<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7655.1">
<TITLE>RE: Roger: Who has the facts?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi Roger,<BR>
<BR>
I meant to send my original message to the Vision, and it and your reply is below.<BR>
<BR>
Here are some figures from "The Economist," which even Jeff would have sense enough to NOT call biased. Business people all over the world rely on their data. So I challenge you to show me where the bias is.<BR>
<BR>
Excerpt from my column "Germany Leads Europe's Recovery":<BR>
<BR>
The latest figures (four months ago) published in The Economist shows that the 16 countries in the Eurozone grew at an annualized rate of 3.9 percent, while the U.S. dropped to 1.6 percent. Just as is the case with the individual American states, the performance these countries ran the gamut from good to poor. Germany led with a dramatic 9 percent increase, while Sweden followed with 4.7 percent (Sweden has now jumped ahead), Britain (still under Labor rule) at 4.5 percent (but now 1.5 percent under the Conservatives), Denmark with 3.9 percent, and Austria increasing 3.8 percent.<BR>
<BR>
While the U.S. is struggling with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark are at 3.5, 3.8, 3.9, and 4.1 percent respectively. Excluding Norway’s budget surplus because of its oil wealth, the three remaining countries have an average budget deficit of 3.8 percent.<BR>
The U.S. budget deficit has fallen 2.2 percent since April 7, but it is still at 8.9 percent. Greece’s deficit is 9.5 percent, but Europe’s highest is Ireland at 14 percent.<BR>
<BR>
It is significant to note that all these countries, except for Ireland, were developed by Social Democrats, whose generous health and social services (financed by high income taxes) have been trimmed only slightly under recent center-right governments. According to free marketeers, these countries should be economic basket cases, but obviously they are not that at all. Indeed, it is primarily countries such as Iceland, Ireland, and the Baltic States that have failed under libertarian, free market policies. Greece went really bad with a center-right government that hired Goldman Sachs to hide their deficits.<BR>
<BR>
In the 1990s the Danish Social Democrats invested in a jobs training program (expending 20 times more per capita than the U.S. does), which has kept unemployment at a 3-4 percent rate ever since. During their last term in office (1995-2005) the German Social Democrats instituted a jobs program and relaxed tight labor laws, and the number of unemployed dropped from 5 million in 2005 to 3 million in 2008. Although the rate is still relatively high at 7.6 percent, Germany is in its 13th straight month of falling unemployment--right through the throes of the Great Recession.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus<BR>
Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho<BR>
"The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM<BR>
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm<BR>
208-882-9212, 1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: lfalen [<A HREF="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Tue 2/8/2011 12:14 PM<BR>
To: Gier, Nicholas<BR>
Subject: Re: Roger: Who has the facts?<BR>
<BR>
I think that Jeff has better data than you do. That is just my opinion and of course I am biased. I think your data is biased too. I am not sure just where Sweden stands, but most of Europe is n trouble with over extended debt. Just look at PIIGS. The US is not far behind. The third way does not rock and they are headed for a fall. This is to say nothing of individual liberty, which in the end is more important.<BR>
To paraphrase Ben Franklin " He who prefers security over liberty, deserves nether"<BR>
Roger<BR>
-----Original message-----<BR>
From: "Gier, Nicholas" NGIER@uidaho.edu<BR>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:26:06 -0800<BR>
To: "lfalen" lfalen@turbonet.com<BR>
Subject: Roger: Who has the facts?<BR>
<BR>
> Hi Roger,<BR>
><BR>
> Not once have you shown that I have presented erroneous data.<BR>
><BR>
> Some time ago I answered Jeff with hard data on refugees per capita and new citizens per capita that blew his claims about my "favorite countries" out of the water.<BR>
><BR>
> No response yet from Jeff, and not a very good record of coming up with either facts or truths.<BR>
><BR>
> A long time ago he said something about European unemployment, and I quoted from The Economist to show that he was wrong.<BR>
><BR>
> My columns showing many European countries with high taxes and more regulation but lower deficits and lower unemployment go unrefuted by either you or Jeff. Currently the fastest growing economy in Europe is Sweden with 50 percent of its GDP in the public sector. I challenge any libertarian to explain how that can happen.<BR>
><BR>
> The Third Way Rocks and libertarian theories are not supported by facts.<BR>
><BR>
> Nick<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus<BR>
> Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho<BR>
> "The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM<BR>
> President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm<BR>
> 208-882-9212, 1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com on behalf of lfalen<BR>
> Sent: Tue 2/8/2011 10:52 AM<BR>
> To: Art Deco; Vision 2020<BR>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health<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 most !<BR>
> part I<BR>
> will leave it up to him.<BR>
> Roger<BR>
> -----Original message-----<BR>
> From: "Art Deco" deco@moscow.com<BR>
> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:05:34 -0800<BR>
> To: "Vision 2020" vision2020@moscow.com<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>
> > waf@moscow.com<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" lockshop@pull.twcbc.com<BR>
> > Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:24:53 -0800<BR>
> > To: "Reggie Holmquist" reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu<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 <lockshop@pull.twcbc.com> 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>
> > > waf@moscow.com<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 - www.avg.com<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 - www.avg.com<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>
> 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>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>