Post by standish on Jan 19, 2007 16:46:20 GMT -5
I would disabuse you of the ideas that
Rather, you abuse me with your own ideas. You put your words in my mouth, set up a paper tiger and proceed to knock down your own fallacious arguments. How you derive the points below from my explicit, previous position is beyond me:
* (1) our neighborhoods should control the larger town-wide society in deciding what is best for the Town, that
Neighborhoods should have the greatest say in what happens within... not without. I did not say more, nor otherwise. Straw dog #1.
* (2) people select a town for its characteristics before they seek a neighborhood thereof or therein, that
How does this statement even relate to your own arguments?. I certainly did not say this. Straw dog #2.
* (3) Wethersfield is comprised of sufficiently disparate enclaves that a global policy of sidewalks is inappropriate, that
Would you suggest that the Elm Street extension should be developed the same way as the Silas Deane Highway? As zoning indicates, neighborhoods are different. Straw dog #3.
* (4) the Town installing sidewalks in its own right of way amounts to "ururpation," that
Usurpation, not "ururpation". A right-of-way becomes active after the taking. Initially, the very establishment of such "rights" were takings of private property. Straw dog #4.
* (5) any Wethersfield resident should have to accept unnecessary risk in using the Town's right of way, be it on the road, the snow-shelf or the sidewalk in the pursuit of health or happiness, and that
Neighborhoods should have the greatest say in what happens within... not without. If residents in a given neighborhood choose risk over developed infrastructure, more power to them. If you choose to jog down the Elm Street extension, beware of the woodchuck holes. Straw dog #5.
* (6) my comments "bordered on being a diatribe."
Apparently, you're very passionate about this issue. However, I think you meant to accuse me of anarchism rather than "anachronism". Straw dog #6.
Straw dog #7 is all of the other assumptions about my positions you ascribe to me, that flow from your own words, and, which have no foundation or basis in any of my comments. It seems that you, not I, should be the one to lighten up.
Rather, you abuse me with your own ideas. You put your words in my mouth, set up a paper tiger and proceed to knock down your own fallacious arguments. How you derive the points below from my explicit, previous position is beyond me:
* (1) our neighborhoods should control the larger town-wide society in deciding what is best for the Town, that
Neighborhoods should have the greatest say in what happens within... not without. I did not say more, nor otherwise. Straw dog #1.
* (2) people select a town for its characteristics before they seek a neighborhood thereof or therein, that
How does this statement even relate to your own arguments?. I certainly did not say this. Straw dog #2.
* (3) Wethersfield is comprised of sufficiently disparate enclaves that a global policy of sidewalks is inappropriate, that
Would you suggest that the Elm Street extension should be developed the same way as the Silas Deane Highway? As zoning indicates, neighborhoods are different. Straw dog #3.
* (4) the Town installing sidewalks in its own right of way amounts to "ururpation," that
Usurpation, not "ururpation". A right-of-way becomes active after the taking. Initially, the very establishment of such "rights" were takings of private property. Straw dog #4.
* (5) any Wethersfield resident should have to accept unnecessary risk in using the Town's right of way, be it on the road, the snow-shelf or the sidewalk in the pursuit of health or happiness, and that
Neighborhoods should have the greatest say in what happens within... not without. If residents in a given neighborhood choose risk over developed infrastructure, more power to them. If you choose to jog down the Elm Street extension, beware of the woodchuck holes. Straw dog #5.
* (6) my comments "bordered on being a diatribe."
Apparently, you're very passionate about this issue. However, I think you meant to accuse me of anarchism rather than "anachronism". Straw dog #6.
Straw dog #7 is all of the other assumptions about my positions you ascribe to me, that flow from your own words, and, which have no foundation or basis in any of my comments. It seems that you, not I, should be the one to lighten up.
