[Vision2020] Purpose of Postings

Wed Dec 22 14:58:11 PST 2010

Joe
At no time have I ever said a comment by Kelly was insulting. Get your facts straight. I have no problem in disagreeing with Gary or he me. What I said in essence to Kelly was- Everyone at times is a little harsh in there criticism of others, you are better in that regard than most. In my mind that is a complement.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:51:17 -0800
To: the lockshop lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of Postings

> The point is not that Keely's remark was or was not an insult but that
> it was called insulting by Roger, even though it was very tame
> relative to your claims of elitism. But of course he wouldn't want to
> criticize you, would he? That might get him in trouble.
> 
> And NO ONE declared any individuals stupid. That is something that you
> made up and are still making up to keep the tag of "elitist" sticking
> to liberals/progressives. For Christ's, I grew up poor and likely make
> less money than you do but I'm still an elitist!?!
> 
> What was actually said by Keely was that "Fox' analysis and
> perspective" is "much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than
> that of even the most strident MSNBC pundits." NOT the folks who watch
> Fox but their ANALYSIS. This might be why their viewers are less
> informed, as was noted in a post on the V last week. It is not that
> the viewers are stupid but that Fox distorts information, just like
> you have done in this post as well as in the previous posts noted
> below.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM, the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
> > I guess my hide is simply to thick to be effectively insulted. I did not
> > take Ms. Mix's final sentence personally and it did not change the generally
> > favorable opinion that I have of her. Also, I did not see the mud which I, a
> > man, drug her through, in public. (oddly unprogressive language for someone
> > so politiclly correct?) We disagreed and she held up her end of the
> > discussion as well as anyone, man or woman. Far better in fact then some
> > others on this forum who shall remain nameless.
> >
> > For the record, I still believe that it's a bit elitist to automaticlly
> > declare organizations,
> > individuals, or party's stupid when you disagree with some of their
> > positions or goals.
> >
> > g
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell"
> > <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> > To: "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
> > Cc: "Dan Carscallen" <areaman at moscow.com>; "Moscow Vision 2020"
> > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of Postings
> >
> >
> > It is not too surprising that your selective memory erased this
> > episode. Here is the best link to the whole dialogue:
> >
> > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-November/072704.html
> >
> > Here is a long summary but feel free to read it again for yourself. We
> > end with Roger criticizing Keely: "You are better than most on the V,
> > but occasionally we all lapse into being personally derogatory when we
> > should try to keep it, just to the issues."
> >
> > Here is the last sentence, from Keely to you (Crabtree), which is
> > criticized by Roger: "It's no cause for shame to not be as bright as
> > someone else, but bad character and conduct, neither the provenance of
> > right or left, is always shameful."
> >
> > The paragraph directly before that was where Keely wrote: "While I'm a
> > liberal, I'm hardly an elitist; I think being a homemaker with a BA in
> > journalism earned 30 years ago doesn't make me any more 'elite' than
> > anyone else I encounter, and in this town a whole lot less so.  But
> > because I favor liberal points of view in politics and society --
> > generally, not always -- doesn't mean that I think liberals are
> > smarter than conservatives.  What I said is that I see network
> > conservatives faltering on the 'reasonable, fact-based argument'
> > component, and engaging in shameful fear-mongering, more than I see
> > liberals do the same.  I stand by that."
> >
> > So her heat was in response to your insulting remarks, specifically
> > these written from you (Crabtree) to Keely:
> >
> > "I understand perfectly well that the thoughts you expressed were YOUR
> > OPINION. They were remarkably similar to the opinions Rose expressed
> > last week. And those regularly expressed by Hanson, Deco, Clevenger,
> > Smith, Cambell [sic], etc. along with many others who have nothing to
> > do with this forum. I get it. FNC is evil. People who watch it are
> > 'less intelligent' then those who look to more progressive news
> > outlets for information."
> >
> > "Please allow me to highlight MY OPINION. It is that when the
> > progressive fall back position in any conversation is a variation on
> > 'Conservatives, whether it be those on FOX or those who watch it, are
> > stupid' very little that is productive will come of it."
> >
> > "The unmistakable essence of the progressive mind set and perhaps one
> > of the the biggest barriers to productive conversation. The elitist
> > (why does that ring a bell?) notion that they just must be right
> > because they imagine that those with whom they disagree are ever so
> > much less intelligent and unreasonable then themselves."
> >
> > But did Keely actually call Fox viewers "stupid"? Did she say that
> > they were "less intelligent," as you suggest? No she didn't. These
> > insults were things you made up. Here is what Keely actually said:
> > "Further,  I find Fox' analysis and perspective to be much less
> > intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than that of even the most
> > strident MSNBC pundits.  I prefer MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to Keith
> > Olbermann, and Olbermann to virtually anyone ever featured on Fox, but
> > not even I would suggest that MSNBC is without bias.  I just think
> > it's much less without fear-mongering and jingoist bigotry than Fox,
> > and that's important to me."
