If I show that an argument can be used to support a claim that is known to be false (or accepted as false by the proponent of the argument), then I've provided a counterexample to the argument -- an example that shows that the argument is fallacious (for it can be used to support false claims). I'm sorry that for you that you don't understand this; and sorry for the community that they have to put up with someone who is so ignorant about basic issues of objective communication.<br>
<br>So here we have a case in which (a) you clearly don't know what you're talking about but (b) you're trying to tell someone who has been teaching the subject for 20 years that he doesn't know what he's talking about. This is evidence that if anyone is arrogant, it is you!<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, lfalen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Thanks Glenn<br>
You did a much better job than I ever could. Joe says an argument is fallacious. He doe not say why or offer a good alternative. It is fallacious because he says so. A little arrogant.<br>
Roger<br>
-----Original message-----<br>
From: Glenn Schwaller <a href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">vpschwaller@gmail.com</a><br>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:17:23 -0700<br>
To: vision2020 <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?<br>
<br>
> Well besides refunding tuition to your poor students, you better give<br>
> back your doctorate as well because I, and I think several others here<br>
> agree, your attempt at logical argument is seriously flawed. Instead<br>
> of arrogantly patronizing Roger and others, maybe you would be best<br>
> off to "listen slowly" to yourself.<br>
><br>
> 1 - "Glenn made several fallacious points. . .," Let me paraphrase<br>
> you: "You 'professors of logic' think your views should be adopted<br>
> for no other reason than that you believe them" So because you think<br>
> I made fallacious points, they are - end<br>
> of story. And that is NOT a fallacious argument?? Point 1: FAIL<br>
><br>
> 2 - “Roger, do you also support slavery, another view that Glenn<br>
> supports?” And you KNOW I support slavery how?? Because you say so?<br>
> Because you "know" I belong to Christ Church? Because you "know" I'm<br>
> Doug Wilson? You call me a racist (proof??) using a fake name<br>
> (proof??) Yet it must be true because YOU say so? Your only argument<br>
> being 20 years of teaching logic leads you to believe that "I think<br>
> therefore it is" and THAT is what progressive, rational, logical<br>
> thinking is. Point 2: FAIL<br>
><br>
> 3 - "Glenn made several fallacious points, some of which were pointed<br>
> out and all of which are ignored below." You know I have ignored<br>
> them? Perhaps I have been out of town and not on the computer.<br>
> Perhaps I've been ill. Perhaps any number of things yet you say they<br>
> are ignored. There is no basis in fact to say they have been ignored.<br>
> Point 3: FAIL.<br>
><br>
> 4 - You asked Roger for one example. I gave you three and you dismiss<br>
> them out of hand with no opposing point of view other than to offer up<br>
> your standard “fallacious arguments”, "they are pretty bad", “just<br>
> irrational rhetoric”. Then you proceed with your usual badmouthing<br>
> and denigration of the other person, never attempting to explain why<br>
> the other person is “irrational and misguided” other than the fact<br>
> that you say so. Point four: FAIL. Plus another fail for being<br>
> rude, offensive, and pretentious in general.<br>
><br>
> 5 - "You are so used to listening to the lies on Fox" Let me quote<br>
> you: "This is crap rhetoric and you should know better." Yes, you<br>
> SHOULD know better. You criticize someone for speaking what you<br>
> consider to be rhetoric, offer no proof it IS, then turn around and<br>
> argue with “crap rhetoric” yourself. Point 5: FAIL<br>
><br>
> 6 – “Worse, you want to promote further ignorance by disallowing<br>
> legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting education”. You offer<br>
> nothing to support your contention NPR is more legitimate than any<br>
> news source (please try to note the distinction between “news’ and<br>
> “opinion”), nor any support that education has been gutted. Except<br>
> for the “crap rhetoric” spewed forth. Oh yes, it’s spewed from the<br>
> progressives so its true no doubt about it. Point 6: FAIL<br>
><br>
> 7 - I don't care if NPR is left wing, right wing, libertarian, or<br>
> simply bad. There is absolutely NO reason they should feed at the<br>
> government trough. Your position that corporate money influences<br>
> broadcasting is inane. I pointed out that most corporations advertise<br>
> on all major broadcast networks and cable networks, FOX and MSNBC<br>
> included. Big oil, stock brokers, big-box stores, banks, car<br>
> companies foreign and domestic. All advertise on all networks. Your<br>
> argument is they would influence FOX differently than CBS or NBC?<br>
> Seriously?? Point 7: FAIL<br>
><br>
