<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Keeping this thread online not only provides entertainment, but also
insight.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mattd2107@hotmail.com href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com">Matt
Decker</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A> ; <A
title=lockshop@pull.twcbc.com
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:33
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Crabtree
dilemma (was...)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Maybe the two of you just need to throw on the sixteen
ouncers and duke it out. Please though could you guys take it private. Your
guys heated history is becoming a downer. By all means do what you will, free
country and all, just saying.<BR> <BR>Thanks fellers and have a great
night<BR>MD<BR> <BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
From: <A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A><BR>To:
<A href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A><BR>Date:
Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:09:45 -0400<BR>CC: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)<BR><BR>
<DIV>You are pathetic. By your standards I get to implicate you and Doug etc.
should anything happen to me or my home!?! I'll remember that.
Joe<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:29 PM, "the lockshop" <<A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You are confusing two different incidents and
vastly different circumstances. I believe that in answer to a question by
local law enforcement of "can you think of anyone who has anything aginst
you" during an investigation of some petty vandalism at his home, Hanson's
name came up along with several others. All of which had a demonstrated
animosity for team Wilson. What is it you would have me condemn? Was he
incorrect in his apprasial of Hanson's outlook? If so, how?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; 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=lockshop@pull.twcbc.com
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the lockshop</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com%3E"><<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>></A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:02
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Crabtree dilemma
(was...)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'll give you another chance. Your criticism of me applies equally
well to Wilson, who included names of Tom and others on a POLICE report
after "Hitler youth" was written in chalk near NSA. So here's another
chance to be consistent and condemn the Master. Can you do
it? <BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Joe<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 17, 2010, at 7:29 PM, "the lockshop" <<A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Or a third thing completely. Spreading
malicious rumors of wrong doing with absolutely nothing to back up the
accusation than your fevered imagination is contemptible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>To speculate as to whether a candidate will
re-run for office is the workaday, run of the mill grist for op-ed pages
and blogs everywhere with a local example being Vera White and her
Inkster coloum in the Daily News. Speculation becomes even more valid
when, as Ms. Ringo attested, there were legitimate health issues
which are recently and happily, resolved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The first is vicious rumor, stated as
fact, that was designed to smear the reputation of a private person or
group with no basis in reality whatever.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The second is valid speculation,
stated as such, about the intentions of a public figure based on
real and valid concerns. A couple of prime examples of this would be the
sorts of comments that were all too common around 5 years ago
concerning Dick Cheney and whether a man with his heart problems would
be on the ticket again as GWB's second or, considering McCains bouts
with melanoma, could be possibly consider a run as CIC?
Was discussion of those concerns fair game or vicious rumor
mongering?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; 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=lockshop@pull.twcbc.com
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the lockshop</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com%3E"><</A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A>>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17, 2010
3:21 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Crabtree dilemma
(was...)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>By the way, you never clarified your own inconsistency. You
called me out for not proving my on-line accusations about your
"friend" Dale but said NOTHING about his unsupported rumors -- which
(unlike mine) turned out to be false. Now I know why you didn't call
Dale out -- look what happened to Metzler when he publically
questioned Wilson. So I'm not asking for the impossible.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But either you agree with Dale that rumor is enough for proof of
accusations -- in which case your criticism of me was bogus -- OR you
think that spreading unsupported rumors is wrong and thus Dale is as
wrong as I was and should appologize. Which is it? Liar or
coward?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Best, Joe <BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:32 PM, "the lockshop" <<A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></A><A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Wow, that was perhaps the rudest and
most dismissive reply I think I've ever read on this forum and
that's saying quite a bit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Bravo!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I realize perfectly well that my
opinion means little to those of you going back and forth on
this topic and that my lack of formal instruction in seraphic
pin prancing leaves me ill prepared for the rarified realms this
topic aspires to, however I do agree with Mr. Fox that there is
a place in the world for a death penalty even if we would
likely disagree with its application. I would definately not
apply such a sentance for larcenous greed no matter how extreme. I
believe a more fitting punishment would be six months amongst
the general population of a maximum security
federal penitentiary followed by a parole which stipulates
prompt and total restitution and payment of burdensome fine at a
vigorous pace. ANY lollygagging in making said restitution
being grounds for reincarceration. I suspect that Mr. Antonucci
would be quite diligent in working to keep his tender backside from
having to endure a return to sharing a cell block at Florence ADX or
Tamms.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>On the other hand, I very much
agree that Joseph Duncan IS the perfect justification for the
existance of a death penalty. Heinous crime, unquestioned guilt,
total lack of remorse, extreme likelyhood of being an ongoing danger
to other prisoners, gaurds, and the general public, all combined
with a total disregard for his own life should all combine to make
him the modern poster child for the necessity of capital
punishment.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; 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=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17,
2010 10:55 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020]
Another good argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Forget it. I don't have time to read this more carefully.