> >
> > In short, Keely said Fox News ANALYSIS was less intelligent than that
> > of MSNBC (which she admitted was biased). You said she called the
> > viewers unintelligent and stupid, which she clearly did not, and
> > called her and progressives in general (including many by name)
> > "elitists." Keely then writes a quite general, vague comment about bad
> > character being worse than being unintelligent. Roger jumps all over
> > that, skipping any criticism of you whatsoever.
> >
> > Does that help? Would you like some other examples?
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:26 AM, the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> "Keely and Crabtree got into a tussle
> >> recently and he dragged her all through the mud. A woman. In public.
> >> Then she lost it and made some insulting comment (which struck me as
> >> not too bad, by the way) and someone jumped all over her."
> >>
> >> Looking back through my sent items file, I see no mud dragging and most
> >> assuredly see no insult that Ms. Mix might have sent my way. We disagree
> >> on
> >> many, maybe most, topics but I hold her in high regard. Any remarks I
> >> make during one of our discussions are not intended as insult and I surely
> >> take none of hers personally either. Trying to turn spirited disagreement
> >> into some form of animosity is one of the "turn offs" that you mentioned.
> >>
> >> g
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> >> To: "Dan Carscallen" <areaman at moscow.com>
> >> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of Postings
> >> I'll say it again: If you were having a conversation and someone
> >> interrupted with another, completely different conversation, you would
> >> take that as being rude. Am I wrong? And I took the trouble to qualify
> >> the comment, on several occasions, with words like "seems" and to
> >> stress, more than once, that I was just looking for an explanation.
> >> Not sure how I could have been clearer. An explanation was given and
> >> I'm fine with it. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
> >>
> >> I just wonder why it is that a whole bunch of conservative folks can
> >> get away with a whole bunch of actual rude behavior without anyone
> >> saying anything but folks jump on me on a regular basis. Now I'm not
> >> at all suggesting that I don't deserve it. Sometimes I do. But if you
> >> look carefully at my last few posts there hasn't really been a lot of
> >> rude things that I've said. Just asked some (admittedly loaded)
> >> questions, that's all. Not violent rhetoric, by any means.
> >>
> >> I find it interesting that conservatives can get away with a whole lot
> >> of crap that liberals cannot. Keely and Crabtree got into a tussle
> >> recently and he dragged her all through the mud. A woman. In public.
> >> Then she lost it and made some insulting comment (which struck me as
> >> not too bad, by the way) and someone jumped all over her. I can only
> >> imagine what kind of whip would come down were WSU or UI to post on
> >> the front page of their website the progressive version of the NSA
> >> advertisement. There are other examples.
> >>
> >> Part of my participation on the V all these years has been a kind of
> >> experiment, to try to act like Crabtree, Wilson, etc. and dish it out.
> >> Be direct, maybe insulting but don't back down. But the fact is, they
> >> get away with it. Not from Tom, etc. but from you and other more
> >> moderates in town, as well as many of the liberals/progressives. Their
> >> dish-it-out rhetoric works, it is attractive to other conservatives
> >> and moderates. But when liberals like myself use that same rhetorical
> >> style it is (in general) a turnoff. I find that interesting. Part of
> >> my participation is an attempt to understand this; part of it is
> >> because I'm a bit of jackass, no doubt.
> >>
> >> And I'm not making any other point than that. It is interesting that
> >> certain rhetorical styles work for certain political groups and not
> >> others. I didn't mean to suggest there was something to it, some
> >> comment toward you. You are a perfectly reasonable, moderate youngish
> >> man. The fact is lots of reasonable moderates are turned off by
> >> aggressive progressives. I just find that interesting, that's all.
> >> Because in the end, it is ALL just words. Nothing more.
> >>
> >> Best, Joe
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't recall the NSA posting anything here on the vizzz, and perhaps me
> >>> calling you rude was a little harsh. I will commend your pitbull-like
> >>> tenacity, though.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps I haven't criticized any alleged conservatives on the vizzz, but
> >>> I
> >>> think everyone else does a good enough job on the three of them.
> >>>
> >>> And for some reason you like to throw that label on me. I think some of
> >>> my
> >>> "conservative" acquaintances might disagree, although compared to most on
> >>> the vizzz I probably seem to fall somewhere to the right of the Archduke
> >>> Ferdinand.
> >>>
> >>> Anyhow, I guess I just felt you were looking for something that wasn't
> >>> there in Jeff's posts, I think I know me well enough to think I'd do the
> >>> same for you if I thought someone was doing the same with you.
> >>>
> >>> And that last sentence is terrible, bit it gets my point across.
> >>> Hopefully
> >>> Mrs Hovey doesn't ding me too hard.
> >>>
> >>> Your pal
> >>>
> >>> DC
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 19:42, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I said it seemed rude. I didn't say it was rude. I'm just asking for
> >>>> an explanation.
