<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Ok I'll stop. This is my last post -- maybe ever. I always seem to end up getting lectures like this one. But there already was a solution: delete.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm still amazed at how comfortable everyone feels about telling me to shut up but no one dares follow Crabtree's post with similar advice. Of course, then you'd be the continued object of his wrath! So I wouldn't call it unwise.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway I need a break again. This stint didn't last long at all, did it?</div><div><br></div><div>Tell Donovan, etc. I said hello!<br><br>Joe</div><div><br>On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Matt Decker <<a href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com">mattd2107@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><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"><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a></a><br>To: <a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a></a><br>Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:09:45 -0400<br>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></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"><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a></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><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 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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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>
<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><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><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><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><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>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>
<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>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>
</div></blockquote></body></html>