[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Thu Mar 7 13:37:28 PST 2013
Is this a rhetorical "think" or do you really think this? Either way, I
don't think so. I don't think that once we allow that some might go to
lifeboats, we are allowing that all might go. Those are rather cool, blunt
strokes. I live in a world of subtleties.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>wrote:
> And I think that we should go the other direction. Take government out of
> the equation entirely and let Kattie bar the door.
>
> Of course I suspect that my version of entirely and that of others would
> end up being a contentious issue.
>
> g
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> You keep bringing up the fact that SOME polygamists are interested in a
>> relationship between consenting adults. But there is the apparent fact that
>> some (namely, all of the ones of which I am familiar) are not. I could read
>> the links about more positive understandings of polygamous relationships
>> but that doesn't hide the fact that maybe polygamous relationships are too
>> complex for the state to be bothered with.
>>
>> I want to point out right away that I'm not talking about any moral
>> issues here. I'm not against polygamy; I don't think it is inherently
>> immoral. Honestly, I really don't care one way or the other what anyone
>> does (as long as the consent issue is taken off the table and it doesn't
>> impinge on the rights of others). But marriage is a complex issue and,
>> politically, we should take such steps one at a time. Let's try gay/lesbian
>> marriage for awhile and further examine whether you're right that the jump
>> to polygamous marriage is just as valid. I'm not convinced.
>>
>> My argument (again): A reason to have sex with your (single) partner is
>> not the same as a reason to have an orgy or even a reason to engage in
>> menage a trois. The latter cases are more complex than the former, and thus
>> require more reasons. Thus, I fail to see how reasons for gay marriage are
>> automatically reasons for polygamous marriage.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The issue is free choice by consenting adults who presumably can decide
>>> and control their own destinies as well as those who choose man/woman
>>> monogamy. Admittedly, some do not this very well, but if two can make
>>> mistakes, why deny it to three,..?
>>>
>>> w
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Donovan Arnold <
>>> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think it is feasible the way you are suggesting, Paul. Think
>>>> about all the legal, medical, financial, and custody issues and
>>>> complexities that would be involved with that situation. Lets not forget
>>>> the level of abuse a spouse might endure as well if they want to break off,
>>>> or the group wants to break them off. These issues are extreme with just
>>>> two people, image how it would be in a multifaceted relationship?
>>>>
>>>> Donovan J. Arnold
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>> *To:* "Gier, Nicholas" <ngier at uidaho.edu>; Art Deco <
>>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
>>>> vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:18 PM
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>>
>>>> This is the problem when trying to discuss polygamy on this list.
>>>> People assume you are talking about men "taking wives", and not n number of
>>>> spouses (of any combination of genders) each agreeing to marry into the
>>>> group, whatever their reasons. The average American may not be able to
>>>> "support multiple wives", but a group of three or more average Americans
>>>> combining their finances as part of a marriage of equals might be better
>>>> off them all of them tackling it on their own.
>>>>
>>>> If you take the history of polygamy out of the discussion, which pretty
>>>> much means removing much of the religious baggage associated with it, it
>>>> doesn't seem any stranger to me to have three people involved in a marriage
>>>> as opposed to two.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, I'm just coming at it from the side of "these n people want to
>>>> marry, why should I try to stop them?"
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* "Gier, Nicholas" <ngier at uidaho.edu>
>>>> *To:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2013 9:28 AM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>>
>>>> Good Morning Visionaries:
>>>>
>>>> The late king of Bhutan, Harvard educated and wildly loved by his
>>>> people, was married to four sisters. He of course did not recommend that
>>>> arrangement for his people. A monarchy can afford to support multiple
>>>> wives, but a happy peasant making only on average $1,500 per year cannot.
>>>> And neither can an average American.
>>>>
>>>> The new king of Bhutan has only one wife. The young king of Morocco
>>>> has also pledged that he will take only one. There may a trend developing
>>>> here, even in countries that have tolerated polygamy.
>>>>
>>>> Now back to my chapter entitled "Buddhist Violence in Bhutan: From
>>>> Incarnated Lamas (one very violent) to Hereditary Kings (all peaceful)."
>>>> Even the current Dalai Lama believes that Tibet would have been better
>>>> to switch to a monarchy in the 17th Century.
