<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>It was a comment on your argument, Gary, your claim that by saying Fox analysis is<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> much less intelligent,accurate, and reasonable than that which was provided by others one is saying that Fox viewers are unintelligent. One is not. The first claim is different from the second and the one does not entail or implicate the other. Even if my counterexample were false it would still make the point. But it isn't false, at least not in your case. You have in fact on several occasions made comments about my faulty reasoning and linked it to my supposed faulty teaching. But even if you hadn't it is clear that your initial claim is no better than the claim that by criticizing the teacher one criticizes the student.<br></span><br></div><div><br>On Dec 23, 2010, at 1:52 AM, "Gary Crabtree" <<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Thank you for making my point and once
again proving yourself metronomiclly predictable.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">I didn't mention anyone's name, I referred
to no specific department. <font color="#ff0000" face="Times New Roman"> "NO
ONE declared any individuals stupid"</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">and I did not say that you were a bad
teacher.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Clearly, since modifying the analogy
such that it was slightly closer to your zip code caused the standard strident
</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">over reaction </font><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">on your part, your notion that Fox viewers should take no offence
when faced with similar rhetoric falls flat.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">And for the record, it would make no
difference if Darrell, Jeff and Roger were all to condemn me at the top
of</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">their lungs and in three part harmony. My
opinions are my own and not subject to modification via peer
pressure.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">g</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>--------------------------------------------------<br>From: "Joe Campbell"
<<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:19
PM<br>To: "Gary Crabtree" <<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>><br>Cc: "the lockshop"
<<a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a>>; "Moscow Vision 2020"
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of
Postings<br><br>> First, I didn't "assert" what you say I asserted -- not
anymore than<br>> you did. Like you, I quoted it from someone else. I no more
asserted<br>> what you said I did than you did.<br>> <br>> Second, you
HAVE more or less claimed that a "given department at WSU<br>> was providing
analysis and perspective" that was "much less<br>> intelligent, accurate, and
reasonable than which was provided" by<br>> others. My job comes up on the V
about once every two weeks. It seems<br>> to be a favorite topic among my
critics. You just mentioned something<br>> about it, Roger Falen has recently
mentioned something about it, and<br>> not too long about Darrell Keim
mentioned something about it. Both you<br>> and Jeff Harkins bring it up
often and in each case there is the<br>> insinuation that I do my job poorly,
that since I reason poorly and<br>> carelessly I must be a bad logic teacher,
etc.<br>> <br>> I have over 300 students a year at WSU and about 10
students each year<br>> from UI. If the argument below is cogent -- that by
saying the pundits<br>> at Fox were "much less intelligent than others"
someone is<br>> automatically saying the viewers are unintelligent; and if
your<br>> analogy is correct and this can be extended to the case of teaching
--<br>> that by saying someone is a bad teacher it implies that their
students<br>> are bad students -- then you, Roger, Darrell, and Harkins have
all<br>> said that WSU and UI students are unintelligent, stupid, and as
you<br>> say "inept."<br>> <br>> Is that your view now? That you,
Roger, Darrell, and Harkins asserted<br>> that WSU and UI students are
"inept"? Or would you rather admit that<br>> the argument below is a pretty
bad argument and that the conclusions<br>> you drew previously were
unwarranted?<br>> <br>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Gary Crabtree
<<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> I'm sure you are correct. When
you assert that the number one cable news<br>>> provider is "much less
intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than that of<br>>> even the most
strident MSNBC pundits," this would in no way cast a negative<br>>>
aspersion on any of its many viewers. If I were to claim that any
given<br>>> department at WSU was providing analysis and perspective that
was "much less<br>>> intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than which was
provided at Zippy's<br>>> Bait Stand and Waffle Shop," I would be
declaring no individual inept and<br>>> I'm sure that members of that
department, its students, and graduates would<br>>> understand that.
Right?<br>>><br>>> g<br>>><br>>><br>>>
--------------------------------------------------<br>>> From: "Joe
Campbell" <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>>> Sent: Wednesday,
December 22, 2010 11:51 AM<br>>> To: "the lockshop"
<<a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a>><br>>> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020"
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><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 <<a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a>><br>>>>
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<br>>>>> generally<br>>>>>
favorable opinion that I have of her. Also, I did not see the mud
which<br>>>>> I, a<br>>>>> man, drug her through, in
public. (oddly unprogressive language for<br>>>>>
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>>>>>
<<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"><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-November/072704.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-November/072704.html</a></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>>>>>><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<br>>>>>> surely<br>>>>>> take none of hers
personally either. Trying to turn spirited<br>>>>>>
disagreement<br>>>>>> into some form of animosity is one of the
"turn offs" that you<br>>>>>>
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>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> I don't recall
the NSA posting anything here on the vizzz, and
perhaps<br>>>>>>> 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,<br>>>>>>> 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<br>>>>>>> on<br>>>>>>> the vizzz I
probably seem to fall somewhere to the right of the<br>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>
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>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>
Joe,<br>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>> I
think you're reading way too much into it. I'm pretty sure
the<br>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>
middle<br>>>>>>>>>> of a discussion on freedom of
expression? After all, the title of<br>>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>
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>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>>
Verbatim - here is the posting I made for the first
installment.<br>>>>>>>>>>><br>>>>>>>>>>>
My curiosity about the recent plethora of media spots,
billboards<br>>>>>>>>>>>
and<br>>>>>>>>>>> ads
by<br>>>>>>>>>>> the Foundation for a Better Life
led me to their website at<br>>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="http://www.values.com"><a href="http://www.values.com">www.values.com</a></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<br>>>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>>
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,<br>>>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>>
of<br>>>>>>>>>>>
others<br>>>>>>>>>>> to serve as inspiration for
someone to do one thing a little<br>>>>>>>>>>>
better,<br>>>>>>>>>>>
and<br>>>>>>>>>>> then pass on that inspiration. A
few individuals living<br>>>>>>>>>>>
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<br>>>>>>>>>>>
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"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></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"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>>>>>>>>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></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"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>>>>>>>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></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"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>>>>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>>>>>>
=======================================================<br>>>>>><br>>>>>>
________________________________<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: 9.0.872 / Virus Database:
271.1.1/3330 - Release Date: 12/21/10<br>>>>>>
11:34:00<br>>>>>><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"><a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></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>>>> 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 href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>>>>
=======================================================</div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>