<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16700"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>I'm sure you are correct. When you assert
that the number one cable news provider is "<FONT color=#ff0000
face="Times New Roman">much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable
than that of even the most strident MSNBC pundits</FONT>," this would in no
way cast a negative aspersion on any of its many
viewers. If I were to claim that any given department at WSU was
providing analysis and perspective that was "<FONT color=#ff0000><FONT
color=#000000>much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than which was
provided at Zippy's Bait Stand and Waffle Shop,"</FONT> <FONT color=#000000>I
would be</FONT></FONT> declaring no individual inept and I'm sure that members
of that department, its students, and graduates would understand
that. Right?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--------------------------------------------------<BR>From: "Joe Campbell"
<philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 11:51
AM<BR>To: "the lockshop" <lockshop@pull.twcbc.com><BR>Cc: "Moscow Vision
2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of
Postings<BR><BR>> The point is not that Keely's remark was or was not an
insult but that<BR>> it was called insulting by Roger, even though it was
very tame<BR>> relative to your claims of elitism. But of course he wouldn't
want to<BR>> criticize you, would he? That might get him in trouble.<BR>>
<BR>> And NO ONE declared any individuals stupid. That is something that
you<BR>> made up and are still making up to keep the tag of "elitist"
sticking<BR>> to liberals/progressives. For Christ's, I grew up poor and
likely make<BR>> less money than you do but I'm still an elitist!?!<BR>>
<BR>> What was actually said by Keely was that "Fox' analysis and<BR>>
perspective" is "much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than<BR>>
that of even the most strident MSNBC pundits." NOT the folks who watch<BR>>
Fox but their ANALYSIS. This might be why their viewers are less<BR>>
informed, as was noted in a post on the V last week. It is not that<BR>> the
viewers are stupid but that Fox distorts information, just like<BR>> you have
done in this post as well as in the previous posts noted<BR>> below.<BR>>
<BR>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM, the lockshop
<lockshop@pull.twcbc.com> wrote:<BR>>> I guess my hide is simply to
thick to be effectively insulted. I did not<BR>>> take Ms. Mix's final
sentence personally and it did not change the generally<BR>>> favorable
opinion that I have of her. Also, I did not see the mud which I, a<BR>>>
man, drug her through, in public. (oddly unprogressive language for
someone<BR>>> so politiclly correct?) We disagreed and she held up her end
of the<BR>>> discussion as well as anyone, man or woman. Far better in
fact then some<BR>>> others on this forum who shall remain
nameless.<BR>>><BR>>> For the record, I still believe that it's a
bit elitist to automaticlly<BR>>> declare organizations,<BR>>>
individuals, or party's stupid when you disagree with some of their<BR>>>
positions or goals.<BR>>><BR>>> g<BR>>> ----- Original Message
----- From: "Joe Campbell"<BR>>>
<philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>>> To: "the lockshop"
<lockshop@pull.twcbc.com><BR>>> Cc: "Dan Carscallen"
<areaman@moscow.com>; "Moscow Vision 2020"<BR>>>
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010
9:25 AM<BR>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of
Postings<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> It is not too surprising that your
selective memory erased this<BR>>> episode. Here is the best link to the
whole dialogue:<BR>>><BR>>>
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-November/072704.html<BR>>><BR>>>
Here is a long summary but feel free to read it again for yourself.
