[Vision2020] answering g. crabtree

[Tom Hansen]

It is my opinion, GC, that Bill London (like many of us) doubts Doug
Wilson's sincerity in his recently acquired philosophy, since he (Wilson)
continues to promote near-subjugation of all beings that do not fit into his
tightly knit male "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant" world.  A wasp is a wasp
is a wasp is a wasp is a . . . 

 

In effect, GC, we do embrace the non-slavery message that Wilson has
recently expressed.  It is the messenger we question.  The reason we doubt
Wilson's sincerity is reflected in Wilson's insincere and tainted history.
It is strongly believed, and supported, that what he says publicly does not
mirror desires he expresses behind closed doors.

 

Concerning any comments I have made in the past, I have absolutely no
reservations to re-reading them here if you care to post any.  My comments
have undergone tougher scrutiny than any inspection you are capable of
mustering.  So . . . Please, help yourself.

 

Seeya round town, Moscow.

 

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

 

Footnote to Deacon James - The Oakland Athletics lead the American League
Western Division by a game and a half with the All Star break a week and a
half away.  Another Note:  If you were to look up the statistics of Oscar
Charleston for the seasons 1917 thru 1926, you might find that Hack Wilson
RBI count would merely be considered fair competition.  But then Hack Wilson
would have never played against Oscar Charleston.  You see, Charleston
played for the Homestead Grays of the Negro National League.

 

"Uh, how about a 1-strike law. Death doesn't seem too extreme for a Level-3
sex offender."

 

- Dale "Comb-Over" Courtney (August 3, 2005)

 

  _____  

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of g. crabtree
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:31 PM
To: Bill London; Austin Storm; Joe Campbell
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com; keely emerinemix
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] answering g. crabtree

 

Bill, lets stretch the boarders of our imagination, sans CUP, and assume for
a moment that you are absolutely correct (doubtful) and that you're not
taking isolated passages out of context. Why do you not embrace the revised
position? Why do you insist on castigating someone for a previously held
notion. I would certainly hate to be judged solely on remarks I've made in
the past and I suspect that you and the rest  of the CC critics wouldn't be
all that wild about it either. Or is it just a lot more fun to selectively
pick and choose whatever supports your ongoing bias.

 

gc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060626/41dd5623/attachment-0001.htm