<!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>Roger,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Is this the way they do things down to the
Genesee Grange and Teabaggers Klatch (and the Genesee Elementary School
playground): make insupportable statements and accusations, and then
refuse to support them by saying "I doan hafto" in a an indignant, but hardly
justifiable huff? How do you think this helps to discuss
issues?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>If you are truly interested in resolving issues
here or elsewhere and not just being a gadfly or cheerleader, please tell how to
resolve or to progress toward a resolution of issues other than: [Note:
these are not my rules but the most commonly used steps in issue
resolution.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. Defining terms sufficiently, when
necessary, so that each side clearly knows and agrees on what the issues,
alleged facts/probabilities, and arguments mean and are.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. Using valid argument forms, pointing out,
when necessary, where the opposite side is not using valid arguments and
why.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>3. Not telling lies or making absurdly gross
exaggerations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>4. Where needed, or when requested, giving
sources for alleged "factual" information.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>5. Understanding the probabilistic nature of
knowledge, and the problems inherent in supporting value
statements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Please tell us which of the above you object to and
why. Then tell us what you would do differently and why. Please
tells us explicitly in clear language, and why, yours is a better
system/approach to progressing toward the truth/resolution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></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, February 09, 2011 10:34
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that
Jared guy and mental health</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>You can dictate all the terms that you want. That does not mean
that I have to play by your rules or jump through all kinds of hoops just to
satisfy you.<BR>Roger<BR>-----Original message-----<BR>From: "Art Deco" <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011
14:32:16 -0800<BR>To: "Vision 2020" <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health<BR><BR>>
Roger:<BR>> <BR>> 1. Show me where I posted erroneous
or false information. If you can't, then ...<BR>> <BR>>
2. Where did Jeff refute any erroroneous data that I
posted?<BR>> <BR>> Reread 3 below again. How does it apply
here?<BR>> <BR>> I notice also that you did not answer the questions
posed.<BR>> <BR>> w.<BR>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>> From: lfalen <BR>> To: Art Deco ; Vision
2020 <BR>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:52
AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and
mental health<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I do not have that much of
a problem with most f your list. I think that you violate number 3 as much as
anyone. On number 4 , it would be good to substantiate what one says. There
are some problems here. You throw out a bunch of statistics. Every one should
know that statistics can be and are frequently skewed. This is done by leaving
out relevant information and only taking into consideration a portion of
the facts. This allows one to come up with an erroneous conclusion. My
computer is old and slow. It I were to try and find substantiating data every
time you ask for it would take me forever. I do not have that kind of time. I
have a few other things to do that look up data just to satisfy you. You would
just come up with more biased data to support your position. Frankly a am a
little fed up with your egotistical, holier than thou attitude. Jeff does a
good job of refuting the erroneous data put out by you and Nick. He is better
able to do so than I am and for the m!<BR> ost
!<BR>> part I<BR>> will leave it up to
him.<BR>> Roger<BR>> -----Original
message-----<BR>> From: "Art Deco" <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>> Date:
Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:05:34 -0800<BR>> To: "Vision 2020" <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health<BR>>
<BR>> > So, Roger, tell us of another approach to resolving
disputes other than:<BR>> > <BR>> >
1. Defining terms sufficiently, when necessary, so that each
side clearly knows and agrees on what the issues, alleged facts/probabilities,
and arguments mean and are.<BR>> > <BR>> >
2. Using valid argument forms, pointing out, when necessary,
where the opposite side is not using valid arguments and
why.<BR>> > <BR>> > 3.
Not telling lies or making absurdly gross exaggerations.<BR>>
> <BR>> > 4. Where needed, or when
requested, giving sources for alleged "factual"
information.<BR>> > <BR>> >
5. Understanding the probabilistic nature of knowledge, and
the problems inherent in supporting value statements.<BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > Please tell us which of
the above you object to and why. Then tell us what you would do
differently and why. Please tells us explicitly in clear language, and
why, yours is a better system/approach to progressing toward the
truth/resolution.<BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > I can see why you and Crabtree don't like the above
approach to issue discussion/resolution. It put both of you at a
formidable disadvantage.<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>> > 208
882-7975<BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>> > From: lfalen
<BR>> > To: the lockshop ; Reggie Holmquist
<BR>> > Cc: Vision 2020 <BR>>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:27 PM<BR>>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental
health<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
> 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">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>>
>
> 208
882-7975<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">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR>> >
>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto: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">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR>> >
>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto: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">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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>
>
>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto: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">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">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR>>
>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
>
=======================================================<BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>