Joe</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 17, 2010, at 1:30 PM, "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Before you waste time commenting on something
I didn't say, please take the time to read very carefully what I
did say.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; 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=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March
17, 2010 5:12 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020]
Another good argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It might be a while before I get to this but until I do I
just want to point out that putting something in boldface and
asserting that it is a FACT and not a philosophical point does
not MAKE it an empirical fact. It might still be a
philosophical point. In my experience, most people who
criticize philosophy HAVE a philosophy. What they are really
criticizing is OTHER philosophies than there own. If you are
going to dogmatically assert that empiricism is true and that
it can be SHOWN to be true by empirical methods all I can do
is laugh and note that you are begging the
question. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Consider this. I'm a rationalist, that is, I think that
SOME claims are established by a priori insight or something
like that. Others think that some knowledge is gained by
faith. I'm not trying to convince you of these views. I'm just
noting that there are views that are contrary to yours. And
how do we decide which is correct? Obviously if we prejudge
that are method is to be empiricism, your view will emerge as
the victor. But I hope you can see that this begs the
question. Note that I didn't say you couldn't tell a fancy
story to support your view I only claimed in the end it would
beg the question.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Now on the face of it, this looks like a philosophical
dispute. You claim that all knowledge comes from experience
(or mathematical proof), I claim some knowledge is a product
of rational insight, and others that some knowledge is a
product of faith. And there doesn't appear to be a way of
settling the issue without begging the question. Which was
what I said.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'll comment on the specifics later. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks! Joe <BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:47 PM, "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe, (& Andreas, Sunil),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I have included Joe's second post below so
that I can respond to both posts at the same time. I
hope that others not interested in a technical discussion
will not be too bored, or if so, they will find other things
to do which they will find a more productive use of
their time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To avoid repeating material, here are two
comments which I will refer to by names, below.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Pigtails: </STRONG>A
statement of the form "All X is Y" is refuted by finding a
single X that is not Y.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Example:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To refute the statement: "All pigs
have curly tails" all that is necessary is a single
counterexample like pointing to pig whose tail sticks
straight out like a certain part of the anatomy of a certain
church elder does at a certain topless/bottomless
bar.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It doesn't matter if there are a billion
pigs with curly tails and only one with a straight tail, the
exception refutes the truth of the general
statement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Stones:</STRONG> Dick and
Jane are in the middle of a football field. Jane is a
carrying a 100 pound stone. Jane asserts: "If I
throw this stone, it will land on the football field."
Dick disagrees. What method do you use to determine
the truth of the knowledge claim at issue? Obviously,
let Jane throw the stone, an empirical method where
observation will determine if the knowledge claim is
true. Also note that the probability that the
stone will land in the football field is infinitesimally
close to 1.00.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I hope that neither Joe, Andreas, nor
Sunil will be in disagreement with the above. If
either are, then the argument can proceed no
further.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Knowledge
Claims</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From my perspective statements of
the form "X is Y" are generally knowledge claims.
