<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>For the missing character, just look in the
mirror.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=lockshop@pull.twcbc.com href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the
lockshop</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lockshop@pull.twcbc.com
href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the lockshop</A> ; <A
title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision
2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:21
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>That, of course, should read "but,
my..."</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=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:15
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>What I take from this is that while Wayne Fox
may not necessarily be wrong on any given topic just because he has been
wrong more often then not in the past, what can be taken as a given is that
he will reliabley be a condescending prick as past performance has
shown nothing but.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I would put this in the form of an equation by
by business computers character set does not include a
diminutive anthropomorphised penis with a fanny pack and a sour
expression.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 19, 2011
2:22 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>OK, one more attempt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>From <EM>Logic</EM> by Wesley Salmon, one
of the 20th century best known and most formidable inductive logicians
discussing fallacies and some apparent fallacies which may not
be:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>[<A
href="http://www.ditext.com/salmon/logic.html">http://www.ditext.com/salmon/logic.html</A></FONT><FONT
size=2 face=Verdana>]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P><B>25. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON </B></P>
<P>The <I>argument against the person</I><SUP>4</SUP> is a type of
argument that concludes that a statement is false because it was made by a
certain person. It is closely related to the argument from authority, but
it is negative rather than positive. In the argument from authority, the
fact that a certain person asserts p is taken as evidence that p is true.
In the <I>argument against the person</I>, the fact that a certain person
asserts p is taken as evidence that p is false. </P>
<P>In analyzing the argument from authority, we saw that it could be put
into an inductively correct form, a special case of the statistical
syllogism. To do so, it was necessary to include a premise of the form "x
is a reliable authority concerning p." We discussed the characteristics of
reliable authorities. The argument against the person can be handled
similarly. To accomplish this end we need an analogous premise involving
the concept of a <I>reliable anti-authority</I>. A reliable anti-authority
about a given subject is a person who almost always makes false statements
about that subject. We have the following inductively correct argument
form: </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>a]</TD>
<TD>x is a reliable anti-authority concerning p. <BR>x asserts p.
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>∴</TD>
<TD>Not-p (i.e., p is false). </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>Like the argument from authority, this is also a special case of the
statistical syllogism. It could be rewritten: </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>b]</TD>
<TD>The vast majority of statements made by x concerning subject S
are false. <BR>p is a statement made by x concerning subject S.
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>∴</TD>
<TD>p is false. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>It must be emphasized that a reliable anti-authority is not merely
someone who fails to be a reliable authority. A person who is not a
reliable authority cannot be counted upon to be right most of the time.
This is far different from being consistently wrong. An unreliable
authority is a person who cannot be counted upon at all. The fact that
such a person makes a statement is evidence for neither its truth nor its
falsity. </P>
<P>Schema a is, as we have said, inductively correct, but whether it has
any utility depends upon whether there are any reliable anti-authorities.
It will be useless if we can never satisfy the first premise. Although
there are not many cases in which we can say with assurance that a person
is a reliable anti-authority, there does seem to be at least one kind of
reliable anti-authority, namely, scientific cranks.<SUP>5</SUP> They can
be identified by several characteristics. </P>
<OL>
<LI>They usually reject, in wholesale fashion, all of established
science or some branch of it.
<LI>They are usually ignorant of the science they reject.
<LI>The accepted channels of scientific communication are usually closed
to them. Their theories are seldom published in scientific journals or
presented to scientific societies.
<LI>They regard opposition of scientists to their views as a result of
the prejudice and bigotry of scientific orthodoxy.
<LI>Their opposition to established science is usually based upon a real
or imagined conflict between science and some extrascientific doctrine
-- religious, political, or moral. </LI></OL>
<P>A "scientific" theory propounded by a person who has the foregoing
characteristics is very probably false. </P>
<P>Great scientific innovators propose theories that are highly unorthodox
and they meet with strenuous opposition from the majority of scientists at
the time. Nevertheless, they are not cranks, according to our criteria.
For instance, highly original scientific theorists are, contrary to
characteristic 2, thoroughly familiar with the theories they hope to
supersede. Furthermore, we must note, deductive validity has not been
claimed for schema a. The fact that a statement is made by a reliable
anti-authority does not prove conclusively that it is false. We cannot
claim with certainty that no scientific crank will ever produce a valuable
scientific result. </P>
<P>Although the argument against the person does have the inductively
correct form a, it is frequently misused. These misuses are usually
substitutions of emotional appeal for logical evidence. Instead of showing
that someone who makes a statement is a reliable anti-authority, the
misuser vilifies the person by attacking that person's personality,
character, or background. The first premise of a is replaced by an attempt
to arouse negative feelings. For example, </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>c]</TD>
<TD>In the 1930s the Communist party in Russia rejected the genetic
theories of Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, as "bourgeois
idealism." A party orator who said "The Mendelian theory must be
regarded as the product of a monkish bourgeois mind" would be guilty
of a fallacious use of the argument against the person.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>Clearly, the national, social, and religious background of the
originator of a theory is irrelevant to its truth or falsity. Being an
Austrian monk does not make Mendel a reliable anti-authority in genetics.