>>>>
>>>> The intrigues surrounding the choosing of young boys for rule (there
>>>> were many battles over contending candidates) and making secret the deaths
>>>> of high lamas (56 years in the case of Bhutan!)made for political chaos and
>>>> violence, some of it committed by armed monks or the Tibetan equivalent of
>>>> Voodoo. Bhutan's Red Hat Shabdrung is credited with defeating (at
>>>> least 9 times) the Yellow Hat armies of Tibet by the use of Tantricmagic. The monks would spend days making paper effigies of Tibetan horses
>>>> and soldiers, and sure enough thousands of them died of disease and storms.
>>>>
>>>> Yours for loving couples only,
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees whose shade
>>>> they know they shall never sit in.
>>>>
>>>> -Greek proverb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Art Deco
>>>> Sent: Tue 3/5/2013 3:58 AM
>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>>
>>>> @Donovan,
>>>>
>>>> What you say is true for some polygamy practices such as the
>>>> fundamentalist
>>>> Mormon sects (some in Boundary County, Idaho and just across the border
>>>> in
>>>> Lister and Creston, B.C). The women are *not consenting adults* often
>>>> married off in their early or mid teens.
>>>>
>>>> However, not all polygamous or polyandrous relationships are like that
>>>> as a
>>>> little Googling will show you.
>>>>
>>>> Most arguments advocating polygamy/polyandry advocate it only for
>>>> consenting adults. Those arguments are based on freedom of choice to
>>>> determine one's lifestyle and on the benefits of polygamy/polyandry
>>>> (which
>>>> like monogamous marriage between a man and a woman are not always
>>>> realized
>>>> or fully realized).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The probable success of any polygamous/polyandrous marriage depends on a
>>>> lot of factors some of them cultural.
>>>>
>>>> Please Google the subject to examine your assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> w.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Donovan Arnold <
>>>> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The fundamental problem with the slippery slope polygamy argument is
>>>> > polygamy moves socially in the opposite direction of same sex
>>>> marriage.
>>>> > Gay marriage is about expanding the rights of men and women to make a
>>>> > choice for themselves. Polygamy is about oppression of women as
>>>> > property of men. To allow gay marriage and polygamy at the same time
>>>> > would be impossible from a legal and bureaucratic perspective of
>>>> groups
>>>> > of people all married to each other in endless combinations with
>>>> children.
>>>> > Tax breaks, child and property custody, medical and insurance
>>>> benefits,
>>>> > and US census would be fraught with contradictions, endless
>>>> definitions,
>>>> > legal battles, and errors. Polygamy was only used to avoid
>>>> adulteryand/or to provide widows with a man's care and protection when
>>>> they were
>>>> > scarce because of war and their acts of stupidity.
>>>> >
>>>> > *From:* Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
>>>> > *To:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>>>> > *Cc:* "<vision2020 at moscow.com>" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> > *Sent:* Monday, March 4, 2013 8:58 AM
>>>> >
>>>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>> >
>>>> > Really? Judging by the subject header, the punctuation, the caps and
>>>> the
>>>> > lead off post, the discussion is that no argument in favor of
>>>> homosexual
>>>> > marriage would not work just as well for a polygamous marriage and the
>>>> > outrage wrought by such a simple statement of fact. Perhaps you should
>>>> > review the posts leading up to this one. (most especially your own)
>>>> >
>>>> > By the way, thanks for the reading recommendation. You can't go wrong
>>>> with
>>>> > the classics.
>>>> >
>>>> > g
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Mr. Crabtree -
>>>> >
>>>> > I am not attempting to discredit polygamy (although I do not support
>>>> it).
>>>> > That is NOT what this discussion is about. I am simply (and for the
>>>> > umpteenth and final time) expressing my opinion that same-sex
>>>> marriages
>>>> > should be acknowledged as legitimate and constitutionally sound as
>>>> > guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
>>>> >
>>>> > Don't wait for the movie. Read the text . . .
>>>> > http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>>>> >
>>>> > Another thing . . .
>>>> >
>>>> > I am not assuming any moral authority.
>>>> >
>>>> > I am simply expressing my opinion.
>>>> >
>>>> > It seems rather peculiar, yet is becoming quite common, that if I (or
>>>> Joe
>>>> > Campbell or Wayne Fox or . . . ) express our substantiated opinions
>>>> we are
>>>> > accused of wrongfully assuming moral authority.
