<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" 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"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
mso-style-type: export-only
}
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 bgColor=#ffffff vLink=purple>
<DIV>Rose asks:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#1f497d></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>"Who would’ve thunk it would turn out like
this?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Let's see. Worship of money and power, braggadocio,
self-aggrandizement, </FONT></FONT>and gross hypocrisy: five of the
main arrows in Cultmaster Douglas Wilson's sordid character quiver. It's
not rocket science.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In his true Anti-Christ character, Wilson again demonstrates that meeting
his own personal goals by lying, manipulating, sucking out money, and engaging
in sociopathic acts he is not only a danger to the adults of society, but
to the young, and in Sitler's case, the unborn. What is the difference
between Wilson and an abortionist (whom he alleges to abhor) in Sitler's
case?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The ovine acceptance of this disgusting charade by cult members is yet
another reminder of how religious crackpots warp and destroy the fabric of our
communities -- local, national, and global.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID
83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975<BR></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=donaldrose@cpcinternet.com
href="mailto:donaldrose@cpcinternet.com">Rosemary Huskey</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">'Joe Campbell'</A> ; <A
title=godshatter@yahoo.com href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">'Paul
Rumelhart'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">'Moscow Vision 2020'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:37
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Response to
Website Contact (rec'd fromTomandRodna.com)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> <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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Rose
Huskey<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 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-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: #cccccc 1pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 6pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; MARGIN-LEFT: 4.8pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 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 style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Cambria Math;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
mso-style-type: export-only
}
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]-->
<DIV>Rose asks:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#1f497d></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>"Who would’ve thunk it would turn out like
this?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Let's see. Worship of money and power, braggadocio,
self-aggrandisement, </FONT></FONT>and gross hypocrisy: five of the
main arrows in Cultmaster Douglas Wilson's quiver. It's not rocket
science.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In his true Anti-Christ character, Wilson again demostrates that meeting
his own personal goals by lying, manipulating, sucking out money, and engaging
in sociopathic acts he is not only a danger to the adults of society, but
to the young, and in Sitler's case, the unborn. What is the difference
between Wilson and an abortionist (whom he alleges to abhor) in this (Sitler's)
case.?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The ovine acceptance of this disgusting charade by cult members is yet
another reminder of how religious crackpots warp and destroy the fabric of our
communities -- local, natioanl, and global.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID
83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975<BR></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=donaldrose@cpcinternet.com
href="mailto:donaldrose@cpcinternet.com">Rosemary Huskey</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">'Joe Campbell'</A> ; <A
title=godshatter@yahoo.com href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">'Paul
Rumelhart'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">'Moscow Vision 2020'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:37
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Response to
Website Contact (rec'd fromTomandRodna.com)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> <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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Rose
Huskey<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 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-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: #cccccc 1pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 6pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; MARGIN-LEFT: 4.8pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 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 style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>