all <br>>>>> construction as building Hawkins will be no
more consumptive than <br>>>>> any other building
project of similar scope. (I'm not even sure <br>>>>> what
this "cost" you refer to would be. Intake and discharge by
<br>>>>> the construction
workers?)<br>>>>><br>>>>> Finally you claim "100 people
would not use as much water eating <br>>>>> at home, easing
there own dishes, as they would eating in a <br>>>>>
restaurant." Lets fudge the numbers in your favor and call those
<br>>>>> 100 people 20 households. 20 households use far more
water than <br>>>>> one large restaurant. New commercial
dishwashers are quite water <br>>>>>
efficient.<br>>>>><br>>>>> Seems to me there's more
error in your post then mine.<br>>>>><br>>>>>
g<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> ----- Original
Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell" <</font><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</font></a><br><font face="Arial" size="2">>>>> ><br>
>>>> To: "g. crabtree" <</font><a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">><br>>>>> Cc: <</font><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">>;
<</font><a href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">garrettmc@verizon.net</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">><br>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:41
AM<br>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting
Work<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>>> Point 3 is
wrong. First, the point of the mall would be to bring
<br>>>>>> SOME<br>>>>>> people from the outside
area into the our area. If someone comes <br>>>>>>
from<br>>>>>> Troy to the Moscow area the water they use comes
from a different<br>>>>>> source than it would have otherwise.
Second, it will "cost" a lot <br>>>>>>
of<br>>>>>> water just to build the mall. Third, if there are
restaurants that<br>>>>>> will be an addition use. 100 people
would not use as much water <br>>>>>>
eating<br>>>>>> at home, easing there own dishes, as they would
eating in a<br>>>>>> restaurant. Have you ever seen a restaurant
dish washer? I washed<br>>>>>> dishes for a time, so I
have!<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> Joe
Campbell<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2009, at
10:59 AM, "g. crabtree" <</font><a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">><br>>>>>>
wrote:<br>>>>>><br>>>>>>> 1. My business is not
located in Whitman
county.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> 2. Predatory?
All business competes with other business. This is
<br>>>>>>> the<br>>>>>>>
nature<br>>>>>>> of the game. Will Idaho lose some tax
revenue? Some, but probably<br>>>>>>> not
as<br>>>>>>> much as you think. Those same tax dollars are
lost when Idaho<br>>>>>>> residents
go<br>>>>>>> to Spokane to shop or make purchases through the
intertubes <br>>>>>>>
because<br>>>>>>> what<br>>>>>>> they seek
is unavailable in
Moscow.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> 3. Water. We've
been over this one repeatedly. Whether it is<br>>>>>>>
delivered by<br>>>>>>> the City of Moscow, pumped from private
wells, or provided by the<br>>>>>>> City
of<br>>>>>>> Pullman, it's all the same water. The folks who
are working and<br>>>>>>> shopping
at<br>>>>>>> the new mall would be using the same amount of
water if they were<br>>>>>>> working
in<br>>>>>>> Moscow, Pullman, Troy, or Colton. You don't
uptake or download any<br>>>>>>> more
just<br>>>>>>> because you're at the Hawkins development. I
suspect that your<br>>>>>>>
vegetable<br>>>>>>> production facility uses far more water
than any individual <br>>>>>>>
business<br>>>>>>> will<br>>>>>>> and
provides far fewer jobs. If the Hawkins property were to
be<br>>>>>>> turned into<br>>>>>>> a truck
farm the same argument you attempt to use applies.<br>>>>>>>
Competition with<br>>>>>>> Moscow business. (you) No tax
dollars for Idaho. Far higher water<br>>>>>>> consumption.
Perhaps you would prefer the land lay
fallow?<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> 4. I am willing
to accept any legal, legitimate business operation<br>>>>>>>
located<br>>>>>>> on private property in Latah or Whitman Co.
Pullman or Moscow, <br>>>>>>>
miles<br>>>>>>> away or<br>>>>>>> right next
door to my shop. Period.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>
5. I think that my answer regarding your questions concerning
FOCA<br>>>>>>> were to<br>>>>>>> the point.
One third of all hospitals in America are Catholic.
<br>>>>>>> If a<br>>>>>>>
doctor<br>>>>>>> or nurse hired on with one of these
facilities they would have a<br>>>>>>>
reasonable<br>>>>>>> expectation of working in an environment
that did not promote a<br>>>>>>> culture
of<br>>>>>>> death. Forcing institutions such as these to
provide a service <br>>>>>>>
that<br>>>>>>> they did<br>>>>>>> not
originally is to force every person employed there to
do<br>>>>>>> something that<br>>>>>>> was
not in their original job description. I am not talking
<br>>>>>>> about the<br>>>>>>>
mythical minority that might have hired on at an abortion mill
<br>>>>>>> that<br>>>>>>>
suddenly<br>>>>>>> don't want to perform their job. In
my example I'm talking about<br>>>>>>>
thousands<br>>>>>>> of real health care professionals, in
yours you talking about a <br>>>>>>>
tiny<br>>>>>>> handful<br>>>>>>> (if that)
of hypothetical employees. I stand by my red herring<br>>>>>>>
assertion.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> It seems that
you are arguing in favor of an employers right to
<br>>>>>>> can a<br>>>>>>> hypothetical
fraction of his work force rather than the rights of<br>>>>>>>
the very<br>>>>>>> real thousands of doctors and nurses who
will be adversely <br>>>>>>>
impacted<br>>>>>>> by BHO's<br>>>>>>> very
bad decision.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>
g<br>>>>>>> ----- Original Message
-----<br>>>>>>> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <</font><a href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">garrettmc@verizon.net</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">><br>
>>>>>> To: <</font><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">>; "g.