>>>> >
>>>> > 'Nuff said!!!!
>>>> >
>>>> > Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>> >
>>>> > "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>>> > http://www.moscowcares.com/
>>>> >
>>>> > Tom Hansen
>>>> > Moscow, Idaho
>>>> >
>>>> > "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>>> > But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>>> > If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>> >
>>>> > - John Lennon
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mar 3, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > What you conveniently leave out is the why. If to deny any two an
>>>> > "experience" is lacking in the slightest inkling of human compassion
>>>> why
>>>> > not three or more? If you are asking me to accept your statement
>>>> based on
>>>> > your irrefutable moral authority you are asking far too much.
>>>> >
>>>> > g
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Perhaps you missed it in my post, Mr. Crabtree.
>>>> >
>>>> > So, here it is *AGAIN*.
>>>> >
>>>> > "To deny ANY *TWO* [emphasis added] individuals of such an experience,
>>>> > merely because it runs contra to somebody else's belief system,
>>>> lacks the
>>>> > slightest inkling of human compassion."
>>>> >
>>>> > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2013-March/089517.html
>>>> >
>>>> > Two: More than one and less than three.
>>>> >
>>>> > Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>> >
>>>> > "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>>> > http://www.moscowcares.com/
>>>> >
>>>> > Tom Hansen
>>>> > Moscow, Idaho
>>>> >
>>>> > "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>>> > But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>>> > If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>> >
>>>> > - John Lennon
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mar 3, 2013, at 6:29 AM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not sure what else I can take away. I have heard that the topic
>>>> is
>>>> > "complex" and that you don't wish to "confuse the issue." What I have
>>>> not
>>>> > heard is the slice of logic that would refute the statement that so
>>>> > outraged Mr. Hansen and kicked off this thread. Perhaps I wasn't
>>>> paying
>>>> > proper attention. Please state for me clearly and without obfuscation
>>>> the
>>>> > argument in favor of homosexual marriage the can not be applied
>>>> equally to
>>>> > polygamous unions. An analogy as to why homosexual marriage doesn't
>>>> > necessarily lead to polygamy is not at all the same thing. It seems
>>>> to me
>>>> > that without anyone being able to provide the example that
>>>> differentiates
>>>> > between the two, Wilson's "fallacious claim" stands without refute.
>>>> >
>>>> > g
>>>> >
>>>> > *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>>> > *Sent:* Saturday, March 02, 2013 6:12 PM
>>>> > *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>>> > *Cc:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> ; Paul Rumelhart<
>>>> godshatter at yahoo.com>;
>>>> > vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>> >
>>>> > It pains me that I take my time to carefully spell out why I don't
>>>> think
>>>> > these are the same at all, legally etc., but your takeaway, Gary, is
>>>> that I
>>>> > add support to Wilson's fallacious claim.
>>>> >
>>>> > An analogy similar to one I used before: Saying that legalization of
>>>> gay
>>>> > marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy is like saying that
>>>> sex with
>>>> > your wife will lead to an orgy. I see no reason for thinking the one
>>>> than
>>>> > for thinking the other. After all, if you've got reasons for sex with
>>>> one
>>>> > person WHY NOT sex with many? Just the same reason over again, right?
>>>> But
>>>> > even you can see the line here, Gary, even though these issues are
>>>> vague.
>>>> > And so can members of the Supreme Court when it comes to
>>>> differentiating
>>>> > between gay marriage and polygamy.
>>>> >
>>>> > This says nothing about my views on polygamy, and for a number of
>>>> reasons
>>>> > I don't think it is helpful to talk about polygamy while we're
>>>> working on
>>>> > gay marriage -- for one thing, though bad, slippery-slope arguments
>>>> happen
>>>> > to be persuasive. My point is I COULD hold that gay marriage is OK and
>>>> > polygamy is not and not be guilty of an inconsistency because of it.
>>>> This
>>>> > is a refutation of the Wilson claim.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > **
>>>> > "I argued at length that *all* the arguments employed to advance same
>>>> > sex marriage can be, are being, and will be used to advance polygamy
>>>> also.
>>>> > In short, gay marriage greases the skids for polygamy."
>>>> >
>>>> > If nothing else this thread has certainly proven Doug to be spot on
>>>> in
>>>> > his analysis. Goodness knows that's gotta sting.