> >>>>
> >>>> I find it interesting that you think I'm rude for asking questions but
> >>>> that NSA post is not rude for its violent rhetoric, insulting a bunch
> >>>> of folks who actually voted for you, including myself. In fact, though
> >>>> you have no problem criticizing me in public, I've never seen you say
> >>>> a single untoward thing toward any conservative. Doesn't matter what
> >>>> they do. That is pretty interesting, isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems that if Jeff wanted to start a new post about values,
> >>>> something I very much approve of, by the way, he could have done it in
> >>>> some other way. I'm just trying to find out why he did it this way.
> >>>> That is a reasonable question by any standard, especially standards on
> >>>> the V which seem to think that the defense of slavery is a reasonable
> >>>> position.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joe,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you're reading way too much into it. I'm pretty sure the vizzz
> >>>>> is capable of more than one conversation at a time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is, after all, the Christmas season (or whatever you choose to
> >>>>> celebrate this time of year) and that's usually when folks will throw
> >>>>> out
> >>>>> some sort of inspirational stuff.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Besides, you didn't get all over Tom for his "caturday" post, or
> >>>>> admonish Deb and Wayne for their jabs at ITD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't want to cast aspersions, but your accusation that Jeff was
> >>>>> being
> >>>>> rude is, well, rude.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your pal
> >>>>>
> >>>>> DC
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 19:08, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> OK but could you just explain to me why you posted this in the middle
> >>>>>> of a discussion on freedom of expression? After all, the title of your
> >>>>>> initial post was "Values to Live By Freedom of expression" which is
> >>>>>> odd to say the least, if not rude. Either you just cut off a
> >>>>>> conversation or your post had something to do with Freedom of
> >>>>>> expression or something else, I know not what. I'm just trying to find
> >>>>>> out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What was it about the discussion that led to this abrupt change of
> >>>>>> topic? What was it about sportsmanship, or values in general, that led
> >>>>>> to the post? On the face of it, it is a little like interrupting
> >>>>>> someone in the middle of a conversation with a quite different topic.
> >>>>>> Seems to me it would be considered rude by most standards.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now maybe you have an explanation but to pretend that it does not seem
> >>>>>> odd or rude is just bizarre and not indicative of any of the values
> >>>>>> that you have posted about so far. I think an explanation is in order,
> >>>>>> maybe an apology. You make it seem as if I'm being untoward when all
> >>>>>> I'm doing is asking for an explanation of your odd and/or rude
> >>>>>> behavior.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Verbatim - here is the posting I made for the first installment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My curiosity about the recent plethora of media spots, billboards and
> >>>>>>> ads by
> >>>>>>> the Foundation for a Better Life led me to their website at
> >>>>>>> www.values.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Their premise is that the values we live by are worth more when we
> >>>>>>> "Pass
> >>>>>>> Them On".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Their view is that .. "everyone views the world through a unique
> >>>>>>> lens"
> >>>>>>> and a
> >>>>>>> Foundation objective "... is to provide a wide spectrum of values
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>> universal, encouraging and inspiring."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They state that "(B)ecause values are worth more when we pass them
> >>>>>>> on,
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>> Foundation for a Better Life chose these values to share with you...
> >>>>>>> Pass It
> >>>>>>> On"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, for the next several weeks, I will post one of their values and
> >>>>>>> leave it
> >>>>>>> to you to ponder, post and/or pass it on.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I do encourage you all to visit their website - most inspiring.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> End of first post - additional thoughts below. Visit the website
> >>>>>>> www.values.com. Peruse ... and you will find:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Values. No matter where we live, we live by values. Because they are
> >>>>>>> worth
> >>>>>>> more when we pass them on, The Foundation For a Better Life chose
> >>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>> values to share. Explore each value or suggest your own.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Foundation for a Better Life began as a simple idea to promote
> >>>>>>> positive
> >>>>>>> values. We believe that people are basically good and just need a
> >>>>>>> reminder.
> >>>>>>> And that the values we live by are worth more when we pass them on.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Throughout this site, you can pass things on to your friends, family
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>> co-workers—anyone who might enjoy our site.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We want the stories we share about the positive actions and values of
> >>>>>>> others
> >>>>>>> to serve as inspiration for someone to do one thing a little better,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> then pass on that inspiration. A few individuals living values-based
> >>>>>>> lives
> >>>>>>> will collectively make the world a better place.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Therein lies my motivation - self examination (one value at a time)
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> sharing. Ah, the time you ask? Well, retirement affords one the time
> >>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>> many things to which I am grateful.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Happy Holiday Season
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>
> >>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>> =======================================================
> >>>
> >>
> >> =======================================================
> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> =======================================================
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3330 - Release Date: 12/21/10
> >> 11:34:00
> >>
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3330 - Release Date: 12/21/10
> > 11:34:00
> >
> >
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>