<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Is there an echo in here?</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=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> ; <A
title=godshatter@yahoo.com href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul
Rumelhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=rhayes@frontier.com href="mailto:rhayes@frontier.com">roger hayes</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 31, 2011 12:36
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] apologists for
violence</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>You say that Michael O' nastiness is wrong and it should't
happen. Just how is he any nastier than Chapman, Brock or White? I suspect the
difference is that you agree with them bu not O'Neal. You along with a lot of
people on both the left and the right excuse obnoxious comments made by
those you agree with but get all bent out of shape when is directed at those
you like. Again it is a matter of perspective. <BR>Roger<BR><BR>-----Original
message-----<BR>From: Joe Campbell <A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A><BR>Date:
Sun, 30 Jan 2011 08:19:29 -0800<BR>To: Paul Rumelhart <A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] apologists for violence<BR><BR>> I don't see that you're
responding to the points that Roger made as much as<BR>> talking past
them.<BR>> <BR>> One issue is, Should certain speak -- say violent
rhetoric -- be restricted<BR>> by law?<BR>> <BR>> Another very
separate issue is, Should people use violent rhetoric?<BR>> <BR>>
Another very separate issue is, Should violent rhetoric be criticized?<BR>>
<BR>> My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes." I think all points are worthy
of<BR>> debate.<BR>> <BR>> Certainly you think it is OK to criticize
folks who criticize violent<BR>> rhetoric, so you should be fine with
criticizing violent rhetoric. I don't<BR>> see how Roger's points are, in
that respect, any different from yours. He's<BR>> not advocating passing
laws restricting speech. He's advocating having a<BR>> conversation about
it, which is JUST MORE SPEECH.<BR>> <BR>> Also, you should be able to
step away from your love of free speech for one<BR>> minute and say that
Michael O'Neal's nastiness is wrong, that it shouldn't<BR>> happen. You
should be able to separate the issue of freedom of speech and<BR>> the
restriction of speech from criticism of speech.<BR>> <BR>> Folks SHOULD
be critical of O'Neal's writing. He's insulting and insulting<BR>> is just
wrong. That we all do it is no excuse. We should all be openly<BR>>
critical of O'Neal and try to encourage him not to spew insults and<BR>>
distortions about his political opponents. Having a conversation about
that<BR>> is a good thing, the kind of thing that should happen in a civil
society. It<BR>> is not governmental intervention; it is merely another
form of free speech,<BR>> people using their words to try to solve problems
rather than resorting to<BR>> the kind of actual violence that nasty speech
like O'Neal's bi-weekly rants<BR>> encourage.<BR>> <BR>> On Sat, Jan
29, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com>wrote">godshatter@yahoo.com>wrote</A>:<BR>>
<BR>> ><BR>> > I didn't read Michael O'Neal's editorial, but I do
want to comment on<BR>> > this topic.<BR>> ><BR>> > I am a
strong advocate of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.<BR>> >
When I end up defending particular examples of speech that are being<BR>>
> argued against, I'm almost always defending speech that I
disagree<BR>> > with. The reason for that is that speech I agree
with is hardly ever in<BR>> > danger of being suppressed in today's
society. The main reason that I<BR>> > defend speech I disagree
with has to do with not wanting to give our<BR>> > government the club
that they can use to beat us into submission.<BR>> ><BR>> > I
would love it if there was less violent talk surrounding politics, and<BR>>
> that there were fewer racial slurs and put-downs and just generally
rude<BR>> > behavior on-line, on talk radio, and on the street.
However, it's a<BR>> > better situation than giving our leaders the
ability to determine what<BR>> > is acceptable and what is not in this
area. I don't trust those<BR>> > currently in power not to abuse
this, and even if I did I wouldn't trust<BR>> > their unknown
replacements not to abuse this after those in power were<BR>> > voted
out or ran up against their term limits.<BR>> ><BR>> > If you are
repulsed by political candidates flinging violent rhetoric,<BR>> >
imagine how much you would hate it once they have the power to tell
you<BR>> > what you can and cannot say.<BR>> ><BR>> > I
would like others to tone down their rhetoric and I would love for<BR>>
> them to use reasonable logic and debate rather than trying to
incite<BR>> > people emotionally, but I'm not willing to unleash a demon
in order to<BR>> > get them to stop.<BR>> ><BR>> > In my
opinion, if we want to stay a free country (assuming we still are<BR>> >
one) then we need to push back against governmental control on speech
in<BR>> > every way possible and make sure that the exceptions are
extremely clear<BR>> > and well thought out.<BR>> ><BR>> >
Paul<BR>> ><BR>> > roger hayes wrote:<BR>> > > Regarding
Michael O'Neals recent editorial.<BR>> > > I am repulsed by so many
people defending the right to scream "Fire!"<BR>> > > in crowded
theaters. We need to understand what we do when we incite<BR>> > >
people to riot or violence. I don't give a hoot from which quarter<BR>>
> > the rhetoric is flung, telling people "Don't retreat, Reload" and
the<BR>> > > thousands of other vindictives being hurled at the
public is nothing<BR>> > > but sedition at worst, and trash talk at
best. It is designed to<BR>> > > prick at the raw nerves of fear and
hate in which modern life seems<BR>> > > to be so rich these days.
How does the rest of the world view us? Do<BR>> > > they hear the
angry and often violent talk of media baboons<BR>> > > advocating
death sentences on people with whom they disagree. Do<BR>> > >
they get wind of ridiculous racial slurs against world leaders and<BR>>
> > languages other than English? Do they fear to visit the United
States<BR>> > > out of worry for their personal safety because of our
growing<BR>> > > reputation for violence and anger?<BR>> > >
A civil and healthy debate about our responsibility as citizens, and<BR>>
> > particularly as media or governmental figures to rein in our
language<BR>> > > is a good thing. Shish, we need to take back our
dignity!<BR>> > > Sincerely,<BR>> > > Roger Hayes<BR>>
> > Moscow<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>> >
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>=======================================================<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>