The condemnation of the Mendelian theory on these grounds is an obvious
case of arousing negative emotions rather than providing negative
evidence. It is also an instance of the <I>genetic fallacy</I> (section
3). A subtler form of the same fallacy may be illustrated as follows: </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>d]</TD>
<TD>Someone might claim that there is strong psychoanalytic evidence
in Plato's philosophical writings that he suffered from an
unresolved oedipal conflict and that his theories can be explained
in terms of this neurotic element in his personality. It is then
suggested that Plato's philosophical theories need not be taken
seriously because they are thus explained. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>Even if we assume that Plato had an Oedipus complex, the question still
remains whether his philosophical doctrines are true. They are not
<I>explained away</I> on these psychological grounds. Having an Oedipus
complex does not make anyone a reliable anti-authority. </P>
<P>Just as the argument from consensus is a special form of the argument
from authority, similarly there is a <I>negative argument from
consensus</I> which is a special form of the argument against the person.
According to this form of argument, a conclusion is to be <I>rejected</I>
if it is accepted by a group that has negative prestige. For example, </P>
<P>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>e]</TD>
<TD>Chinese Communists believe that married women should have the
right to use their own family names. </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>∴</TD>
<TD>Married women should be compelled to adopt the family names of
their husbands. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P>
<P>This argument is clearly an attempt to arouse negative attitudes toward
some aspects of women's liberation. </P>
<P>There is one fundamental principle that applies both to the argument
from authority and to the argument against the person. If there is
objectively, a strong probability relation between the truth or falsity of
a statement and the kind of person who made it, then that relation can be
used in a correct inductive argument. It becomes the first premise in a
statistical syllogism. Any argument from the characteristics of the person
who made a statement to the truth or falsity of the statement, in the
absence of such a probability relation, is invariably incorrect. These
fallacious arguments are often instances of the <I>genetic fallacy</I>
(section 3). Example c of section 3, as well as example c of this section,
illustrates this point. </P>
<HR>
<P>4 The argument against the person is closely related to, but not
identical with the traditional arsumentum ad hominem. This departure from
tradition is motivated by the symmetry between the argument from authority
and the argument against the person, and by the fact that the argument
against the person is reducible to statistical syllogism. </P></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=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 19, 2011
11:00 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>I give up.</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=lfalen@turbonet.com
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision
2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 19, 2011
10:09 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Quit trying to be coy. Come right out and say what the
hell you mean.<BR>Roger<BR>-----Original message-----<BR>From: "Art
Deco" <A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>Date:
Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:40:49 -0800<BR>To: "Vision 2020" <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)<BR><BR>> Further
evidence.<BR>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>> From: lfalen <BR>> To: Art Deco ;
Vision 2020 <BR>> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:00
AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> No, I do not get your
drift.<BR>> Roger<BR>> -----Original
message-----<BR>> From: "Art Deco" <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:37:30 -0800<BR>> To: "Vision
2020" <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)<BR>> <BR>>
> Roger's post below is not a kudos of Rumelhart's posts; rather a
condemnation (if you get the drift).<BR>> >
<BR>> > w.<BR>> >
----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >
From: lfalen <BR>> > To: Paul Rumelhart
; Andreas Schou <BR>> > Cc: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>
<BR>> > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011
12:11 PM<BR>> > Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] (no subject)<BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > I
think that you are one of the most reasonable people who post here and
I agree with about 90% of your posts.<BR>>
> Roger<BR>> >
-----Original message-----<BR>> > From:
Paul Rumelhart <A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>>
> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:50:07
-0800<BR>> > To: Andreas Schou <A
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</A><BR>>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no
subject)<BR>> > <BR>>
> > <BR>> > > I
tend to annoy everybody, I think. It's a special trait of
mine.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > I haven't met very many people on the list in
real life. I know Sue <BR>> > >
Hovey, I've met Nick Gier, and I've talked to Keely on the
phone.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > I miss some of the old-timers that haven't been
around in a while. Is <BR>> > >
Chasuk still around somewhere? There have been periods of time
where I <BR>> > > haven't followed
the list as much as I'd like, so maybe I just haven't
<BR>> > > seen his
posts.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > Although Ted and I are constantly beating our
heads against each other, <BR>> > > I
respect his character and can confidently say that he's a principled
