<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Where to start?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Kai writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>'So, Wayne, if you really believe the relationship
between two people is nobody else's business, then you really should "butt
the f--k out".'<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Show me where I said or implied anything like that.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Many elements of relationships between two or more
people are public business. We have a plethora of laws and case law on
such, e.g. divorce law. Part of the debate is where should these laws
regulate relationships and what reasons can be given to support the pros and
cons of such regulation. Further, irrespective of the law, the issue your
comments raise is: Should freedom of expression be abrogated so that
some of these relationship matters, which likely would adversely impact a third
party, cannot be commented upon and/or discussed in public?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>In fact, these issues are what Rose, Saundra,
Tom, Paul, you, and I are doing, in part. However, you going beyond
that, say stop exercising your freedom of expression with respect to this case
by discussing the facts and values relevant to this publically announced
wedding. Freedom of expression means that any topic is game for comment
and discussion, not just those of which you approve, or only for reasons which
you deem worthy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>The following is for Paul, also.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>No one is arguing that Sitler and his bride-to-be do not
have a legal right to get married. [Although in some jurisdictions,
pedophiles can be/are prohibited by law or by court order from living with,
having unsupervised contact, or any contact with their own
children.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>To say or imply that some of us are denying that
Sitler has a legal to marry is simply arguing against a strawman, or less
politely, lying. That issue has been already decided by the courts:
pedophiles cannot be denied the right to marry.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>The issue, and one that Rose has very clearly and
succinctly articulated is: Should this union occur if children are to
be a product of it; and why are at least two so-called religious sects
condoning this union given some of its likely outcomes? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>To say there is not a public issue worth discussing here
by saying the welfare of potential victims of sexual predation is nobody's
business is certainly a position many of us would vehemently disagree. And
if you have followed Vision 2020 for a awhile, it is not only with respect to
the Christ Church Cult that this issue (sexual child abuse) has been openly and
candidly discussed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Which of the following do you disagree with, and
why?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>1. Sitler is a serial pedophile with numerous
victims and instances of sexual predation in at least three states. Now
convicted.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>2. Many, if not all of Sitler's victims have been
very young children.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>3. The probability of recidivism of serial
pedophiles increases in direct proportion to the number of victims and the
total number of sexual contacts with all victims, and inversely with the
age of the victims -- the younger the victims, the higher the probability of
recidivism.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>4. It is far more likely than not that Sitler will
be a repeat offender given his history and the example again
attached.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>5. The public has a legitimate interest in
protecting children from sexual predators.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>6. The public interest in protecting children from
sexual predation includes the freedom, if not the obligation, to discuss
any situation where sexual predation may likely occur, and to take reasonable
steps to prevent it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Personally, I would not be concerned enough to comment
in a public forum if Sitler's bride-to-be were sterile and had no interest in
future adoptions. I might think the union to be less than prudent and
another instance of hypocrisy from the unholy cult and its ally, the Nazarene
Church, but so be it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>The probability of the advent of children as a product
of this union and their probable fate changes the ball game, drastically for me,
for those who have candidly commented upon it here, and, for many more who have
discussed this proposed union in person with one or more of us.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>If either Kai or Paul disagree with 5 and 6 above, then
further discussion would be useless. The schism of value differences
between us is too great to be bridged.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>If not, then there is room to at least discuss the
public interest issues raised by Sitler's sexual predilections and his pending
marriage.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=Verdana>
<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>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=fotopro63@hotmail.com href="mailto:fotopro63@hotmail.com">Kai
Eiselein</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Vision2020] Angry
Hens</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Gee, I don't hear anyone screaming about murderers or rapists
getting married. Nope, just this one individual. Methinks that if he wasn't a
member of a particular congregation, there'd be nary a peep.<BR>What about the
right of the woman to marry whomever she wants? (For the life of me, I can't
imagine anyone wanting to marry someone like him.) What has SHE done? So, now
we are talking about trampling on the rights of someone, who, as far as we
know, is an innocent party.<BR>For that matter, what about all of these
"jailhouse" marriages that take place all over the country?<BR>Opens up a nice
can of worms, doesn't it?<BR>You cannot legislate stupidity. If someone is
idiotic enough to marry someone knowing full well that person has a "history",
well then, "stupid is as stupid does".<BR>So, Wayne, if you really believe the
relationship between two people is nobody else's business, then you
really should "butt the f--k out".<BR>You can't have it both ways without
supporting my argument that society has the right to deem what is
acceptable.<BR> <BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
From: deco@moscow.com<BR>To: fotopro63@hotmail.com<BR>Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] Angry Hens<BR>Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:17:46 -0700<BR><BR>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft SafeHTML">
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-top:0px;}
.ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage
{font-family:Tahoma;font-size:10pt;}
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Kai writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Verdana>"Anybody for a big steaming helping of
hypocrisy?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>How hypocritical are those who pretend to be advocates
of freedom, especially free speech, but when someone expresses opinions to
which they disagree they say:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana><FONT color=#0000ff>"Now, stop acting like a bunch of
gossiping women at the hairdresser and take your own advice and butt the f--k
out."<BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=#000000>?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In other words, "Shut up, this is a subject you should not
discuss."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So much for the so-called libertarians; but we most of us knew that
already. Many of life's more complex and difficult situations are not
amendable to a simple one sentence philosophy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that is right. If you
need a big, hard to miss example, try subprime loans. In the meantime,
as a former publisher, Kai, you might want to think a little more about
the importance of free expression.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>w.<BR></DIV></FONT>
<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=fotopro63@hotmail.com href="mailto:fotopro63@hotmail.com">Kai
Eiselein</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:37
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Angry
Hens</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Saundra, you seem to have missed my point.<BR>The same people
who engaged in much gnashing of teeth over anti-gay marriage laws a few
years ago are now gnashing their teeth over what appears to be
a marriage that is completely legal.<BR>As I argued before, it is the
community's right to choose what is socially acceptable. That argument
was met with plenty of derision right here on the ol' viz. Now it seems
that position has changed and a number of people who disagreed with my
argument then have proven my point, in spades, I might add.<BR>Anybody for a
big steaming helping of hypocrisy?<BR>As for Wilson, I haven't read any
of his books, pamphlets, comic books, novels or flyers. I'm sorry, I'm
just not all that interested in his religious or world views, so I
cannot comment on what he may or may not have said based soley
on the word of someone who appears to have an axe to grind with
him.<BR>If there is a legal issue, then by all means take it to the courts,
council, commission, or wherever it needs to be addressed.<BR>This constant
screeching about every little thing is just plain childish and I believe it
goes deeper than any legal issues. In fact, I believe it is an ideological
clash and despite all of the "Coexist" stickers on cars in this town, there
is a deep seated hatred towards anybody or anything that doesn't fit in with
the local liberal lockstep.<BR>
<HR>
<P><BR>=======================================================<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>