message board home
Next
1/23/2008 8:56:55 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 527791
|
||||||
|
Finally, when the issue of the traffic light on Route 50 was an issue you posted tons of messages on the subject despite any number of folks saying we could never get the state to change its mind; when the cover pool was under consideration you were outspoken here in your opposition; when you believed ARC was broke you were outspoken here; you were certainly relentless on Dan Stachurski.. Thank you for pointing out that I am not reluctant to attack vigorously those issues of which I firmly believe are right and have a possible chance of winning. I will continue to do and act in efforts that I believe I have a chance in "winning." You, on the other hand, must believe that since you are a member of the media, you no longer can do anyting other than talk. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Was Mathias asked if he would introduce the legislation? A simple Yes or No will suffice. Lot owners deserve an answer to that question. As for your charge of me nitpicking and speculating, I don't see concern over losing a potential $1 million or more per year as nitpicking. I am not speculating on the direct issue. There is no speculation in stating that if OPA doesn't ask for a percentage it is a foregone conclusion OPA will not get a percentage. Can you be specific as to what you believe I am speculating about on this issue? Finally, when the issue of the traffic light on Route 50 was an issue you posted tons of messages on the subject despite any number of folks saying we could never get the state to change its mind; when the cover pool was under consideration you were outspoken here in your opposition; when you believed ARC was broke you were outspoken here; you were certainly relentless on Dan Stachurski.. Suddenly when others are outspoken about decisions you reach, you suggest they post too much. Double standard? |