<BR>> > > person who cares deeply
about the environment. Nothing wrong with <BR>>
> > that. As I tend to get a bit snarky in my
responses far too regularly, <BR>> >
> I apologize to him now for the many sarcastic and unfriendly
remarks <BR>> > > I've made over the
years.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > I've talked with Gary both on and off the list
(a few times, anyway) and <BR>> > >
find him to be a good guy. He calls them like he sees them, and
I <BR>> > > respect that. My
path over the last few years is one of realizing that
<BR>> > > even people you differ with
have important things to say and that <BR>>
> > everything is not so black and white as people
try to make it appear. <BR>> >
> My opinion of Gary has changed for the better since I've
interacted with <BR>> > > him, and
that can only be a good sign.<BR>> >
> <BR>> > > Apart from the last
few weeks, I haven't interacted with Joe that much,
<BR>> > > but I appreciate the civil
discourse we've had, even though we both <BR>>
> > probably shriek at the walls various
unflattering remarks about each <BR>> >
> other after a long back-and-forth. He's an intelligent guy,
and he also <BR>> > > calls 'em like
he sees 'em, too. That's a good thing.<BR>>
> > <BR>> > > I've
had some good conversations with Donovan, and find him to be a nice
<BR>> > > guy.<BR>>
> > <BR>> > >
Andreas is one of the more reasonable posters on the list, I enjoy his
<BR>> > > posts when I see
them. He seems level-headed and intelligent and wise,
<BR>> > > really.<BR>>
> > <BR>> > > I
enjoy Tom's humorous posts, and appreciate the work he does for the
<BR>> > > community. I'm not as
big a fan of cats as he is, though. Don't hate
<BR>> > > them, mind you, but I'm not
as enamored of them.<BR>> > >
<BR>> > > I enjoy Keely's posts, even
though we often disagree about some things. <BR>>
> > I also enjoy Nicks posts, they are very
thought-provoking. There are <BR>>
> > lots of others I'm missing, I'm sure.
Reggie, Roger, Wayne, Jeff, Dan, <BR>> >
> Dave, Deb, and others. All of them nice people who think
I'm a fruitcake ;)<BR>> > >
<BR>> > > It certainly doesn't hurt
to take a break from the mud-slinging and to <BR>>
> > realize that real people actually exist behind
their on-line personas. <BR>> >
> This list is an enigma. It's full of generally nice people
who like to <BR>> > > yell at each
other all the time. It must be the dehumanizing properties
<BR>> > > of the email medium, I
guess.<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > Ah well, back to the mudslinging, I
say!<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > Paul<BR>> > >
<BR>> > > Andreas Schou
wrote:<BR>> > > > Gary's one of a
very small number of conservative commentators
that<BR>> > > > I've managed to
read consistently since I first became politically<BR>>
> > > aware. In part, this may be due to the fact
that he is one of a very<BR>> > >
> small number of conservative commentators whom I may annoy
precisely<BR>> > > > as much as he
annoys me. But, even where I think he's wrong, he's
at<BR>> > > > least
responsive.<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > > He's also a damn
good locksmith and, as far as I've heard and<BR>>
> > > experienced, a decent human. I only
disagree with him about matters of<BR>>
> > > life, death, and whether and how the
government should acquire and<BR>> >
> > spend trillions of dollars. Other than that, we're cool. And
he's not<BR>> > > > the only
conservative here that's made a positive contribution to
the<BR>> > > >
community.<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > > Many of you know
my wife had a brain tumor a couple of years ago
and<BR>> > > > nearly died. I was
in Seattle for most of the relevant period, but I<BR>>
> > > received an unsolicited offer from Doug
Farris to bring over<BR>> > > >
casseroles and whatnot. I couldn't take him up on it (because
I<BR>> > > > suspect his offer
didn't extend to driving the casseroles to
Seattle),<BR>> > > > but I
appreciated it more than he knows. And I was genuinely sorry
to<BR>> > > > hear that Pat Kraut
died; in all of my professional dealings with her,<BR>>
> > > through the Nazarene church, she genuinely
enacted the charitable<BR>> > > >
values we so vehemently disagreed about the government
enacting.<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > > I don't know the
rest of the conservatives here as well. Glenn isn't
a<BR>> > > > real person (though I
once had a perfectly civil lunch with the person<BR>>
> > > I believe he is). Donovan Arnold probably
wouldn't kick a puppy unless<BR>> > >
> the puppy really had it coming. Jeff Harkins is sometimes
genuinely<BR>> > > > helpful, and
bright and dedicated, if sometimes glib.<BR>>
> > ><BR>> > >
> I realize that it'll soon be time to get back to shouting at
each<BR>> > > > other. As we
should. Isn't that why we're all here? (Maybe not
Paul.<BR>> > > > He doesn't seem
like a crank. I mean that as a compliment.) But in
the<BR>> > > > spirit Dear Leader
proposes, I think taking a moment to appreciate
the<BR>> > > > people we will soon
be throwing rotten fruit at seems appropriate.<BR>>
> > ><BR>> > >
> -- ACS<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>> > >
=======================================================<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>> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<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>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<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>=======================================================
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3390 - Release
Date: 01/18/11 23:34:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<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>=======================================================
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3390 - Release
Date: 01/18/11 23:34:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>