crabtree" <</font><a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial" size="2">><br>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:21
PM<br>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for
Starting
Work<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>
g writes:<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> "I'm
confused. I thought you said you were a Moscow resident...
I<br>>>>>>>> like our<br>>>>>>>>
neighbors to the west, I don't feel a need to meddle in
their<br>>>>>>>> affairs,
and<br>>>>>>>> I'm willing to let them purchase "our" water
at reasonable <br>>>>>>>>
rates."<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>
I'm not sure why you're confused. I live in Moscow. I try to
<br>>>>>>>> support<br>>>>>>>>
locally-owned stores, even ones in Whitman County. Like you, I
<br>>>>>>>> have<br>>>>>>>> nothing
against Whitman County, or the employers and people
there<br>>>>>>>> in a<br>>>>>>>>
general sense. I want their lives to prosper as much as
anyb<br>>>>>>> ody's. But when they are doing so by competing
with Moscow's<br>>>>>>> interests,
it<br>>>>>>> only seems natural to want to defend
Moscow.<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> You are
free to feel the way you state. The fact is, a
Boise<br>>>>>>>> developer<br>>>>>>>>
plans to build a predatory mall next to Moscow. Their intent is
<br>>>>>>>> to<br>>>>>>>>
compete<br>>>>>>>> with Moscow businesses. To me, I'm not
thrilled at that prospect,<br>>>>>>>> and
I<br>>>>>>>> consider it meddling with Moscow in that they
aren't in this <br>>>>>>>> to
help<br>>>>>>>> Moscow. More than likely, some businesses
in Moscow will suffer,<br>>>>>>>> and
thus<br>>>>>>>> Idaho sales tax revenue will decrease. So
in some sense, they are<br>>>>>>>>
meddling<br>>>>>>>> with Moscow by intently wanting Moscow
business, thus reducing <br>>>>>>>>
state<br>>>>>>>> coffers. I see nothing wrong with
defending Moscow's interests <br>>>>>>>>
from<br>>>>>>>> private developers who don't care if they
hurt Moscow.<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> We
aren't talking about one store, but a mall twice the size
as<br>>>>>>>> Moscow's<br>>>>>>>>
largest mall. That isn't minor as you stated earlier. The fact
<br>>>>>>>> that<br>>>>>>>>
they<br>>>>>>>> want to draw from the same aquifer as
Moscow is another way <br>>>>>>>> they
are<br>>>>>>>> meddling with
Moscow.<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> Moscow
shouldn't be in the business of facilitating out of
state<br>>>>>>>> mega-malls that don't have Moscow's best
interest at heart, <br>>>>>>>>
meaning<br>>>>>>>> Moscow<br>>>>>>>>
shouldn't sell them water, and should not have offered to
provide<br>>>>>>>> them<br>>>>>>>>
sewer services, as well. That isn't meddling, that just making
<br>>>>>>>> sure<br>>>>>>>>
we<br>>>>>>>> aren't letting Moscow be
ill-served.<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>
Should I take from your position, g, that you are willing to
<br>>>>>>>> accept<br>>>>>>>> anything
that may come to Whitman County, or even to
Moscow?<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> How
about a nuclear waste depository? A chemical company with
<br>>>>>>>> a known<br>>>>>>>>
history of polluting and leaving the waste to be cleaned up
by<br>>>>>>>> taxpayers?<br>>>>>>>> A
strip club a block down from your lock shop, perhaps with a
<br>>>>>>>> topless<br>>>>>>>>
car-wash (out of public view, of
course)?<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> Do you
have limits, or is it an anything goes kind of
growth?<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>
Regarding the conscience rule questions I asked. I understand
the<br>>>>>>>> specific<br>>>>>>>>
cases you are defending. I had in previous replies to the
thread<br>>>>>>>> taken a<br>>>>>>>>
similar position. From what I remember, Sunil asked you to
<br>>>>>>>> document<br>>>>>>>>
cases<br>>>>>>>> where someone was forced to perform an
abortion, and you wrote, <br>>>>>>>>
"To<br>>>>>>>> the<br>>>>>>>> best of
my knowlage they have not." Meaning to me, no one has
<br>>>>>>>> been<br>>>>>>>>
forced<br>>>>>>>> to perform an abortion against their
will. So it seems that to<br>>>>>>>> bring
up<br>>>>>>>> something that is not an issue as an answer
to my question is a <br>>>>>>>>
red<br>>>>>>>>
herring.<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> I
wasn't answering a question with a question. The question
you<br>>>>>>>> asked was<br>>>>>>>>
addressed to someone else, and it was answered. I thought of
the<br>>>>>>>> questions<br>>>>>>>> I
asked you to further the discussion on the issue, and since
you<br>>>>>>>> were the<br>>>>>>>>
person supporting the conscience rule as is, I merely was
hoping<br>>>>>>>> you'd<br>>>>>>>>
answer them.<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> My
questions were about the overall implications of the law,
not<br>>>>>>>> specific<br>>>>>>>>
parts. Since the original article was about modifying the
<br>>>>>>>> order,
not<br>>>>>>>> repealing it, I was trying to get to the
meat of the issue. I'm<br>>>>>>>> sorry
you<br>>>>>>>> interpreted them as red herrings, but that
