<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>I'll just repeat my main point and be done: it is irresponsible to sell water rights to a buisness venure from another state, given that we don't know how much we have. Period.<br><br>Joe Campbell</div><div><br>On Mar 13, 2009, at 5:04 PM, "a" <<a href="mailto:smith@turbonet.com">smith@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">What you find hard to believe based on your
subjective experience vs. the reality as presented by the director of public
works doesn't make for a very compelling case. While I have no doubt that
you have been intimately aquainted with the scullery of many a
greasy spoon, and would doubtless be more familiar still were it not for the
sincure of the ivory tower. Facts, sad to say, is facts. The water usage at
any retail business is lower then that of any household and that of a large
modern restaurant far less then that of 100 individuals.
Period.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">As to your analogy, there are problems with it as
well. A better scenario whould be your lovely wife sold me the rights to listen
to your favorite radio station. I am very happy and I think your wife is a
wonderful woman who could have done far better in the matrimonial marketplace
and is deserving of much better things in life but, I digress. I am
happy to pay her for the opportunity to hear the broadcast because it's
easier for me to obtain it that way then to build or buy my own receiver.
She is happy with the extra income and I am happy not having to pay more but,
had she decided to not go through with the mutually benificial transaction,
I can and would be willing to use other means to listen to the signal. You don't
own the "RIGHTS" to the bandwidth and Moscow doesn't own the "RIGHTS" to
the aquifer.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Your water argument is weak, your willingness to
limit retail compition is without merit, and your asthetic opinion
is arbitrary in the extreme. Add that all up and you've got a pretty good
case of not much of anything at all.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">g</font></div>
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a title="philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe
Campbell</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="jampot@roadrunner.com" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">g. crabtree</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="smith@turbonet.com" href="mailto:smith@turbonet.com">a</a> ; <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a> ; <a title="garrettmc@verizon.net" href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><a href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</a></a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 13, 2009 8:04
AM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets
Nod for Starting Work</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font><font face="Arial" size="2"></font><br></div>
<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><font face="Arial" size="2"></font><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"><a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<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>
<p>
</p><hr>
<p></p>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG.
<br>Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date:
3/12/2009 10:38 AM<br></blockquote>
gt;>>>><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>><br>
<p>
</p><hr>
<p></p>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG.
<br>Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.11/1997 - Release Date:
3/12/2009 10:38 AM<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>