Tristan,.... That's quite a cavalier attitude you show towards those who would be impacted by the proposal.... I'd be willing to bet that if you were one of those people, you wouldn't have the same confidence in your position....
As I've already pointed out, I believe that all of the alternatives to this proposal have not been addressed/considered. The science you refer to appears to address/support only the peripheral canal (modified or otherwise). That being the case, how can you so sure that building the proposed canal is "....the right thing to do"
I believe that I've stated up front that I was offering opinions from my perspective. Also, that the info was summarized as there wasn't enough space to cover all of the issues in this forum. I'm not attempting to write a thesis here.
I do not believe that anything I've stated here or on another forum area related to this topic requires your clarification. So, jumping to conclusions about what I or anyone else does or doesn't understand about any subject (e.g. court decisions, etc.) doesn't really support any of your points/position. Let's try to keep this discussion on an objective basis.
Bookmarks