> 8 - Yes, give me $1 million to shut up and go away I will. If I don’t<br>
> keep quiet, you don’t pay. Quite an influence you have over me. So<br>
> ultra-left winger George Soros gives nearly $2 million to NPR and they<br>
> will tell him to go fly a kite when he wants an agenda pushed?<br>
> Seriously? Point 8 - FAIL<br>
><br>
> 9 - Comparing state run colleges to state-run (it’s actually federal<br>
> given your argument of NATIONAL) broadcasting corporations is<br>
> ludicrous at best. State run colleges and federally run broadcasting<br>
> networks - apples and oranges. FAIL.<br>
><br>
> The federal government has no business being in education. It has no<br>
> business being in the broadcasting industry. NRP already accepts<br>
> commercial funding from businesses. It’s just couched as “support”.<br>
> Want an example? “Funding for NPR is provided by Chevrolet, maker of<br>
> the 40 miles-per-charge Chevy Volt. See one now at your local<br>
> Chevrolet dealer.” Sounds like corporate advertising to me. To argue<br>
> it is not - well then NPR lies. They want to accept "support" from<br>
> corporations, fine. Limit the acknowledgement to "Program funding is<br>
> provided by Chevrolet". Period.<br>
><br>
> And even giving you the benefit of the doubt, your only argument is<br>
> that it “keeps costs down”. If one is a student paying tuition to a<br>
> university, then keeping costs down is important. Keeping costs down<br>
> for a broadcast network is good for the network maybe, but this<br>
> affects out-of-pocket expense to an individual or the general public<br>
> how?? Apples and oranges, point 9: FAIL<br>
><br>
> 10 - And I support Roger (and everyone else to whom you make<br>
> unsubstantiated and non-factual statements about) with several rounds<br>
> of FAIL FAIL FAIL.<br>
><br>
> You and your ilk seem to think all of us “backward” people want NPR to<br>
> go away. Nothing is further from the truth. (So another FAIL for<br>
> illogical assumptions). Roger listens to some things, I listen to<br>
> some things (and ignore what I consider to be left-wing babble). Just<br>
> as you ignore what you consider to be right-wing babble from networks<br>
> such as FOX. And both NPR and FOX are guilty of such babble – it’s<br>
> called “opinion programming”. We just think government needs to keep<br>
> it’s pointy little head out of the broadcast industry. Enough said.<br>
><br>
> GS<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > We're not spending too much on NPR! We spend more bombing Libya in one day<br>
> > than a year's worth of NPR! I don't see any good arguments supporting your<br>
> > case. That's all.<br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >> N PR receives less than half it's funding from the government. It is not a<br>
> >> 100% federal entity. Its management is private and so should it's funding.<br>
> >> Your comparison with colleges is still apples and orange. You said " If you<br>
> >> can tell me a better way for the US to spend it money, I'll listen." The<br>
> >> problem is we are spending too much. We are head over heels in debt and need<br>
> >> to cut many other things in addition to NPR funding. To name just a few<br>
> >> OSHSA, EPA, planned ParentHood, and even waste in the military. I would not<br>
> >> cut FDA or Child Protective Services. Both of these are more important that<br>
> >> funding NPR. I was the Compliance officer for most of the feed companies I<br>
> >> worked for. I dealt with all of the agencies. EPA and OSHA were ridiculous.<br>
> >> We had some feed bend at Lewiston the bottom of witch were about 15 feet in<br>
> >> the air. Feed sometimes hung up in them. We had to hang in the air with one<br>
> >> hand and beat on them with a hammer with the other hand. To make it safer we<br>
> >> installed a cat<br>
> >> walk bellow them to salve the problem. OSHSA made us take them out because<br>
> >> the regulations sday you have to be able to walk down a cat walk. There was<br>
> >> not room to do that, so we were back to clearing bins in an unsafe manner.<br>
> >> There are many more examples I could site. FDA's regulations for the moist<br>
> >> part made sense. Our food supply is very important. Most food business(not<br>
> >> all) do their best to insure a safe food supply, but the FDA is short of<br>
> >> inspectors and can not do their job adequately. Imports are not properly<br>
> >> inspected either. When I started as manager of the feed mill in Colfax I put<br>
> >> in a ridged control system and weigh back procedure for drug use. The next<br>
> >> day after I instructed the crew on the proper procedure, I caught an<br>
> >> employee putting a feed scoop in a drug bin walk over to the mixer and dump<br>
> >> it in with Aureomycin falling off all the way. I fired him on the spot.<br>
> >> Roger<br>
> >> -----Original message-----<br>
> >> From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:41:23 -0700<br>
> >> To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?<br>
> >><br>
> >> > NPR is the NATIONAL PUBLIC radio. NPR was set up for exactly this<br>