There are some instances of such statements in poetry, for
example, that are not. However, statements like the
following are knowledge claims:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. "The Klein-4 group is
an Abelian group."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. "The </FONT><A
title="Electric current"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>current</FONT></A><FONT size=2> through
a conductor between two points is directly </FONT><A
title="Proportionality (mathematics)"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>proportional</FONT></A><FONT size=2> to
the </FONT><A class=ecxmw-redirect
title="Potential difference"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_difference"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>potential difference</FONT></A><FONT
size=2> or </FONT><A title=Voltage
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>voltage</FONT></A><FONT size=2> across
the two points, and inversely proportional to the </FONT><A
title="Electrical resistance"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>resistance</FONT></A><FONT size=2>
between them, provided that the temperature remains
constant."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>3. "Sheep reproduce
asexually."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>4. "Bartok is the
greatest composer ever."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>5. "You should never
kill another human being."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>6. "Every human being is
more valuable than every other animal."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Given that statements of the form "X
is Y" are knowledge claims, the problem then becomes
what agreed upon methods can be successfully used to
determine the truth of the various kinds of knowledge
claims.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Statement 1. above is a statement is an
axiomatic system called Group Theory. It's truth is
determined by logical/deductive methods. However, the
axioms of the system were not chosen blindly, but were
chosen to be true of certain aspects of the language that is
used to describe the physical world, hence the truth of the
axioms is a matter of observation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Logical methods are used to determine the
truth of such mathematical statements given the truth of the
axioms. This is not an infallible method,
however. In the 19th Century, George Boole found an
error in the up-to-that-point-thought-infallible system of
Aristotelian Logic. The advent in the 19th Century of
Non-Euclidean Geometry(s) and the subsequent theories of
Einstein (now partially confirmed) showed that at least
one of once-worshiped-as-irrevocably-true axioms of
Euclidean Geometry were not true of the universe writ in
large.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Statements 2. and 3. are knowledge claims
whose truth or falsity are determined by empirical methods
-- combinations of logical and observation methods.
Using such methods, humankind has sent persons to the moon
and back while transmitting parts of this event in real-time
to millions of people. The empirical method succeeds
in part because precise definitions are required.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Empirical methods are not infallible
either. Mistakes can be made -- many of which are
self-correcting in time; some problems at present are not
completely amenable to empirical methods because of their
practical complexity -- issues in the social sciences, for
example. The best that can be said that knowledge
claims that can be tested empirically is that they have
truth that is at best probable, not absolute. Some of
the probabilities are infinitesimally close to 1.00 such as
Ohm's Law, at least in the terrestrial environment, but
there is always that possibility of a counterexample
being discovered.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It is a fact, not a philosophical
position, that certain kinds of knowledge claims
<STRONG>are</STRONG> successfully resolved by empirical
methods, notwithstanding the problem of
induction.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Statements 4., 5., and 6. are commonly
called value statements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The three that were chosen each illustrate
that <STRONG>in our present state of knowledge</STRONG>
there is not a generally accepted method to establish their
truth. It is not a simple matter like the stones
example above. The phrase <STRONG>"in our present
state of knowledge"</STRONG> is included so as to not
preclude the discovery of such a method in the
future.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Musicians, musicologists, ordinary people
argue, so far without resolution, about who is the greatest
composer. Even expertly trained musicians who are
thoroughly knowledgeable about all factual
matters with respect to a composition's structure
and live sound, and agree upon such, will still disagree
about who is the greatest composer.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There are many who assert quite
apodictically that it is never justified to kill another
human being even in self-defense. The truth of these
kind of assertions are not demonstrable by empirical methods
like the in stones example. One cannot produce
observations that demonstrate the truth of such
a knowledge claim.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>That is not to say that facts or
probabilities established by empirical methods are not
useful or necessary in resolving certain value or
ethical disputes. They are very important; but not
completely definitive. Further, many of us reject as
fanciful, unsupported speculation the use of alleged
supernatural beings and their alleged dicta as relevant in
such resolutions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In a nutshell, if we want to establish the
truth of a knowledge claim then first we must define the
terms of that claim unambiguously; then we must agree upon a
method to test its truth. So far, <STRONG>in our
present state of Knowledge</STRONG> we have not established
a generally agreed upon method to establish the truth of
knowledge claims which are value statements of the kind
given as examples (4. - 6.) above.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Applications</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Restating the argument against capital
punishment given by Andreas/Joe:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. There is no situation
where the judicially-sanctioned murder of an innocent person
is justified.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. Regimes which allow
the death penalty result in the execution of innocent
people.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>__________________________________________________________________________________<BR>3.
