In a message dated 4/18/2007 6:43:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm going to have to jump in and disagree with you.
[snip]
If you take the two statements you cite literally ("in 2004 ucd and the inky
and cpn's website were saying how linford's firehouse was such a success..."
and "...and then a year later, july 2005, linford martin asked the
firehouse vendors to vacate by november 2005") there is a logical
inconsistency:
[snip]
The statement that the Firehouse was sucessful came from UCD, which had a
vested interest in promoting the Firehouse as a successful venture, and
themselves as cutting-edge business brokers.
IMHO, you're supporting Ray's point rather than disagreeing with him. Ray
didn't claim (as this implies and as Paul did in another post) that the
businesses were successes. He only pointed out all the braggadocio that was
going on
about their success, then the reversal when suddenly the anointed were
supporting the brewpub. And, you're supporting the message between the lines
that
UCD is manipulating the situation for it's own vested interest (that being
obeisance to the will of its primary source of money and the job security of
people who are obviously overpaid).
What's especially interesting in this is that the Inquirer's falling for the
press release spin is understandable -- given the editorial quality of our
local rag. But one wonders why Cedar Park Neighbors had this pap on its
website. Are they just sucking up to UCD because they're so easily bought? Or
are
they just as naive as this makes them appear?
Al Krigman
Register your opposition to the NID via the Internet to Councilwoman
Blackwell --
With some background: _www.iconworldwide.com/speakup_
(http://www.iconworldwide.com/speakup)
Go directly to the form:
_http://www.iconworldwide.com/speakup/nonid-01.html_
(http://www.iconworldwide.com/speakup/nonid-01.html)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