> >> > reason: to<br>
> >> > have a state run radio station that does not risk genuine objectivity<br>
> >> > due to<br>
> >> > corporate interests. It is the only such radio station in existence, the<br>
> >> > only thing of its kind. Better one than none, I think.<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > Your question is kind of like asking, Why should we have state colleges?<br>
> >> > Why<br>
> >> > can't all colleges be private? The answer is the existence of state<br>
> >> > colleges<br>
> >> > is a public good: it keeps costs down, etc. I think ONE state run radio<br>
> >> > station should exist; it is a good way to use state funds, it has a<br>
> >> > general<br>
> >> > interest to the public. And really that is all that matters. If you can<br>
> >> > tell<br>
> >> > me of a better way for the US to spend its money, I'll listen. But so<br>
> >> > far<br>
> >> > you have not done that.<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:48 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> ><br>
> >> > > Joe<br>
> >> > > I do not know how many times I have to say I do dont wish to see NPR<br>
> >> > > disappear. They have some very good programming. They receive only a<br>
> >> > > portion<br>
> >> > > of their funding from the government. They can do just fine with out<br>
> >> > > it.<br>
> >> > > Would you please explain to me, just why you think that NPR should<br>
> >> > > receive<br>
> >> > > federal funding and Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc should not.not?Comparing<br>
> >> > > funding<br>
> >> > > of NPR to the military is like comparing apples and oranges.<br>
> >> > > Roger<br>
> >> > > -----Original message-----<br>
> >> > > From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> > > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:37:29 -0700<br>
> >> > > To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
> >> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?<br>
> >> > ><br>
> >> > > > I'm not angry, Roger. A bit frustrated but not angry.<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > Listen slowly. I've taught logic for 20 years. I tell you your<br>
> >> > > > argument<br>
> >> > > is<br>
> >> > > > fallacious and you should believe me. To do otherwise shows a kind<br>
> >> > > > of<br>
> >> > > > arrogance and disrespect for longstanding social institutions.<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > So it frustrates me. You have, thus far, given very bad arguments<br>
> >> > > > for not<br>
> >> > > > funding NPR. I've pointed out some problems: one might take the very<br>
> >> > > words<br>
> >> > > > you say and support some ridiculous claim. You acknowledge that the<br>
> >> > > > claim<br>
> >> > > is<br>
> >> > > > ridiculous ("Don't fund the military") but fail to see the logical<br>
> >> > > > connection between your very words and the claim. If the words<br>
> >> > > > support<br>
> >> > > your<br>
> >> > > > claim they also support the ridiculous claim; if the ridiculous<br>
> >> > > > claim is<br>
> >> > > > unsupported by your words, so is your claim. But you don't want to<br>
> >> > > > play<br>
> >> > > > because you think I'm biased.<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > I'm not angry, I'm just very in-your-face. If you met me, I'd be in<br>
> >> > > > your<br>
> >> > > > face, too, but you'd see I wasn't angry.<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > Roger, you have voted for an idiot for president twice, you've<br>
> >> > > > supported<br>
> >> > > for<br>
> >> > > > state office a man who is openly disrespectful to our Mormon<br>
> >> > > > community<br>
> >> > > and<br>
> >> > > > another man who is disrespectful to progressives, and you are now<br>
> >> > > > trying<br>
> >> > > to<br>
> >> > > > tell me that the world would be better off without NPR.<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > I, on the other hand, think the world is better off with better<br>
> >> > > > sources<br>
> >> > > of<br>
> >> > > > information, sources that test our critical thinking skills. You<br>
> >> > > > can't<br>
> >> > > > compare NPR to Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > I'd be more than happy to consider your opinion that NPR should not<br>
> >> > > > be<br>
> >> > > > funded but so far you have not given one non-fallacious argument in<br>
> >> > > support<br>
> >> > > > of that claim. So what am I to do? Accept your opinion because,<br>
> >> > > > well,<br>
> >> > > you're<br>
> >> > > > a nice guy and everyone is entitled to his position?<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > No. This is public forum and I'm going to point out that, although<br>
> >> > > > you<br>
> >> > > have<br>
> >> > > > your own opinions which we are entitled to respect, it is my right<br>
> >> > > > and<br>
> >> > > duty<br>
> >> > > > to note that you do not have one damn good reason for believing<br>
> >> > > > them.<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:01 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>><br>
> >> > > > wrote:<br>