was not my intent. I<br>>>>>>>> think
they<br>>>>>>>> are questions that supporters of the rule
should think
about.<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> If I were
to call anything a red herring, it is the answer you
<br>>>>>>>> just<br>>>>>>>>
gave<br>>>>>>>> to my questions. If you want me to consider
that your "neglected<br>>>>>>>>
reply,"<br>>>>>>>> then I'll just assume you don't have a
reasonable answer those<br>>>>>>>>
questions,<br>>>>>>>> copied here for references
sake:<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>
Why should a business be obligated to pay an employee who
doesn't<br>>>>>>>> do their<br>>>>>>>>
job?<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> Shouldn't
the business have the right to not spend its money on
<br>>>>>>>> an<br>>>>>>>> employee who
won't perform their job? If not, then how could
a<br>>>>>>>> business<br>>>>>>>>
continue to function if there doesn't seem to be a way to
prevent<br>>>>>>>> employees from over-enjoying their
supposed right to not do <br>>>>>>>> their
job<br>>>>>>>> because of such a broad excuse as it goes
against their religion?<br>>>>>>>> Are
we<br>>>>>>>> talking about every single
religion?<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>> Does
the government have the right to force a business to pay
an<br>>>>>>>> employee<br>>>>>>>> who
doesn't do their job? If so, why should government
<br>>>>>>>> intervene in<br>>>>>>>>
such<br>>>>>>>> an intimate way since that seems rather
socialistic?<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>
Doesn't passing a law requiring businesses to pay an employee
who<br>>>>>>>> doesn't<br>>>>>>>> do
their job because of religion violate the 1st Amendment? If
<br>>>>>>>> not,<br>>>>>>>>
how<br>>>>>>>> can a law which essentially is regarding the
establishment of<br>>>>>>>> religion
not<br>>>>>>>> be illegal, particularly when it also seems
rather anti- <br>>>>>>>>
capitalistic?<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>
g's answer:<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>
1. If you reply to my question with a question (and
no<br>>>>>>>>> actual response) am I honor bond to
reply? If so, should it<br>>>>>>>>> be in the form of
another
question?<br>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>
2. Your questions were specious in that we were not
talking<br>>>>>>>>> about the nurse at a planned
parenthood clinic suddenly<br>>>>>>>>> deciding that she
didn't want to be involved in the<br>>>>>>>>> tgaking of
a life or anyone who contrived to be hired,<br>>>>>>>>>
knowing full well what their job would entail, and
suddenly<br>>>>>>>>> opting to not perform their duties.
We are talking about<br>>>>>>>>> personnel hired at
private facilities that had no<br>>>>>>>>> involvement
with abortion suddenly being forced to perform
a<br>>>>>>>>> procedure they never hired on for. We are
talking about<br>>>>>>>>> private sector pharmacists
being forced to sell products<br>>>>>>>>> they in good
conscience find
abhorrent.<br>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>
This, and Donovan's "emergency save the<br>>>>>>>>>
mother" arguments are red herrings tossed out to
cover<br>>>>>>>>> the stench of forcing private
individuals to bow to the whim<br>>>>>>>>> of others
against their will and
conscience.<br>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>
Please consider this my neglected reply. Sorry for my
lack<br>>>>>>>>> of
alacrity.<br>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>
g<br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>
=======================================================<br>>>>>>>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>>>>>>>
serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.<br>>>>>>>
</font><a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">http://www.fsr.net</font></a><br><font face="Arial" size="2">>>>>>>
</font><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><br><font face="Arial" size="2">>>>>>>
=======================================================<br>>>>>><br>>>>>>
=======================================================<br>>>>>>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>>>>>>
serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.<br>>>>>>
</font><a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">http://www.fsr.net</font></a><br><font face="Arial" size="2">>>>>> </font><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank"><font face="Arial" size="2">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><br>
<font face="Arial" size="2">>>>>>
=======================================================<br>>>>>><br>>>>>><br>>>>>>
-- <br>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming
message.<br>>>>>> Checked by AVG.<br>>>>>>
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date:
<br>>>>>> 3/12/2009 10:38
AM<br>>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> --
<br>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.<br>>>>
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 -
<br>>>> Release Date: 3/12/2009 10:38
AM<br>>><br>></font></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>