Therefore, the death penalty is never
justified.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Premise 2. is highly likely true at this
time. There probably isn't a regime with the death
penalty the result of whose judicial system
hasn't caused the execution of an innocent
person. This premise is not a value knowledge claim,
but a matter that can be determined to be true by empirical
methods.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>However, premise 1. is a knowledge
claim about values. Notice that it is a "all X is Y"
statement. Hence, referring to the pigtails example
above, it is only necessary to find one counterexample that
at least some observers might cite.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>During WWI and WWII when very
strategic ground battles were to be fought with the
expectation of very high casualties and there were
the probabilities of massive troop desertions, the
following has been alleged: An officer would chose a
particularly inept soldier, one whose ineptness threatened
harm to the unit, and accuse him of being caught
deserting. A summary court-martial would held, the
accused though innocent would be convicted, and then
executed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The argument of the upper command was
this: executing what the other troops saw as a
deserter would prevent some of the other potential deserters
from deserting and thus increase the probability of a
military victory of sorts in the oncoming battle. The
argument was that by killing one innocent person, many other
lives would be saved in battle, and perhaps the course of
the war changed so that millions of lives would be
saved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The ethical principle invoked was
that saving many lives justified killing one innocent
person. Notice the context is a judicial system,
albeit a military one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Obviously, many would find this alleged
principle repugnant; others would agree with the
principle. By what <STRONG>generally accepted
method</STRONG> would you resolve this dispute? I do
not know of one. Hence, this example certainly
seems to raise a legitimate question about the truth of
premise 1. above. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If the knowledge claim is that there is
not a single case where capital punishment is justified,
therefore capital punishment ought be abolished,
then referring to the pigtails example above there
is another counterexample, as mentioned
earlier: The cases where the evidence is
overwhelming, a confession is made and is overwhelmingly
supported by evidence, and the convicted demands to be
executed. The issue of executing an innocent man does
not arise here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I chose statement 6. ("Every human being
is more valuable than every other animal.") above for a
purpose. I have a good friend who is vehemently
against capital punishment when we discuss it as a subject
<EM>per se</EM>. However, when we discuss people who
poison pets or off-roaders who chase/harass wildlife, this
friend asserts that they would have no hesitation in
shooting these offenders, dead.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe argues that convictions are only
probabilities. Almost all knowledge claims are only
probabilities, even Ohm's Law, for example. It is the
strength of the probability that counts. The very,
very high probability of the guilt and the enormity of the
crime of Joseph Duncan justify his execution for me;
obviously it does not for Sunil, Andreas,
and Joe. I am always open to advances in methods
of determining the truth of value knowledge claims and open
to hearing persuasive arguments on ethical matters. At
one time I too was against the death penalty. But
facts learned and very serious consideration changed my
mind, as it has, and continues to do on an assortment of
ethical issues.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>This whole dispute is about determining
the truth of knowledge claims. If there is a generally
accepted method of determining the truth of knowledge claims
about values with the same degree of certainty in the
stones example above, it has escaped the notice of most of
the world's population so far. If either Joe or
Andreas is claiming that there is such a method, perhaps
they could submit persuasive evidence of such. The
problem as has been discussed <EM>ad nauseam</EM> by
philosophers is that value knowledge claims include an
emotive element which depends on an individual's inner
mental/physical sate, not just on exterior
reality.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There is hardly an ethical principle that
is agreed upon universally. If there were presently
such a method of determining the truth of value knowledge
claims, one would expect substantial agreement on many such
principles.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe claims that he knows that slavery is
always wrong. Some people disagree. For example,
they cite the results of some slave efforts to justify the
slavery that produced them -- the seven wonders of the
world, for example.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In the early to middle part of the
20th century in some areas of the west able-bodied men were
forced at gunpoint, threat of great bodily harm, or
imprisonment to help fight a flood or forest fire
threatening a town. This was involuntary servitude or
slavery. The authorities invoked the principle that
the short sentence of slavery (they called it helping your
neighbors) was justified by the circumstances -- saving the
town. What generally accepted method is there to
resolve the truth of the value knowledge claims
here?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If you have an
adventurous/curious/not-easily-shocked mind venture onto <A
href="http://www.collarme.com/"></A><A
href="http://www.collarme.com/"></A><A
href="http://www.collarme.com/"></A><A
href="http://www.collarme.com/"></A><A
href="http://www.collarme.com/"><A
href="http://www.collarme.com/">www.collarme.com</A></A>.