> >> > > ><br>
> >> > > > > Shame on you. Your argument is illogical. You attribute things to<br>
> >> > > > > me<br>
> >> > > that<br>
> >> > > > > arn't factual. Why do you seem so angry? I do not wish to see NPR<br>
> >> > > > > fail.<br>
> >> > > I<br>
> >> > > > > hope that they continue to survive. Only a fraction of their<br>
> >> > > > > funding<br>
> >> > > comes<br>
> >> > > > > from the government. Why should they recieve federal funding and<br>
> >> > > > > Fox,<br>
> >> > > ABC,<br>
> >> > > > > NBC, CBS, etc. do not? None of them should receive federal<br>
> >> > > > > funding.<br>
> >> > > That is<br>
> >> > > > > the only way to insure a free press.<br>
> >> > > > > Roger<br>
> >> > > > > -----Original message-----<br>
> >> > > > > From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:09:00 -0700<br>
> >> > > > > To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
> >> > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?<br>
> >> > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > The point is NOT supported by you or anyone else. You radical<br>
> >> > > > > > right<br>
> >> > > wing<br>
> >> > > > > > folks think your views should be adopted for no other reason<br>
> >> > > > > > than<br>
> >> > > that<br>
> >> > > > > you<br>
> >> > > > > > believe them; because you believe it is true I should also. But<br>
> >> > > > > > that<br>
> >> > > is<br>
> >> > > > > not<br>
> >> > > > > > the case. We have a history of objective standards for judging<br>
> >> > > > > > the<br>
> >> > > merits<br>
> >> > > > > of<br>
> >> > > > > > reasons and argument. It is called the discipline of logic. If<br>
> >> > > > > > you<br>
> >> > > had<br>
> >> > > > > more<br>
> >> > > > > > respect for the history of Western civilization and public<br>
> >> > > institutions<br>
> >> > > > > you<br>
> >> > > > > > would realize that. The fact that you ignore those is no ones<br>
> >> > > > > > fault<br>
> >> > > but<br>
> >> > > > > your<br>
> >> > > > > > own. Shame on you. Worse, you want to promote further ignorance<br>
> >> > > > > > by<br>
> >> > > > > > disallowing legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting education.<br>
> >> > > > > > That<br>
> >> > > way<br>
> >> > > > > > even fewer people will be able to see through your irrational<br>
> >> > > rhetoric.<br>
> >> > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > But here in a nut shell is the issue for all fair minded people<br>
> >> > > > > > to<br>
> >> > > see.<br>
> >> > > > > You<br>
> >> > > > > > have nothing but fallacious arguments and unsupported<br>
> >> > > > > > accusations to<br>
> >> > > > > support<br>
> >> > > > > > your claims. Nothing at all. The nameless "Glenn" is in the<br>
> >> > > > > > exact<br>
> >> > > same<br>
> >> > > > > boat.<br>
> >> > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > The real issue is, like with respect to military funding,<br>
> >> > > > > > whether the<br>
> >> > > > > source<br>
> >> > > > > > funded provides a public good. Whether it is "slightly right" or<br>
> >> > > > > "slightly<br>
> >> > > > > > left" is completely irrelevant. Shame on you!<br>
> >> > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>><br>
> >> > > wrote:<br>
> >> > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > The point is that is they should not be funded period. It<br>
> >> > > > > > > makes no<br>
> >> > > > > > > difference whether they are right, left or down the center.<br>
> >> > > > > > > Roger<br>
> >> > > > > > > -----Original message-----<br>
> >> > > > > > > From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> > > > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:42:44 -0700<br>
> >> > > > > > > To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
> >> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?<br>
> >> > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > No Roger, Glenn did not answer the question. Glenn made<br>
> >> > > > > > > > several<br>
> >> > > > > > > fallacious<br>
> >> > > > > > > > points, some of which were pointed out and all of which are<br>
> >> > > ignored<br>
> >> > > > > > > below.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > And do you also support slavery, another view that "Glenn"<br>
> >> > > supports?<br>
> >> > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > Why bother pretending to engage in discussions about these<br>
> >> > > > > > > > issues<br>
> >> > > if<br>
> >> > > > > you<br>
> >> > > > > > > > IGNORE criticisms of points made? Here is another refutation<br>
> >> > > > > > > > of<br>
> >> > > one<br>
> >> > > > > of<br>
> >> > > > > > > your<br>
> >> > > > > > > > points. Please respond.<br>
> >> > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > You write that NPR is "[s]lightly left of center" [even<br>
> >> > > > > > > > though<br>
> >> > > you<br>
> >> > > > > admit<br>
> >> > > > > > > to<br>
> >> > > > > > > > listening to it only "occasionally" and do not provide ONE<br>
> >> > > example<br>
> >> > > > > > > > supporting this claim]. If this is a reason to not fund NPR<br>
