Why is it that you present your opinion as "fact", while simultaneously blatantly implying that those who have a differing opinion are deliberately lying or trying to mislead? Obviously, laws and codes are subject to differing interpretations; that's why we have courts, and that's what keeps lawyers in business. How can you presume to know what someone else knows or does not know? Or does it matter, so long as you can try to create the reader with the impression that the person is being deceptive? Who's being deceptive then???
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:43:17 -0400Subject: Re: Accurate information [was: Re: [UC] Zoning reform]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED], Liz, perhaps a few more facts would be helpful as we disagree on whether or not a new 11-story building would be fire hazard....But, you knew that, didn't you? ... Your argument that a state of the art new inn will be a safety hazard seems more than a bit inaccurate.- Melani Lamond )
