<!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>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"
<philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:19
PM<BR>To: "Gary Crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com><BR>Cc: "the lockshop"
<lockshop@pull.twcbc.com>; "Moscow Vision 2020"
<vision2020@moscow.com><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
<jampot@roadrunner.com> 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" <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><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>>>>>
<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<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" <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<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
<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<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
<philosopher.joe@gmail.com><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
<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<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
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<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>>>>>>>>>>> www.values.com. 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>>>>>>>>>>>
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>>>>><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>