<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>At the risk of intruding into what appears to be a two-party conversation I would like to address the issues you have raised about anonymity, Paul. In this particular case, it seems to me that “Concerned” was stating his/her opinion, about the posting of photographs of Steven Sitler along with related (<b>Legally Obtained</b>) documents. As far as I can tell, no one on V2020 is suggesting that the anonymous author is defending Steven Sitler’s horrendous behavior. In fact, I agreed entirely with Doug Wilson’s assessment of ChoMo Sitlerm four years ago when he wrote</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <a href="http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2451:Joan-Opyr-Cub-Reporter&catid=68:moscow-diversity-cleansing">“I believe that if Steven [Sitler] is returned to our community, he should be welcomed <i>as </i>a criminal <i>and </i>serial pedophile <i>and </i>a dangerous man, as well as a sinner who professes repentance.”</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Consequently, it is absolutely astonishing that Doug and his band of merry men can, in the space of four years, completely transformed and reinvent Mr. Steven Sitler from a criminal, serial pedophile, dangerous man to a delightful and godly young man who will be marrying an NSA graduate with the blessing of the Kirk and the elders. Doug Wilson, will be officiating at the June 11<sup>th</sup> wedding. Who would’ve thunk it would turn out like this?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Rose Huskey<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rumelhart<br><b>Cc:</b> Rosemary Huskey; Moscow Vision 2020<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Response to Website Contact (rec'd from TomandRodna.com)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Fair enough, Paul. I'm not an enemy of anonymity. I wouldn't want to ban it, for instance. I've had some bad luck with it, locally speaking. It is abused on the Daily News website in a way that seems to play into the hands of the local, radical right -- just to use one example.<br><br>Do you think it is impossible to know who wrote something if the author is anonymous? Don't you think one might have reason to believe that an anonymous posting is written by a particular person or a particular church? After all, you don't know for certain who is writing this letter. If absolute certainty is the measure, then no one knows anything. If something less is the measure, then were you to follow local politics for a number of year's, you might have pretty good reason for belief in particular cases.<br><br>Two things I don't like in public debate, things that I think are harmful to public debate: lying and deception. Reasons for belief are hard to come by and the value of public debate, as I see it, is that we can get a variety of reasons for and against a variety of issues. But if someone offers nothing other than lies, fallacies, or some other form of deception, that is a disservice to the debate. <br><br>Maybe he/she believes that X on the basis of fear, for instance. But how can his/her fear be a reason for me to believe that X? It can't. All one can do in that case is -- in an effort to get one to believe that X -- is share the fear. That can't be a good thing. Thus, in public debate we have an obligation to provide objective reasons for belief, not sneaky rhetoric. And as a matter of fact, there are quite a few local conservatives who use anonymity as just one more tool in the rhetorical tool box. I don't see how anyone benefits from that, though I understand how someone might fool him/herself into thinking there is a benefit.<br><br>On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>If these people are anonymous, how do we know they are all from the same church?<br><br>Also, I wasn't claiming that anyone here was demonizing anybody, only that<br>society demonizes the concept of "sexual offender"; so much so that even being<br>accused of a sex crime and proven innocent later can still screw up your life.<br>It's not too much of a stretch to think that arguing against this sort of thing<br>can get you into trouble, depending upon what your circumstances are. Hence, a<br>possible reason for the anonymity.<br><br>In today's world where your iPad follows your movements and multi-national<br>conglomerates follow your every webpage click, I would say that privacy and<br>anonymity are in need of defending upon occasion.<br><br>Paul<br><br>P.S. Practice safe web browsing - run Adblock and NoScript or their equivalents<br><br>and delete cookies from obvious ad agencies.<br><br><br>----- Original Message ----<br>From: Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>To: Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>><br>Cc: Rosemary Huskey <<a href="mailto:donaldrose@cpcinternet.com">donaldrose@cpcinternet.com</a>>; Moscow Vision 2020<br><<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>Sent: Wed, April 27, 2011 4:21:55 AM<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Response to Website Contact (rec'd from<br>TomandRodna.com)<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>If all the anonymity is coming from the same members of the same church, that's<br>not a good thing. Not good because it might be hiding the true opinions and<br>influence of the church or it's members.<br><br>And I can't help but note how ironic it is that you use the term "demonize."<br>When NSA calls secularism "evil," when Bouma's pastor calls Mormons<br>"blasphemous" -- both cases of literal demonization -- it gets counted as<br>"religious" opinion. Yet pointing out that a pedophile has been left in the care<br>of an unqualified pastor is "demonization."<br><br><br><br>On Apr 26, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> On 04/26/2011 08:09 AM, Rosemary Huskey wrote:<br>>> Hi Tom and Visionaries,<br>>> Because "Concerned" isn't concerned enough to sign his/her name we can<br>>> easily dismiss his/her opinions.<br>><br>> While I can sympathize with this statement in a lot of different<br>> contexts, there are plenty of times where anonymity can be a good<br>> thing. For example, when you want to state an unpopular opinion<br>> relating to a topic that is often demonized to such a degree that merely<br>> stating that someone is going too far can bring unwelcome pressure to<br>> bear upon yourself.<br>><br>> I'm not actually that "Concerned", though.<br>><br>> Paul<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>> =======================================================<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>