Get a life Mr. "noreply-comment@blogger.com"
I don't live in or near Evergreen Ave. or on or near the valley floor and nor do I eed to drive on Evergreen Ave.
No no positions or arguments have been posed supporting or defending any study. I have said that Marin Halliburton School has no traffic study to substantiate its claim that Evergreen Ave is unsafe. In lieu of running your mouth and fingers get and read MHS application for SR2S funding. Its replete with fraudulent statements in ac sufficient amount to support litigation.
Facts Mr. "noreply-comment@blogger.com" not baseless rants will prevail in court.
Your baseless diatribes appear to be nothing more than the uniformed rants of an extreme left/right social progressive or gestapho ideolog who emulates their use of unsavory means to and end by not citing facts but by hurling empty accusations. Shades of Hitler, Himmler and Stalin.
Indeed the "worthless" traffic study you malign, without even having seen it, confirmed Rosalind Hammar's SR2S application statement justifying funding for a sidewalk stated that "a daily average of 20 MHS students walk to school in the morning"
The "worthless" traffic study also counted a daily average of 4 MHS students walking from MHS in the afternoon. 4 more daily than counted by Ms. Hammar.
So tell the folks how this "worthless" traffic study" is "totally biased"
So tell the folks how this "worthless" traffic study" is "totally biased"
Confucius once said engage brain before running mouth :)
While I don't advertise my credentials it just so happens that I'm an internationally recognized and award winning architect and urban designer who has designed and built new cities, communities, universities and airports on 5 continents.
My "dog" in this issue is to use my talents to preserve and protect the semi-rural quality and character of Homestead Valley and its neighborhood.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles in charge <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
To: charlessands <charlessands@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 10:18 am
Subject: [SANDS Box] New comment on Re: [SANDS Box] New comment on Fwd: [SANDS Box] Ne....
From: Charles in charge <noreply-comment@blogger.com>
To: charlessands <charlessands@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 10:18 am
Subject: [SANDS Box] New comment on Re: [SANDS Box] New comment on Fwd: [SANDS Box] Ne....
Charles in charge has left a new comment on your post "Re: [SANDS Box] New comment on Fwd: [SANDS Box] Ne...":
Who cares, Chuck?
The debate is about your claim of an 'independent study' that supports your position. Substantiation provided by a "study" conducted by an "anonymous firm" is not substantiation. It's highly suspect and I'm willing to bet it was not conducted by an impartial, professional firm but rather a cranky old neighbor or two with a dog in the fight meaning it's totally biased and completely unreliable.
You continue to try and distract from this key point. But it's not working. Your entire argument is rendered worthless by the fact that you have based parts of it on highly suspect "facts."
Keep trying.
p.s. my identity is irrelevant given my facts are laid bare here. But if you're that curious...I'm not Mari.
Posted by Charles in charge to SANDS Box at November 26, 2011 3:18 PM
Who cares, Chuck?
The debate is about your claim of an 'independent study' that supports your position. Substantiation provided by a "study" conducted by an "anonymous firm" is not substantiation. It's highly suspect and I'm willing to bet it was not conducted by an impartial, professional firm but rather a cranky old neighbor or two with a dog in the fight meaning it's totally biased and completely unreliable.
You continue to try and distract from this key point. But it's not working. Your entire argument is rendered worthless by the fact that you have based parts of it on highly suspect "facts."
Keep trying.
p.s. my identity is irrelevant given my facts are laid bare here. But if you're that curious...I'm not Mari.
Posted by Charles in charge to SANDS Box at November 26, 2011 3:18 PM
3 comments:
Yet again you try and distract? Really, have you no shame Chuck?
You wrote: "An Oct. 2010 independent traffic study showed..." You discussed this phantom study, you even tried to show it had professional characteristics by showing discussing its methodology. But for some reason this professional firm, who did the study "pro bono" wishes to remain anonymous? Do you really think you're smarter than everyone else such that no one would notice this nonsense? Sorry, you're not.
You still refuse to show who made this "independent traffic study." I believe it's because it wasn't a real, professional, study and you are making it out as if it is.
To be clear, I believe you are lying. And when you lie, nothing else you say should be considered worthwhile.
Don't worry, You're not losing anything by being called out on a lie. Your non-stop rantings, punctuated by hyperbole and opinions stated as facts in support of outlandish conspiracy theories has long ago rendered your opinions worthless.
In all seriousness, if you're truly supportive of the effort to stop the sidewalk, your best course of action would be to keep quiet. (Keep emailing Mari, though, she loves hearing from you.)
p.s. We all know you think you were an internationally renowned expert. Problem is your time has passed, now you're just a legend in your own mind.
Sorry about the anonymous commenter, Mr. Sands. We've changed the settings. Mr. Anonymous commenter - if you want to stay anonymous, please move it to the BS Bin.
btw - don't insult me by insinuating that anyone would mistake your writings for mine.
Post a Comment