We<BR>>> end with Roger criticizing Keely: "You are better than most on
the V,<BR>>> but occasionally we all lapse into being personally
derogatory when we<BR>>> should try to keep it, just to the
issues."<BR>>><BR>>> Here is the last sentence, from Keely to you
(Crabtree), which is<BR>>> criticized by Roger: "It's no cause for shame
to not be as bright as<BR>>> someone else, but bad character and conduct,
neither the provenance of<BR>>> right or left, is always
shameful."<BR>>><BR>>> The paragraph directly before that was where
Keely wrote: "While I'm a<BR>>> liberal, I'm hardly an elitist; I think
being a homemaker with a BA in<BR>>> journalism earned 30 years ago
doesn't make me any more 'elite' than<BR>>> anyone else I encounter, and
in this town a whole lot less so. But<BR>>> because I favor liberal
points of view in politics and society --<BR>>> generally, not always --
doesn't mean that I think liberals are<BR>>> smarter than
conservatives. What I said is that I see network<BR>>> conservatives
faltering on the 'reasonable, fact-based argument'<BR>>> component, and
engaging in shameful fear-mongering, more than I see<BR>>> liberals do the
same. I stand by that."<BR>>><BR>>> So her heat was in
response to your insulting remarks, specifically<BR>>> these written from
you (Crabtree) to Keely:<BR>>><BR>>> "I understand perfectly well
that the thoughts you expressed were YOUR<BR>>> OPINION. They were
remarkably similar to the opinions Rose expressed<BR>>> last week. And
those regularly expressed by Hanson, Deco, Clevenger,<BR>>> Smith, Cambell
[sic], etc. along with many others who have nothing to<BR>>> do with this
forum. I get it. FNC is evil. People who watch it are<BR>>> 'less
intelligent' then those who look to more progressive news<BR>>> outlets
for information."<BR>>><BR>>> "Please allow me to highlight MY
OPINION. It is that when the<BR>>> progressive fall back position in any
conversation is a variation on<BR>>> 'Conservatives, whether it be those
on FOX or those who watch it, are<BR>>> stupid' very little that is
productive will come of it."<BR>>><BR>>> "The unmistakable essence
of the progressive mind set and perhaps one<BR>>> of the the biggest
barriers to productive conversation. The elitist<BR>>> (why does that ring
a bell?) notion that they just must be right<BR>>> because they imagine
that those with whom they disagree are ever so<BR>>> much less intelligent
and unreasonable then themselves."<BR>>><BR>>> But did Keely
actually call Fox viewers "stupid"? Did she say that<BR>>> they were "less
intelligent," as you suggest? No she didn't. These<BR>>> insults were
things you made up. Here is what Keely actually said:<BR>>>
"Further, I find Fox' analysis and perspective to be much less<BR>>>
intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than that of even the most<BR>>>
strident MSNBC pundits. I prefer MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to
Keith<BR>>> Olbermann, and Olbermann to virtually anyone ever featured on
Fox, but<BR>>> not even I would suggest that MSNBC is without bias.
I just think<BR>>> it's much less without fear-mongering and jingoist
bigotry than Fox,<BR>>> and that's important to
me."<BR>>><BR>>> In short, Keely said Fox News ANALYSIS was less
intelligent than that<BR>>> of MSNBC (which she admitted was biased). You
said she called the<BR>>> viewers unintelligent and stupid, which she
clearly did not, and<BR>>> called her and progressives in general
(including many by name)<BR>>> "elitists." Keely then writes a quite
general, vague comment about bad<BR>>> character being worse than being
unintelligent. Roger jumps all over<BR>>> that, skipping any criticism of
you whatsoever.<BR>>><BR>>> Does that help? Would you like some
other examples?<BR>>><BR>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:26 AM, the
lockshop <lockshop@pull.twcbc.com><BR>>>
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>> "Keely and Crabtree got into a
tussle<BR>>>> recently and he dragged her all through the mud. A woman.
In public.<BR>>>> Then she lost it and made some insulting comment
(which struck me as<BR>>>> not too bad, by the way) and someone jumped
all over her."<BR>>>><BR>>>> Looking back through my sent
items file, I see no mud dragging and most<BR>>>> assuredly see no
insult that Ms. Mix might have sent my way. We disagree<BR>>>>
on<BR>>>> many, maybe most, topics but I hold her in high regard. Any
remarks I<BR>>>> make during one of our discussions are not intended as
insult and I surely<BR>>>> take none of hers personally either. Trying
to turn spirited disagreement<BR>>>> into some form of animosity is one
of the "turn offs" that you mentioned.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
g<BR>>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>>>> From: "Joe
Campbell" <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>>>> To: "Dan Carscallen"
<areaman@moscow.com><BR>>>> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020"
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010
8:24 PM<BR>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of
Postings<BR>>>> I'll say it again: If you were having a conversation
and someone<BR>>>> interrupted with another, completely different
conversation, you would<BR>>>> take that as being rude. Am I wrong? And
I took the trouble to qualify<BR>>>> the comment, on several occasions,
with words like "seems" and to<BR>>>> stress, more than once, that I
was just looking for an explanation.<BR>>>> Not sure how I could have
been clearer. An explanation was given and<BR>>>> I'm fine with it. End
of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.<BR>>>><BR>>>> I just
wonder why it is that a whole bunch of conservative folks can<BR>>>>
get away with a whole bunch of actual rude behavior without
anyone<BR>>>> saying anything but folks jump on me on a regular basis.