You will find that slavery is alive and well today, even in
Idaho, and that there are slaves that appear to thrive in
that environment, and are at least as happy or happier in
that environment as any other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As Joe is a professional philosopher who
has studied ethics and probably taught it, he knows in
his heart-of-hearts that there is no agreement
<STRONG>today</STRONG> among all professional philosophers
of a single non-metalinguistic ethical principle, or of a
system/method to produce such.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Some may rue this situation. It
would be nice to have ethical principles clearly and
irrevocably established whose truth could be demonstrated in
a manner like in the stones example above. Such
is not the case. If, or until such a method is
discovered, we will have inevitable conflict like we have
had since the beginning of humankind over these
matters.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; 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=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March
15, 2010 11:05 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the
argument about ethics below is a BAD argument. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>First, the view that knowledge is possible only
through empirical test is itself a philosophical view.
Thus, it should be just as unprovable as you claim ethical
principles to be. The view is self-refuting.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable
as empirical claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong
as I am that my hand exists. Certainly people might
dispute that slavery is wrong but it can't follow from
that that "slavery is wrong" is unknowable. It is a
consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis that ANY evidence
can be rejected if one is willing to accept the
consequences and revise enough of their beliefs. If you
think that dispute means lack of knowledge it is easy to
show that no one knows anything.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Third, and related to the above, you can't give a
non-question begging proof of the existence of anything,
even your hand. What you can do is show that our actions
convey that we all believe it (given it is true). But the
same can be shown about ethical claims. Or so I
think. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Obviously this is controversial but the point is that
your argument asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical
proof. But this won't even work for your belief that you
have a hand. Once you show me why it is that you are
entitled to believe that you have a hand, I'm pretty
confident I can duplicate the story for at least one moral
claim. Again, if you push the view you are holding,
skepticism follows. But then ethical principles are no
longer unique.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical
disagreement is really something else, say, a metaphysical
dispute. Take the abortion issue. Both sides AGREE that it
is wrong to kill innocent persons. They disagree about the
metaphysical issue, e.g., what is a person? (This is a
simplification but hopefully you get the
point.) </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are
irresolveable and, for that reason there will always be
disagreement about abortion. But you should be careful
about drawing similar conclusions about ethics.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more
common in philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math
(think about Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry).
Absolutely NO broad conclusions about the impossibility of
resolution can be drawn from this fact. So please keep
talking about ethics! </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=ecxApple-style-span><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=ecxApple-style-span>Best,
Joe</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=ecxApple-style-span></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=ecxApple-style-span>
<DIV>I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the
argument about ethics below is a BAD argument. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>First, the view that knowledge is possible only
through empirical test is itself a philosophical view.
Thus, it should be just as unprovable as you claim ethical
principles to be. The view is self-refuting.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable
as empirical claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong
as I am that my hand exists. Certainly people might
dispute that slavery is wrong but it can't follow from
that that "slavery is wrong" is unknowable. It is a
consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis that ANY evidence
can be rejected if one is willing to accept the
consequences and revise enough of their beliefs. If you
think that dispute means lack of knowledge it is easy to
show that no one knows anything.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Third, and related to the above, you can't give a
non-question begging proof of the existence of anything,
even your hand. What you can do is show that our actions
convey that we all believe it (given it is true). But the
same can be shown about ethical claims. Or so I
think. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Obviously this is controversial but the point is that
your argument asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical
proof. But this won't even work for your belief that you
have a hand. Once you show me why it is that you are
entitled to believe that you have a hand, I'm pretty
confident I can duplicate the story for at least one moral
claim. Again, if you push the view you are holding,
skepticism follows. But then ethical principles are no
longer unique.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical
disagreement is really something else, say, a metaphysical
dispute. Take the abortion issue. Both sides AGREE that it
is wrong to kill innocent persons. They disagree about the
metaphysical issue, e.g., what is a person? (This is a
simplification but hopefully you get the
point.) </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are
irresolveable and, for that reason there will always be
disagreement about abortion. But you should be careful
about drawing similar conclusions about ethics.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more
common in philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math
(think about Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry).
