<div>The comments at the bottom are questionable. While Vision2020 often features what seems to me to be pointless, ego driven, silly or redundant discussion, sometimes by contributors who refuse to consider credible evidence that sheds doubt on their beliefs, discussion which nonetheless still may entertain or educate some, there are a number of contributors to this list offering worthwhile content who have been involved in dialog of substance that extended longer than "a few consecutive messages." I could reference the contributors and the threads I think were worthwhile, but then anyone who has "been on Vision2020 for years" who was paying attention would know who and what I am writing about.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/1/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chasuk</b> <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> I've been<br>on Vision2020 for years, and I've seen scant evidence of real<br>discussion ever occurring, at least not for periods exceeding a few<br>
consecutive messages. This isn't a problem restricted to Vision2020.<br>I regularly read <a href="http://freerepublic.com">freerepublic.com</a>, <a href="http://worldnetdaily.com">worldnetdaily.com</a>,<br><a href="http://drudgereport.com">drudgereport.com</a>, <a href="http://huffingtonpost.com">huffingtonpost.com</a> and <a href="http://dailykos.com">dailykos.com</a>. Sadly, I get<br>
flecked with the same drool at all of those places.<br><br>Chas<br><br></blockquote>