Hopeless to engage "them" on a civil plain!?! What the heck are you talking about, Roger?<br><br>Maybe you missed the recent post when your boy Crabtree called Fox "<font face="Arial" size="2">a condescending prick."<br>
<br>Make up your mind, please. When liberals/progressives comment about the violent rhetoric and name calling of folks like Rush, Beck, Palin, and NSA you and Crabtree make it seem as if that kind of crap is just what is to be expected in political discourse. But then when</font><font face="Arial" size="2"> liberals/progressives dish it out, you cry "foul."<br>
<br>As you know, I'm willing to go either way. I just want to know the ground rules. If we decide to be civil, that's fine but it's a two-way street. We can't call out the Foxs yet praise the Crabtrees.<br>
</font><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:27 PM, lfalen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Keep up the good work. I am out of here until next week. You do a better job of dealing with these guys than I do. If you have ideas that are different than theirs, then you are not responding with any meaningful dialogue. I quess that it is hopeless to try and engage then them on a civil plain. Wayne is real good at putting someone down that takes a different approach that he wants you to. You just arn't arguing within the proper framework.<br>
Roger<br>
-----Original message-----<br>
From: "the lockshop" <a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a><br>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:24:53 -0800<br>
To: "Reggie Holmquist" <a href="mailto:reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu">reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health<br>
<br>
> Dude? Seriously? Maintaining my credibility with the surfer/skate boyz segment of the forum isn't as high up on my priority list as it used to be.<br>
><br>
> g<br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Reggie Holmquist<br>
> To: the lockshop<br>
> Cc: Art Deco ; Vision 2020<br>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:55 AM<br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health<br>
><br>
><br>
> "I, on the other hand think it would be good if you gave it a rest."<br>
><br>
> Or what? You'll call him "creepy" again? Or perhaps tell him to "go pound sand"? You've lost credibility, dude.<br>
><br>
> -Reggie<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM, the lockshop <<a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> "dysfunctional disclarity"<br>
><br>
> Dave Barry thinks that this would be a good name for a neo-punk band.<br>
><br>
> I, on the other hand think it would be good if you gave it a rest.<br>
><br>
> g<br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Art Deco<br>
> To: Vision 2020<br>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:17 AM<br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health<br>
><br>
><br>
> The thesis is that you are not interested in constructive dialog.<br>
><br>
> Your response gives more than ample evidence of that. And also more than ample evidence of dysfunctional disclarity.<br>
><br>
> w.<br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Gary Crabtree<br>
> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:57 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health<br>
><br>
><br>
> "Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on the list that you consider to be "right" and "left" so that people will not have to attempt to reach the foggy recesses of your mind in order to decide who's who in your opinion. Otherwise, most will think you are pulling a Roger Falen by refusing to respond to an issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating yourself using different words and syntax."<br>
><br>
> While I find you mildly unpleasant and not a little creepy, I don't currently believe you are stupid. Do you really still imagine that insisting that I respond to to your demands in precisely the manner that will please you is a productive use of your time? Do you actually believe that I am concerned with what you and your mythical "most" are thinking? If so, a drastic revision of my opinion is in order.<br>
><br>
> "I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or enumerate "right" and "left" because even in that dark back room of The Lock Shop you know that there is vast disagreement among those you claim to be on the left on this list on some very fundamental issues such as abortion, the death penalty, health care, first amendment rights, gun ownership rights, religious freedom and truth, the bailouts and other economic issues, educational reform, drug policy, the desirability of unions, possible solutions to the immigration problems, etc. "<br>
><br>
> Oh no! Us cartoon characters in our dark back rooms prefer to believe in monolithic stereotypes that never vary from the role to which they are assigned. To wit:<br>
><br>
> The "right" = six gun toting, God fearing, courageous, generous types who love America, Mom, and apple pie and feel truly sorry for drug ingesting hippies who refuse to eat red meat and have questionable hygiene. These stalwarts gravitate to professions such as astronaut, super hero/costumed crime fighter, bronco busting, bull riding cowboy of a decidedly non-brokeback persuasion, and double ought spy.<br>
><br>
> The "left" = squirrelly, tofu munching, dope smoking, atheist gas bags who march and wave placards in homogenous herds and have never met a criminal, tree, or illegal alien that they have not immediately wanted to coddle, hug, or provide welfare benefits to. If they can be bothered to arise from their cannabis and/or narcotic induced stupor to perform any semi-useful labor at all they will normally be lawyers, collage professors (liberal arts), bureaucrats, interpretive dancers, and mimes<br>
><br>
> Does that satisfy your curious lust for definition?<br>
><br>
> Something, something, something...<br>
><br>
> Some hastily tossed off flippant response. Is it becoming obvious that boredom is<br>
> beginning to set in? Gosh, I hope not.<br>
><br>
> Blah, blah, reading suggestions I'll immediately ignore, blah...<br>
><br>
> zzzzz...<br>
><br>
