My Answer

If you have been following this blog for the last couple days you would have seen the on going debate between myself and an anonymous commenter who refuses to stand behind their comments with a name.
Since they take the luxury of being anonymous. I will take the luxury of a longer explanantion.

So here is my answer to the pimary question they asked.

To my commenter:  Your question is answered in this post but I am going to make additional comments as well.

First of all right up front. You have actually established no credibility to ask your question, since you are not willing to put your name on your comments, establish who you are, and what makes you credible and experienced enough on the CV wind issue to even be credibly in this debate. You have the luxury of being anonymous, where you can hide and slink away. In the end If I am right…you CAN actually "crawl under a rock" as you said,  and go on as if all in the world is well and you harbor absolutely NO risk, accountability or responsibility for your comments or for your beliefs and statements. No one will ever know who you are. My statements might be aggressive but I don’t hide. Everyone knows who made those statements and who has to be accountable. You on the other hand have given yourself a chicken poop escape route.

So I guess my second question to you is…what are you frightened of. Most like the the junior high peer pressure of your group!!!

So on that level of lack of credibility I shouldn’t even answer your question…but I will.

I’m sure this will not be enough for you, but I will try anyhow. And as I said I will NOT play this ridiculous Yes or No game. If you need it that simple go to the other blogs or get comfortable among a circle of your like minded associates who want to think that way.

To answer your question the way you would like would require me to accept a completely false premise and give it a yes or no that the town will in certainty defeat BP with Art X and wind will be driven out of town. That is an unknown that no one can be certain of, at least anyone with a little intelligence.

Assuming you are a man for this example. It is like the set up of asking you “ have you stopped beating your wife yet” It is a trap based on a false premise that you actually DID beat your wife and that may be completely false. You can’t win answering that question yes or no.

Now for your question. For reader review here is the question you asked me.

 “ Okay, now tell me, when you are proven wrong and wind is driven from this town are you going to apologize to the people you offended with your personal attacks or are you going to just crawl under a rock and pretend all is well with the world?”

Tell ya what…why wait…I will do you one better. How about I apologize right here right now? That good enough for you? Even my closest friends have suggested my comments are too abrasive at times. OK I will work on that. So here goes!

I apologize to anyone, town officer or other wise, if my sometimes acid comments have unjustly offended or hurt someone. I will attempt to temper that approach in the future.
Now that being said let me clarify some very important points. First I will NOT apologize for my core beliefs…end of story!!! Like in your statement WHEN I am proven wrong, and wind IS driven from this town …jumping the gun a bit aren’t you????

What if I am right?????

All this “who is going to be right” in the end is absolute pure speculation and pointless to the real argument. It’s a diversionary tactic. . You are asking me to make an apology based on something neither of us can actually be sure of, and as if I am already wrong. Look at your statement. Your question is actually a clever attempt at a setup. You are asking me to apologize for my “attacks” and doing so on the premise you and the town are absolutely right about the end result already, as if it is at this moment an absolute certainty, and you clearly know it IS NOT a certainty!!! Your debating me proves that truly you don’t really believe it is the certainty you suggest.

My comment style and my beliefs are two very distinctly different areas, and I am not going to conceded to a ridiculous setup that tries to say that since A is wrong B is too.

Note I DID NOT and WILL NOT apologize for my beliefs on the wind issue and that the town is going in a terribly wrong direction to appease the State and Art X. that stripped away our fundamental community rights, and I certainly do not think those rules are fair and impartial!!!

I can say it with acid, or I can say it nicely the core belief is still the same . Art X IS NOT fair and impartial and it is astonishing the town would say that or appease a system so obviously tilted to corporate and political power and that you would defend that in any way!.

That is what you really want more than you want an apology for my “attacks”. You want obedience! You want me to admit right now that I am WRONG. That is what you really are after. What you want is to stop what makes you uncomfortable and that is the debate itself! I MUST agree with you and Hirschey! Why is that? Because you well know you want to be just as right as I think I am in the end so you can kick me around as a result. Any intelligent person can not stand there and truly believe with absolute certainty that BP will be driven out of town by the Art. X and the town. I don’t even think many of the town officers truly believe this is a done deal. That would be just plain foolish.

Your issue is you are constrained by the confines or need to be a “team player” with in the restrictive beliefs of your group. I don’t carry that baggage, and hopefully that gives me a more impartial view.

So let’s be honest. You want to do that kicking right now to extract your pound of flesh and doing it on an absurd premise that the deal is sealed and big wind is already defeated and I am wrong right now.

Sorry, nice try, but no cigar. There are two separate issues here. One is my comment style, which as you can see I have apologized for, and the other is my beliefs. My core beliefs remain exactly the same. What you really want is for me to change my core beliefs and completely align with the Hirschy govt. That in the end is really what you can’t tolerate! It’s not really my approach.

Not my problem…that is your problem!

And what is driving you to the edge right now is that despite this Art X fair and impartial comment by the town that you know is wrong, you still have to somehow justify it and defend it when you clearly know it was out of line!!!

The other thing to consider is the end result. What makes a good end result that would prove me wrong and you right? Again that can’t be dumbed down to a simple yes or no. I am not going to accept a compromise as an acceptable result as to me being wrong and the town right. NO turbines are a good end result if the town achieves that. Not 5, not 10, not 60, or 95 or 120 instead of 124! AND not some industrial solar project sprawling over hundreds of acres that neither our town comp plan or zoning would allow and would require the same absurd tax subsidies to support. And NOT ANYTHING from BP…or big wind, after what they have done to destroy our community already.
That is where I really think this is going. We will get a BS compromise from the Art X board with no follow up litigation from the town and you and the town will somehow pan that off as a victory and that they did everything they could! See… Pundt was wrong.

The town is so over committed to the Art X wind law be reasonable approach, that if they get something far less than desirable (desirable being NO TURBINES) they will have to somehow package it as a victory. And if that occurs then the town govt supporters will work overtime to rationalize it.

And if you are conflicted now about the town’s comments, just wait. If that is the end result you are going to have a real tough time running around explaining how following Art X that stripped our rights away and preempted our laws for some BP turbines was somehow a good idea. Especially when there were people clearly telling you it would be a disaster.

And lastly you have a very short memory. If you where to look back, you would see that there were just as many nasty attacks on me from the supposed anti wind side. For example I have never called anyone an arrogant prick as I was called by one Hirschey supporter!!! That came from your side of the debate!!!

So now that I have apologized for my sometimes abrasive approach I will be waiting for an apology from the persons who attacked me just as strongly. And that would include YOU! I won’t hold my breath.

But be clear…I still think the town is wrong, and I will still question it especially when they make mistakes so blatant like calling the Art X rules fair. That is democracy!
And here is the discomforting part for you. Legitimate disagreements are an essential of democracy and open govt. If I object to the town’s moves and direction, and do so in a more measured way with no “personal attacks” …that is going to leave you in a real quandary, because you will have to address the actual issues in the debate, with no excuses of using my approach as a scape goat and diversion.

That is of course that you are in support of democracy and the open debate it requires.

I wish you luck with that!