Cristina, what is wrong with you? Did Fox News train you too well? You sweep with a broad brush, tarring everything in range. The more you explain yourself the clearer it becomes that you have sadly limited abilities. Your partner is right—your work does speak for itself. What it says is not something you should be proud of at all.
One very emotional and possibly not too stable person ( We don’t know him so can only guess) posts emotional and sometimes ill informed messages and here and there others express emotions and the whole mass of people ( and there are thousands) who are arguing against the Richardson Grove project are just basing their whole opposition on emotions according to you.
The reality is (the reality you failed to find out about) that many of us have been putting untold hours into doing the research that CalTrans did not do. The mass of information pertinent to the proposed project that we have accrued is huge. And it all points to one thing: this project should not be done, it will be harmful to the county.
We are not going to spell out for you why it should not be done, you missed your chance for that. You shot your wad and now all of your emotional blogs, begging for understanding, are for naught. You want us all to believe that you’re a liberal thinking person but what your writing makes obvious is that who you think that you are is a long way from who you really are. You pick out some posts by “Mystified” but happen not to mention the post by Dave Spreen. That post revealed the kind of research many of us have been doing. Dave Spreen also had a letter in the NCJ, one that showed some of the facts that you just didn’t get, like the fact that Gallos’ report was a bad joke. You referred to it as though it really said something worth saying. There was nothing wrong with the letter by “man who walks in the woods”. What he said about redwood hydrology is correct and pertinent as well as what he said about effects on the county.
We have to wonder if your rather pitiful defensiveness reveals that somewhere in you is the knowledge that you did a lousy job on those articles. Your writing skills are limited. You seem to have a hard time stitching things together, there is no flow. The whole first page of part 1 had no business being there and you failed to justify the fact that it was. However your limited writing skills were overshadowed by your skewed content and sketchy knowledge of your subject.
And then, of course, it was all underlined by Hanks’ stupid rant. Wanna talk about emotional, we could picture his lardiness bouncing off the walls of his office, frothing at the mouth, when he wrote that. Wooweee. Down boy, down.
0 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by
Friends of EPIC and RG
on 04/19/2010 at 9:23 AM
Extra Extra!
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Re: “Roads and Redwoods”
Cristina, what is wrong with you? Did Fox News train you too well? You sweep with a broad brush, tarring everything in range. The more you explain yourself the clearer it becomes that you have sadly limited abilities. Your partner is right—your work does speak for itself. What it says is not something you should be proud of at all. One very emotional and possibly not too stable person ( We don’t know him so can only guess) posts emotional and sometimes ill informed messages and here and there others express emotions and the whole mass of people ( and there are thousands) who are arguing against the Richardson Grove project are just basing their whole opposition on emotions according to you. The reality is (the reality you failed to find out about) that many of us have been putting untold hours into doing the research that CalTrans did not do. The mass of information pertinent to the proposed project that we have accrued is huge. And it all points to one thing: this project should not be done, it will be harmful to the county. We are not going to spell out for you why it should not be done, you missed your chance for that. You shot your wad and now all of your emotional blogs, begging for understanding, are for naught. You want us all to believe that you’re a liberal thinking person but what your writing makes obvious is that who you think that you are is a long way from who you really are. You pick out some posts by “Mystified” but happen not to mention the post by Dave Spreen. That post revealed the kind of research many of us have been doing. Dave Spreen also had a letter in the NCJ, one that showed some of the facts that you just didn’t get, like the fact that Gallos’ report was a bad joke. You referred to it as though it really said something worth saying. There was nothing wrong with the letter by “man who walks in the woods”. What he said about redwood hydrology is correct and pertinent as well as what he said about effects on the county. We have to wonder if your rather pitiful defensiveness reveals that somewhere in you is the knowledge that you did a lousy job on those articles. Your writing skills are limited. You seem to have a hard time stitching things together, there is no flow. The whole first page of part 1 had no business being there and you failed to justify the fact that it was. However your limited writing skills were overshadowed by your skewed content and sketchy knowledge of your subject. And then, of course, it was all underlined by Hanks’ stupid rant. Wanna talk about emotional, we could picture his lardiness bouncing off the walls of his office, frothing at the mouth, when he wrote that. Wooweee. Down boy, down.