<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Without taking sides in this dispute, may I point out that
ironically it started with the thread "Freedom of Expression."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>When one chooses to engage in public discourse there are
really no rules -- even those suggested by or explicitly given by law are often
ignored.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Public discourse is not uni-purposeful. There are many
obviously many purposes exhibited: to attempt to inform, to persuade, to
manipulate, to irritate, to tease, to entertain, to laud, to insult, to be a
strutting peacock, to protect one's or another's integrity or ego, to keep
writing/speaking skills in practice, etc etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Nor is the tired old claim "we must be
civil" always persuasive. Any one who has observed public discourse
ought see that civility and rationality is not always a victorious foe over
incivility, cleverness, ignorance, and/or irrationality. In fact, less
often than not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Contrary to the previous observations of Paul Rumelhart, most
on this forum understand, cherish, and trumpet freedom of
expression.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Although most of us believe in freedom of expression,
that does not mean that we choose to say everything that may be allowed.
For each of us what we express is based, at least in part, on our own
individual estimate of how that expression may help achieve certain goals, some
of which are may be invisible to or misunderstood by the
uninformed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Herein lies the dilemma: Sometimes, as in this case of
the present dispute, positions are advanced that appear to be anti-freedom of
expression amounting to "you shouldn't say things like that." I interpret
these not as arguments about the primacy of freedom of expression, but about
whether the use of it in some cases advances the goals of the expresser or
the listener.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Some years ago, Cultmaster Douglas Wilson (presumably)
authored a tract entitled <EM>The Serrated Edge</EM>, in which he argued that it
was really OK for Christians to use cruel, biting humor/wit/???? to advance the
cause of Christianity. Without comment on the validity of such an
argument, I note the hypocrisy of such a position when Wilson and/or various
members of his ovine flock/running dogs whine like sheep at the
slaughter when others use the serrated edge against them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Freedom of expression is a multi-faceted tool. Not all
of us always use it wisely or well. But I hope that all of us agree that
it is the most precious gift of our constitution. Hence, when there is an
attempt to discourage some kinds of expression, I hope it is not the
principle that is being attacked, but the wisdom/efficacy of a particular
application of it. Instead of saying "You shouldn't say that" perhaps what
is being said is "It is not nice/prudent/effective/etc to say
that."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID
83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>waf@moscow.com<BR>208 882-7975<BR></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=lockshop@pull.twcbc.com href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the
lockshop</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Moscow Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 22, 2010 10:29
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of
Postings</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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 ----- <BR>From: "Joe Campbell" <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>To:
"the lockshop" <<A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A>><BR>Cc:
"Dan Carscallen" <<A
href="mailto:areaman@moscow.com">areaman@moscow.com</A>>; "Moscow Vision
2020" <BR><<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><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><A
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-November/072704.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-November/072704.html</A><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 <<A
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A>>
<BR>wrote:<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" <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>>
To: "Dan Carscallen" <<A
href="mailto:areaman@moscow.com">areaman@moscow.com</A>><BR>> Cc:
"Moscow Vision 2020" <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><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 <<A
href="mailto:areaman@moscow.com">areaman@moscow.com</A>> <BR>>
wrote:<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 <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>>
<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 <<A
href="mailto:areaman@moscow.com">areaman@moscow.com</A>><BR>>>>
wrote:<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 <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><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 <<A
href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com">jeffh@moscow.com</A>>
<BR>>>>>> wrote:<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>>>>>>> <A
href="http://www.values.com">www.values.com</A><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>>>>>>> <A
href="http://www.values.com">www.values.com</A>. 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>>>>>>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>>>>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>>>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>><BR>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>><BR>>
________________________________<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: 9.0.872 / 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 - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 9.0.872 / Virus
Database: 271.1.1/3330 - Release Date: 12/21/10
<BR>11:34:00<BR><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">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>