Now I'm not<BR>>>> at all suggesting that I don't deserve it. Sometimes
I do. But if you<BR>>>> look carefully at my last few posts there
hasn't really been a lot of<BR>>>> rude things that I've said. Just
asked some (admittedly loaded)<BR>>>> questions, that's all. Not
violent rhetoric, by any means.<BR>>>><BR>>>> I find it
interesting that conservatives can get away with a whole lot<BR>>>> of
crap that liberals cannot. Keely and Crabtree got into a tussle<BR>>>>
recently and he dragged her all through the mud. A woman. In
public.<BR>>>> Then she lost it and made some insulting comment (which
struck me as<BR>>>> not too bad, by the way) and someone jumped all
over her. I can only<BR>>>> imagine what kind of whip would come down
were WSU or UI to post on<BR>>>> the front page of their website the
progressive version of the NSA<BR>>>> advertisement. There are other
examples.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Part of my participation on the V all
these years has been a kind of<BR>>>> experiment, to try to act like
Crabtree, Wilson, etc. and dish it out.<BR>>>> Be direct, maybe
insulting but don't back down. But the fact is, they<BR>>>> get away
with it. Not from Tom, etc. but from you and other more<BR>>>>
moderates in town, as well as many of the liberals/progressives.
Their<BR>>>> dish-it-out rhetoric works, it is attractive to other
conservatives<BR>>>> and moderates. But when liberals like myself use
that same rhetorical<BR>>>> style it is (in general) a turnoff. I find
that interesting. Part of<BR>>>> my participation is an attempt to
understand this; part of it is<BR>>>> because I'm a bit of jackass, no
doubt.<BR>>>><BR>>>> And I'm not making any other point than
that. It is interesting that<BR>>>> certain rhetorical styles work for
certain political groups and not<BR>>>> others. I didn't mean to
suggest there was something to it, some<BR>>>> comment toward you. You
are a perfectly reasonable, moderate youngish<BR>>>> man. The fact is
lots of reasonable moderates are turned off by<BR>>>> aggressive
progressives. I just find that interesting, that's all.<BR>>>> Because
in the end, it is ALL just words. Nothing more.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Best, Joe<BR>>>><BR>>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Dan
Carscallen <areaman@moscow.com><BR>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> I don't recall the NSA posting
anything here on the vizzz, and perhaps me<BR>>>>> calling you rude
was a little harsh. I will commend your pitbull-like<BR>>>>>
tenacity, though.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Perhaps I haven't
criticized any alleged conservatives on the vizzz, but<BR>>>>>
I<BR>>>>> think everyone else does a good enough job on the three of
them.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> And for some reason you like to
throw that label on me. I think some of<BR>>>>>
my<BR>>>>> "conservative" acquaintances might disagree, although
compared to most on<BR>>>>> the vizzz I probably seem to fall
somewhere to the right of the Archduke<BR>>>>>
Ferdinand.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Anyhow, I guess I just felt
you were looking for something that wasn't<BR>>>>> there in Jeff's
posts, I think I know me well enough to think I'd do the<BR>>>>>
same for you if I thought someone was doing the same with
you.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> And that last sentence is terrible,
bit it gets my point across.<BR>>>>> Hopefully<BR>>>>>
Mrs Hovey doesn't ding me too hard.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Your
pal<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
DC<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 19:42, Joe
Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>> I said it seemed rude. I
didn't say it was rude. I'm just asking for<BR>>>>>> an
explanation.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> I find it
interesting that you think I'm rude for asking questions
but<BR>>>>>> that NSA post is not rude for its violent rhetoric,
insulting a bunch<BR>>>>>> of folks who actually voted for you,
including myself. In fact, though<BR>>>>>> you have no problem
criticizing me in public, I've never seen you say<BR>>>>>> a
single untoward thing toward any conservative. Doesn't matter
what<BR>>>>>> they do. That is pretty interesting, isn't
it?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> It seems that if Jeff wanted
to start a new post about values,<BR>>>>>> something I very much
approve of, by the way, he could have done it in<BR>>>>>> some
other way. I'm just trying to find out why he did it this
way.<BR>>>>>> That is a reasonable question by any standard,
especially standards on<BR>>>>>> the V which seem to think that
the defense of slavery is a reasonable<BR>>>>>>
position.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010
at 7:34 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman@moscow.com><BR>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Joe,<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> I think you're
reading way too much into it. I'm pretty sure the
vizzz<BR>>>>>>> is capable of more than one conversation at a
time.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> It is, after all,
the Christmas season (or whatever you choose to<BR>>>>>>>
celebrate this time of year) and that's usually when folks will
throw<BR>>>>>>> out<BR>>>>>>> some sort of
inspirational stuff.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Besides, you didn't get all over Tom for his "caturday" post,
or<BR>>>>>>> admonish Deb and Wayne for their jabs at
ITD.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> I don't want to
cast aspersions, but your accusation that Jeff was<BR>>>>>>>
being<BR>>>>>>> rude is, well,
rude.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Your
pal<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
DC<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> On Dec 21, 2010, at
19:08, Joe Campbell
<philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> OK but could
you just explain to me why you posted this in the
middle<BR>>>>>>>> of a discussion on freedom of expression?