>>>> >
>>>> > g
>>>> >
>>>> > *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>>> > *Sent:* Friday, March 01, 2013 6:06 PM
>>>> > *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>>> > *Cc:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> ; Paul Rumelhart<
>>>> godshatter at yahoo.com>;
>>>> > vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not denying anything. Maybe three or more. I just don't want to
>>>> > confuse it with the issue of same-sex marriage. That seems important
>>>> to me,
>>>> > just because I can see the folks that such a law might help. I don't
>>>> happen
>>>> > to meet many polygamists, so I'm not too concerned for now.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why not take one step: include same-sex marriages. If the polygamists
>>>> > complain as much as the gays and lesbians, we might have to revisit
>>>> the
>>>> > issue.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > **
>>>> > Then why deny three or more?
>>>> >
>>>> > g
>>>> >
>>>> > *From:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>>>> > *Sent:* Friday, March 01, 2013 2:07 PM
>>>> > *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>> > *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>> >
>>>> > I absolutely fail to see what the happiness of two adults has
>>>> ANYTHING to
>>>> > do with a polygamous relationship.
>>>> >
>>>> > Let me simply say . . .
>>>> >
>>>> > Later this year, I turn 62, my spouse turns whatever age she
>>>> acquires, and
>>>> > we (my spouse and I) turn 40; forty of the most wonderfully memorable
>>>> and
>>>> > loving years of yesterdays that will only be improved upon with
>>>> tomorrows.
>>>> >
>>>> > To deny ANY two individuals of such an experience, merely because it
>>>> runs
>>>> > contra to somebody else's belief system, lacks the slightest inkling
>>>> of
>>>> > human compassion.
>>>> >
>>>> > Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>> >
>>>> > "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>>> > http://www.moscowcares.com/
>>>> >
>>>> > Tom Hansen
>>>> > Moscow, Idaho
>>>> >
>>>> > "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>>> > But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>>> > If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>> >
>>>> > - John Lennon
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I think the general argument would run something like this: "if
>>>> it's OK
>>>> > for any two consenting adults of either gender to marry, then why
>>>> isn't it
>>>> > OK for any three or more consenting adults of any gender to marry?"
>>>> >
>>>> > If that's what he's thinking, I can kind of see his point. Of
>>>> course, I'm
>>>> > personally fine with gay marriage, and would have no problems with
>>>> polygamy
>>>> > either. I'd be happiest if the government got out of the marriage
>>>> racket
>>>> > to begin with, frankly.
>>>> >
>>>> > Paul
>>>> >
>>>> > *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>>> > *To:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>>>> > *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> > *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2013 11:39 AM
>>>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, if he argued that polygamy and gay marriage are similar, then
>>>> that
>>>> > is just another fallacious argument. It is like arguing that we can
>>>> give
>>>> > every adult the right to vote because that would lead to some folks
>>>> voting
>>>> > more than once. We would be powerless to avoid that!
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Cultmaster Wilson is hopelessly floundering as he is swept out to
>>>> sea on
>>>> > the tide of reality and oncoming change. But that's what happens to
>>>> those
>>>> > that allege total faith in some "inerrant" ancient texts.
>>>> Foolhardiness
>>>> > begets misery for others.
>>>> >
>>>> > It's too bad that the Cultmaster is not a Mormon so that he could
>>>> have a
>>>> > "new" vision from some alleged God correcting his current views.
>>>> >
>>>> > w.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > "I argued at length that *all* the arguments employed to advance
>>>> same
>>>> > sex marriage can be, are being, and will be used to advance polygamy
>>>> also.
>>>> > In short, gay marriage greases the skids for polygamy."
>>>> >
>>>> > - Doug Wilson (March 1, 2013)
>>>> > http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/a-century-of-sinkholes.html
>>>> >
>>>> > Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>> >
>>>> > "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>>> > http://www.moscowcares.com/
>>>> >
>>>> > Tom Hansen
>>>> > Moscow, Idaho
>>>> >
>>>> > "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>>> > But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>>> > If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>> >
>>>> > - John Lennon
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > =======================================================
>>>> > 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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> > =======================================================
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>>> > art.deco.studios at gmail.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 <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 <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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com> <
>>>> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> > =======================================================
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.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
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.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
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130307/6d0bfdb3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list