Thanks for your quick replies. I'll do my best to reply to all here.

Wow, your responses were not exactly what I was expecting. I guess I'm finding out why I don't often comment on the forum. Either I don't fully understand posting etiquette or know what to expect in response. I tried to be accurate with some facts and expressed my opinion on the topic at hand.

Agree, misinformation was the wrong word, perhaps lack of accurate information is more in line.  I'm always frustrated when reading posts and inaccurate info is being shared. My comment was directed at that situation. If I'm guilty of the same, then I stand corrected.

The reference to one-sided opinion(s) was directed at posts (not just this thread) regarding this issue. My observation was the posts re: electronic signs were all negative toward the topic. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to express this concern and share with other members a different perspective.

Appreciate the refresher on your prior commentary and message thread on this topic. I did take note of the setback requirements in the amendment and believed, based on what the County had reviewed and approved that the north and south gate signs did meet the 450 ft rule. As you rightly pointed out, the road right-of-way rule likely prevents replacement signs at any of the other locations, perhaps a sign at the Comm. Center would be in compliance. Are you privy to what the true width of the right-of-way is on the Parkway? I tried to look up that data, but there seems to be no standard measure.

As you say, if the road right-of-way restriction is an issue and OPA decides to try and move forward with any type of new signs, an amendment to the amendment will need to be submitted. I assume that could be accomplished given the political will to do so. I hope that the restriction is not used as a excuse to do nothing.

I thought all of my comments were directed at the subject of the thread, 'Electric Signs Obsession', and that it was not a thread just about the survey. If anyone is asking, I didn't see a problem with the survey, imo the questions are fair and straight forward. And Q3, just to split hairs, asks about replacing 'the current signs with digital signs', it doesn't ask about replacing 'all signs with digital signs'. So maybe there is some ambiguity there.

Finally, I'm not sure why you feel I accused you personally of providing misinformation. Should I have not directed my message to you? Should have addressed to All:? I only addressed it to you as the forum admin, nothing more. I regret that you feel aggrieved.

Not sure I deserved your not so gentle replies. I really wasn't sure what to expect, but I guess I've learned a lesson. I think I will think twice about posting my opinions next time. Thank you and good evening.