> "It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in a way that would promote understanding/clarification and possible resolutions, or man up and admit that you are just another propagandist whose goal is not truth, but attempts at persuasion exalting your personal ideals."<br>
><br>
> Or what? you'll hold your breath, kick your little feets and pound your teeny widdle fists? Listen, I get it. I really do. You want me to take this forum more seriously. You want me to take you seriously. You want me to read the books you recommend. You want me to discuss what you want to discuss and you want me to discuss it in a manner that is pleasing to you. I'm reading you five by five. It pains me to have to tell you that there no chance your dreams are going to come true in this regard. For the last time, here's the deal. You may feel free to complain to your little hearts content but, I write what I write for reasons that are my own. Demanding that I do something differently or insisting that I respond to you in some specific way is a waste of your precious remaining time on earth. Now go pound sand.<br>
><br>
> g<br>
><br>
><br>
> From: Art Deco<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:30 AM<br>
> To: Vision 2020<br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health<br>
><br>
><br>
> Crabtree writes:<br>
><br>
> 'I don't really believe that there is any real lack of clarity on this list as to where the "left" leaves off and the "right" kicks in."'<br>
><br>
> Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on the list that you consider to be "right" and "left" so that people will not have to attempt to reach the foggy recesses of your mind in order to decide who's who in your opinion. Otherwise, most will think you are pulling a Roger Falen by refusing to respond to an issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating yourself using different words and syntax.<br>
><br>
> I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or enumerate "right" and "left" because even in that dark back room of The Lock Shop you know that there is vast disagreement among those you claim to be on the left on this list on some very fundamental issues such as abortion, the death penalty, health care, first amendment rights, gun ownership rights, religious freedom and truth, the bailouts and other economic issues, educational reform, drug policy, the desirability of unions, possible solutions to the immigration problems, etc.<br>
><br>
> And hence, any meaningful characterization of "left" and right" would exclude or make very fuzzy their inclusion in the list many you apparently think of as leftists. That this is so is exhibited by many prior discussions on this list. So, to deny such is either dishonest and/or cowardly. [Google: "Over-simplification", "Over-generalization", and Dishonesty".]<br>
><br>
> 'Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely clear. It's pretty much anything the left doesn't want to hear from the right. Hate speech is defined by its source not its content.'<br>
><br>
> So if someone on the right says "the economy will do better under conservative leadership," and someone you allege is on the left disagrees, that's hate speech? What rot. Again you offer no reasonable criteria to determine what hate speech is except that it is anything one particular [the "left"] group doesn't like about what another [the "right"] says. That makes almost any political discussion of opposing views hate speech.<br>
><br>
> See: The Fallacy of Persuasive Definition: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition</a><br>
><br>
> It is not surprising that you again refuse to participate in a meaningful discussion of the issues. That is your style and fits your limited worldview from the window of the backroom of your business. Your definition of "hate speech" is so prejudicial, and it's lack of clarity greatly amplified given the lack of precision of the meaning of "right" and "left" that it tells readers a lot about you, but not much about the reality outside of you.<br>
><br>
> "The never-ending insistence that everything evil emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the libs are long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of competing lists will do nothing to change that fact."<br>
><br>
> Another gross distortion/lie/exaggeration. Who one the list said anything like that? Some have said that violent rhetoric and hate speech is more common from pundits on the right, but I do not see that anyone claimed that such practices where exclusive to the right. So starting with a grossly false O'Reillyism, you then negate the possibility of anyone giving any kind of evidence that would might clarify or give weight to one side or the other on the issue. What a dunce-like position!<br>
><br>
> Although you falsely accused Reggie of being foolish because you disagreed with his characterization of three people on his prior long list, and although your alleged counterexamples are open to reasonable questions such as Andreas Schou has raised, it is you that appears to be foolish, if not dishonest and cowardly when you:<br>
><br>
> [1] Refuse to define in any meaningful way what you are talking about,<br>
><br>
> [2] Use really cockeyed, prejudicial persuasive definitions when you do deign to define terms, and<br>
><br>
> [3] Tell bald-faced lies about other's positions.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps your self-education might benefit from a concentrated study of Wesley Salmon's concise, but incisive book Logic. Or a careful reading of Proofiness by Charles Seife might help you deal with some of your problems of over-generalization and over-simplification.<br>
><br>
> It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in a way that would promote understanding/clarification and possible resolutions, or man up and admit that you are just another propagandist whose goal is not truth, but attempts at persuasion exalting your personal ideals.<br>
><br>
> w.<br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Gary Crabtree<br>
> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 7:48 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health<br>
><br>
><br>
> Interesting. You sound like the kid on the playground who always wanted to tell everyone else what the game should be, define the minutia the games rules, and then become pouty when his expectations weren't met with regard to being deferred to in all matters. Life can be a disappointment for kids like that.<br>