After all, the title of your<BR>>>>>>>> initial post was
"Values to Live By Freedom of expression" which
is<BR>>>>>>>> odd to say the least, if not rude. Either you
just cut off a<BR>>>>>>>> conversation or your post had
something to do with Freedom of<BR>>>>>>>> expression or
something else, I know not what. I'm just trying to
find<BR>>>>>>>>
out.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> What was it
about the discussion that led to this abrupt change
of<BR>>>>>>>> topic? What was it about sportsmanship, or
values in general, that led<BR>>>>>>>> to the post? On the
face of it, it is a little like interrupting<BR>>>>>>>>
someone in the middle of a conversation with a quite different
topic.<BR>>>>>>>> Seems to me it would be considered rude
by most
standards.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> Now
maybe you have an explanation but to pretend that it does not
seem<BR>>>>>>>> odd or rude is just bizarre and not
indicative of any of the values<BR>>>>>>>> that you have
posted about so far. I think an explanation is in
order,<BR>>>>>>>> maybe an apology. You make it seem as if
I'm being untoward when all<BR>>>>>>>> I'm doing is asking
for an explanation of your odd and/or rude<BR>>>>>>>>
behavior.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> On
Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Jeff Harkins
<jeffh@moscow.com><BR>>>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Verbatim - here is the posting I made for the first
installment.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
My curiosity about the recent plethora of media spots, billboards
and<BR>>>>>>>>> ads
by<BR>>>>>>>>> the Foundation for a Better Life led me
to their website at<BR>>>>>>>>>
www.values.com<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Their premise is that the values we live by are worth more when
we<BR>>>>>>>>> "Pass<BR>>>>>>>>>
Them
On".<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Their view is that .. "everyone views the world through a
unique<BR>>>>>>>>>
lens"<BR>>>>>>>>> and
a<BR>>>>>>>>> Foundation objective "... is to provide a
wide spectrum of values<BR>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>> are<BR>>>>>>>>>
universal, encouraging and
inspiring."<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
They state that "(B)ecause values are worth more when we pass
them<BR>>>>>>>>> on,<BR>>>>>>>>>
The<BR>>>>>>>>> Foundation for a Better Life chose these
values to share with you...<BR>>>>>>>>> Pass
It<BR>>>>>>>>>
On"<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> So,
for the next several weeks, I will post one of their values
and<BR>>>>>>>>> leave
it<BR>>>>>>>>> to you to ponder, post and/or pass it
on.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> I do
encourage you all to visit their website - most
inspiring.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
End of first post - additional thoughts below. Visit the
website<BR>>>>>>>>> www.values.com. Peruse ... and you
will
find:<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Values. No matter where we live, we live by values. Because they
are<BR>>>>>>>>>
worth<BR>>>>>>>>> more when we pass them on, The
Foundation For a Better Life chose<BR>>>>>>>>>
these<BR>>>>>>>>> values to share. Explore each value or
suggest your
own.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> The
Foundation for a Better Life began as a simple idea to
promote<BR>>>>>>>>>
positive<BR>>>>>>>>> values. We believe that people are
basically good and just need a<BR>>>>>>>>>
reminder.<BR>>>>>>>>> And that the values we live by are
worth more when we pass them
on.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Throughout this site, you can pass things on to your friends,
family<BR>>>>>>>>>
or<BR>>>>>>>>> co-workers—anyone who might enjoy our
site.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> We
want the stories we share about the positive actions and values
of<BR>>>>>>>>>
others<BR>>>>>>>>> to serve as inspiration for someone
to do one thing a little better,<BR>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>> then pass on that inspiration. A few
individuals living values-based<BR>>>>>>>>>
lives<BR>>>>>>>>> will collectively make the world a
better
place.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Therein lies my motivation - self examination (one value at a
time)<BR>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>> sharing. Ah, the time you ask? Well,
retirement affords one the time<BR>>>>>>>>> to
do<BR>>>>>>>>> many things to which I am
grateful.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Happy Holiday
Season<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
=======================================================<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>>>>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
=======================================================<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>>>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
=======================================================<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>>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
=======================================================<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>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>><BR>>>>
________________________________<BR>>>><BR>>>> No virus found
in this incoming message.<BR>>>> Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com<BR>>>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3330 -
Release Date: 12/21/10<BR>>>>
11:34:00<BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>>> Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com<BR>>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3330 -
Release Date: 12/21/10<BR>>> 11:34:00<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>
<BR>> =======================================================<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>>
=======================================================</DIV></BODY></HTML>