> >> > > > > > > > via<br>
> >> > > > > taxpayer<br>
> >> > > > > > > > money, then the following would also be a good argument: The<br>
> >> > > military<br>
> >> > > > > is<br>
> >> > > > > > > > slightly right of center, so it should not receive any<br>
> >> > > > > > > > public<br>
> >> > > > > funding.<br>
> >> > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > So which is it: should we end public support for the<br>
> >> > > > > > > > military or<br>
> >> > > > > should<br>
> >> > > > > > > we<br>
> >> > > > > > > > recognize that your argument is a bad one?<br>
> >> > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, lfalen<br>
> >> > > > > > > > <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>><br>
> >> > > > > wrote:<br>
> >> > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > I have not been on the computer all week, but I think that<br>
> >> > > Glenn<br>
> >> > > > > > > answered<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > your question.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > In response ro Nick- I do not know it Nader is right or<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > not.I<br>
> >> > > have<br>
> >> > > > > only<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > listened to NPR occasionally. What I have caught is Fresh<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > Air<br>
> >> > > or<br>
> >> > > > > All<br>
> >> > > > > > > Things<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > Considered. They both at the times I heard them seemed to<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > be<br>
> >> > > > > lightly<br>
> >> > > > > > > left of<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > center. Nader only mentioned Charlie Rose. I am sure there<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > a<br>
> >> > > lot of<br>
> >> > > > > > > other<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > hosts besides Rose. I have never heard him. In any event<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > this<br>
> >> > > is<br>
> >> > > > > all<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > irrelevant. It would not make any difference if they were<br>
> >> > > equally<br>
> >> > > > > > > balanced<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > or were 100% to the right. They should not be geting any<br>
> >> > > funding<br>
> >> > > > > from<br>
> >> > > > > > > the<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > taxpayers. In case you don't realize it we are in a money<br>
> >> > > crunch.<br>
> >> > > > > Let<br>
> >> > > > > > > spend<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > only on those thing that are essential and can not be done<br>
> >> > > > > adequately<br>
> >> > > > > > > by the<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > private sector. I want to see our veterans taken care of<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > for<br>
> >> > > just<br>
> >> > > > > one<br>
> >> > > > > > > of<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > many that we should be spending on. Your ideal Nation of<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > Sweden<br>
> >> > > is<br>
> >> > > > > > > geting<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > the message and cutting back on services before they wind<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > up<br>
> >> > > like<br>
> >> > > > > > > Greece and<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > Ireland. I hope they succeed, that is the ancestral home<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > of the<br>
> >> > > > > > > Falen's.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > They come from Ostergotlund.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > You may know where that is.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > Roger<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > -----Original message-----<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:27:38 -0700<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > al?<br>
> >> > > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > State one left wing point of view that NPR broadcasts,<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > Roger.<br>
> >> > > > > Just<br>
> >> > > > > > > one.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > They broadcast news. You are so used to listening to the<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > lies<br>
> >> > > on<br>
> >> > > > > Fox<br>
> >> > > > > > > that<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > you confuse them for "points of view."<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM, lfalen <<br>
> >> > > <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>><br>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > If NPR wants to broadcast left wing points of view<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > and<br>
> >> > > > > supporters<br>