><br>
> I don't really believe that there is any real lack of clarity on this list as to where the "left" leaves off and the "right" kicks in. (I don't consider myself a proper member of the "right" but to make this easier for you we'll pretend it's the case) The difficulty arises, at the very least in the most current discussion, when those on the left want to pretend to be Sunday's child where it comes to acts of violence and political discussion that is less then demure. The never-ending insistence that everything evil emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the libs are long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of competing lists will do nothing to change that fact.<br>
><br>
> Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely clear. It's pretty much anything the left doesn't want to hear from the right. Hate speech is defined by its source not its content. When the same sentiments are expressed from a liberal perspective it becomes passionate political discourse and a sacred first amendment principal. >From the right, pure incitement to violence (even when none was voiced) to be quashed by any and every means possible. Violent speech is funny in that when a person hailing from the "right" talks of targeting a district, defeating an opponent, or quotes the founding fathers the remarks are an unequivocal, bold neon colored calls for assassination. When the "left" explicitly hope for the death of Sarah Palin and/or her children, pray for Dick Cheney's heart to give out, and make big budget Hollywood movies glorifying the murder of GWB, the speech is apparently translucent in the lack of notice it receives.<br>
><br>
> I hope that this gives you "a clear and distinct idea" on where this cartoon character stands on the matter at hand. Now, if you'd be so kind, could you go into a little more detail with regard to my education? There is very little that I find more fascinating then to hear the playground mope expound at length on the topic of what he imagines my background to be.<br>
><br>
> g<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: Art Deco<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:35 PM<br>
> To: Vision 2020<br>
> Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health<br>
><br>
><br>
> A lesson to Reggie, et al:<br>
><br>
> This dispute is on Vision 2020 is driven by at least two things:<br>
><br>
> 1. The lack of anywhere near agreement on the definitions of "right" v. "left" and "hate speech".<br>
><br>
> 2. The apparent inability and unwillingness of Falen/Crabtree to support their positions with meaningful arguments. With Roger, it is the apparent inability to understand what an argument is; with Crabtree, it is the long demonstrated unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue on any subject where his basic beliefs may be threatened by facts and/or alternative values.<br>
><br>
> Reggie: When you put the list at issue together, you offered evidence. One would expect those holding an opposing views would offer a different list of at least the same magnitude. Both Crabtree and Falen are unwilling to do so. Forget meaningful dialogue.<br>
><br>
> At some point, maybe one side or the other would offer more clarifying definitions so that the dispute could be better conducted by referring meaningful evidence. Don't look to Falen or Crabtree for that either. It is too threatening.<br>
><br>
> I repeat the following without much hope that either Falen or Crabtree will alter their self-satisfying, but futile, churlish behavior:<br>
><br>
> 'It may be wise to remember in a discussion of values [or any other subject] the following paraphrase of a quotation from English Philosopher John Locke:<br>
><br>
> "When comparing two ideas, it is necessary to have a clear and distinct idea of each."'<br>
><br>
> Or its modern statement:<br>
><br>
> "When comparing two statements or theories, the clearer, less vague and ambiguous statement(s) of and definitions used in each, the better the chance of meaningfully determining the truth, or in the case of values, the correct application, or least discovering the roots of agreement or disagreement."<br>
><br>
> Over many months of reading Crabtree in action on V2020 I have thought that he might be the object of a possible Far Side cartoon whose caption would be "When self-education goes horribly wrong."<br>
><br>
><br>
> Wayne A. Fox<br>
> 1009 Karen Lane<br>
> PO Box 9421<br>
> Moscow, ID 83843<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</a><br>
> <a href="tel:+12088827975">208 882-7975</a><br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: lfalen<br>
> To: Reggie Holmquist<br>
> Cc: vision 2020<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:52 AM<br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health<br>
><br>
><br>
> I hope that you had fun putting together this list, some of which it would really be a stretch to call hate speech or necessarily from the the right. It would almost seem that anything you disagree with is hate speech or right wing. I don't much care if it is exactly equal from both sides. suffice it to say that there is plenty on both. I am not going to go tit for tat with you.<br>
> Roger<br>
><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" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> =======================================================<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" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><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" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
><br>
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3419 - Release Date: 02/02/11 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" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> =======================================================<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.<br>
><br>
> Douglas Adams<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" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3420 - Release Date: 02/02/11 23:34:00<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" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote></div><br>