Absolutely NO broad conclusions about the impossibility of
resolution can be drawn from this fact. So please keep
talking about ethics! </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=ecxApple-style-span><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=ecxApple-style-span>Best,
Joe</SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=ecxApple-style-span></SPAN><BR>On Mar 15,
2010, at 11:22 PM, "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<DIV>Here's why arguments like we are engaged in cannot
be resolved given our current state of knowledge:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ethical principles are not completely amenable to
resolution by evidence or testing. If they were,
we wouldn't have such a wide diversity of opinion on
ethical matters held by decent, reasonable people.
It's not like establishing Ohm's law or the Theory of
Conditioned Reflexes. Facts count, but even when
people agree on the facts, they may not agree on an
underlying ethical principle.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It appears you are arguing for the principle
that capital is never justified, or equivalently there
is not a single case where capital punishment is
justified.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How would you empirically establish the truth of
such a broad statement? What observations would
render the probability of such a statement being
1.00?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The best we can do in our current state of
knowledge (the absence of an agreed method to
establish ethical principles without doubt) is to
attempt to persuade others by citing facts or other
ethical principles which they may agree upon.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In order to refute the statement "There is not a
single case where capital punishment is justified." only
a single case need be shown.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a
counter-example (<A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"></A><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III</A></A>)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>"Joseph Edward Duncan</STRONG> (born
February 25, 1963) is an American convicted <A
title="Serial killer"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer">serial
killer</A> and <A title="Sex offender"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender">sex
offender</A> who received national attention after being
arrested in connection with the <A title=Kidnapping
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping">kidnapping</A>
of Shasta Groene,<SUP id=ecxcite_ref-0
class=ecxreference><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-0"><SPAN>[</SPAN>1<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
aged 8, and her brother Dylan,<SUP id=ecxcite_ref-1
class=ecxreference><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-1"><SPAN>[</SPAN>2<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
9, and being featured on <I><A
title="America's Most Wanted"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Most_Wanted">America's
Most Wanted</A></I>.<SUP id=ecxcite_ref-2
class=ecxreference><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-2"><SPAN>[</SPAN>3<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
He pled guilty in December 2007 to 10 federal counts
involving the kidnapping and <A title=Torture
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture">torture</A>
of the children and the murder of Dylan at a remote
campsite west of the <A
title="Rocky Mountain Front"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Front">Rocky
Mountain Front</A>, and was <A
title="Capital punishment"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment">sentenced
to death</A> under <I>federal</I> laws for kidnapping
resulting in death (he had already pleaded guilty in
state court) on August 27, 2008. As of October 27, 2009,
Duncan was being tried in Riverside County, California
for the 1997 murder of Anthony Michael Martinez."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is a lot more, a horrifyingly graphic,
sickening more.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I could have also cited a number of confessed
serial murderers or used those old favorites Hitler and
Saddam Hussein.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Given your belief in the statement "There is not a
single case where capital punishment is justified." such
counterexamples would not be persuasive to you.