> >> > > > > > > are<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > willing to fund it, more power to them.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Roger<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original message-----<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Robert Dickow" <a href="mailto:dickow@turbonet.com">dickow@turbonet.com</a><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:18:10 -0700<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > al?<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I hear that the conservative congressmen have<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > proposed<br>
> >> > > > > > > withdrawing<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > government funding for NPR. Apparently a newscaster<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or<br>
> >> > > fund<br>
> >> > > > > drive<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > person<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > or<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > somebody made some disparaging remarks about the Tea<br>
> >> > > Party.<br>
> >> > > > > Fie!<br>
> >> > > > > > > Fie!<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Now,<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > denying public broadcasting all those scarce<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > taxpayer<br>
> >> > > dollars<br>
> >> > > > > > > sounds<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > like<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > a<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable and just response to such offenses if<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you're a<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > conservative<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Republican sympathetic with the Tea Party movement,<br>
> >> > > right? Uh<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > huh.sure.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > How<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > dumb can anybody be?! NPR won't suddenly go belly up<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and<br>
> >> > > go<br>
> >> > > > > off<br>
> >> > > > > > > the<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > air,<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > slinking off into the shadows with its tail between<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > its<br>
> >> > > legs.<br>
> >> > > > > > > Private<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > donors-- those dwindling middle class stalwarts--<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > will<br>
> >> > > > > valiantly<br>
> >> > > > > > > step<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > up<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > to<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the plate in ever greater numbers. So what will<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > actually<br>
> >> > > > > happen,<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > then, is<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > that NPR will be unfettered and free to unleash all<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > their<br>
> >> > > > > rabid<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > commie<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > pinko<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > liberal gun-hating womens libber staffers to say all<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the<br>
> >> > > > > rabid<br>
> >> > > > > > > commie<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > pinko<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > tea-barfing they've always wanted to say but didn't<br>
> >> > > because<br>
> >> > > > > they<br>
> >> > > > > > > felt<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > compelled to be balanced in their commie pinko<br>
> >> > > tree-hugging<br>
> >> > > > > > > opinions<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > and<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > bleeding-heart liberal union thug biased news<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > reporting.<br>
> >> > > > > Clearly,<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > this<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > government measure will not serve the common good.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > And I<br>
> >> > > may<br>
> >> > > > > be<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > forced to<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > mix even more metaphors in the future.<br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Dickow, troublemaker<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>
> >> > > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > > ><br>
> >> > > > ><br>
> >> > > ><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>
> 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>
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>
=======================================================</blockquote></div><br>