You would still hold the above ethical
principle to be true despite the lack of a method
to demonstrate it's truth. However, some people
might be persuaded that Duncan should be executed and
make his case an exception to their general opposition
to capital punishment. In fact, I know of at least
one such person.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Until there is a method to establish the
truth of general ethical principles</STRONG> differences
of opinion like ours are not likely to be
resolved. We may persuade each other about certain
cases or classes of cases (like those where guilt is
questionable), but in general we have no way to come to
agreement like we might if we were arguing about the
cause of diabetes or whether syphilis is caused by
urinating in the moonlight.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil
Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday,
March 15, 2010 7:15 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Not even him, and you want to kill for
less than that.<BR><BR>
<HR>
From: <A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A><BR>To:
<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700<BR>Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
penalty<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;}
.ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</STYLE>
<DIV>
<H1 id=ecxecxfirstHeading
class=ecxecxfirstHeading>Joseph E. Duncan
III</H1></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message
----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil
Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday,
March 15, 2010 6:41 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I've never seen a good argument for
the death penalty from you, Wayne.
<BR><BR>Sunil<BR><BR>
<HR>
From: <A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A><BR>To:
<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700<BR>Subject:
[Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
penalty<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4><STRONG>Another good
argument for the death
penalty:</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<P class=ecxecxecxpublish-date>Updated March 15,
2010</P>
<H1 id=ecxecxecxstory-title>Ex-Bank President
Arrested for Allegedly Lying to Get TARP Money</H1>
<P class=ecxecxecxauthor></P>
<P class=ecxecxecxsource>AP </P>
<P id=ecxecxecxstory-dek class=ecxecxecxdeck><SPAN
class=ecxecxecxdateline></SPAN></P>The former
president of a small community bank was arrested on
charges that he lied to the federal government to
get a piece of the bailout program, authorities said
Monday.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
class="ecxecxecxbodytext ecxecxecxsmalltext">NEW
YORK -- The former president of a small community
bank was arrested on charges that he lied to the
federal government to get a piece of the bailout
program, authorities said Monday.<BR>Charles
Antonucci Sr. was charged in a criminal complaint
filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan with
self-dealing, bank bribery, embezzlement and
fraud.<BR>Authorities said the rip-off targeted the
New York State Banking Department, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Troubled Asset
Relief Program.<BR>Antonucci resigned last year as
president of The Park Avenue Bank, which is
headquartered in Manhattan with four retail branches
in Manhattan and Brooklyn.<BR>Among other
allegations, Antonucci was accused of using false
information to request $11 million from the federal
government's TARP bank bailout program.<BR>The
complaint accused him of lying to banking
authorities in late 2008 and early 2009 to make them
believe he had invested $6.5 million of his own
money in the bank when the money actually belonged
to the bank.<BR>After the application for TARP money
was rejected, Antonucci did a media interview in
which he said the bank withdrew its application
because of "issues" with the TARP program and a
desire to avoid "market perception" that bad banks
take TARP money, the complaint said.<BR>Federal
authorities say Antonucci actually wanted to obtain
millions of dollars for his own use, in part so he
could obtain a controlling interest in the
bank.<BR>They said he also permitted a former
administrative assistant to obtain $400,000 of loans
the assistant was not qualified for. The complaint
said the former assistant is now cooperating.<BR>The
complaint alleged that Antonucci later used the
former bank employee's private plane on 10 or more
occasions, including trips to Phoenix to attend the
Super Bowl, to Augusta, Ga., to watch the Master's
golf tournament, a flight to Florida to visit a
relative and a flight to Panama.<BR>Antonucci's
lawyer, Charles Stillman, said he had just gotten a
copy of the charges. He declined immediate
comment.<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet,
</SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet,
</SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet,
</SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A href="http://www.fsr.net/"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
<BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving
the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A href="http://www.fsr.net/"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>=======================================================
<BR>
<HR>
<BR><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG
- <A href="http://www.avg.com/"></A><A
href="http://www.avg.com/"><A
href="http://www.avg.com/">www.avg.com</A></A> <BR>Version:
9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date: 03/17/10
00:33:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet,
</SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net/"></A><A href="http://www.fsr.net/"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
<BR><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
<A href="http://www.avg.com/"><A
href="http://www.avg.com/">www.avg.com</A></A> <BR>Version: 9.0.791 /
Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date: 03/17/10
00:33:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
<BR><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com/">www.avg.com</A> <BR>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus
Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date: 03/17/10
00:33:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. <A
href="http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3"
target=_new>Get started.</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<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>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>