To: Edwin S. Fujinaka who wrote (757 ) 4/10/1999 7:44:00 PM From: SnakeInATuxedo Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Mr. Fujinaka, your solution makes so much sense that it's unlikely to be considered, and I say that with all due respect and not a whit of facetiousness. What those with fair minds such as yourself and others keep forgetting is that the opposition doesn't understand or accept the notion, the concept, of "fairness". The demonising of the oil interests will not abate. Opposing any fair settlement in this matter will be people, backed by organisations, who do not understand, do not subscribe to, and will not accept the rule of law, unless it happens to be a decision in THEIR favour never forget , Mr. Fujinaka, that the mindset of the environmental leftist holds forth quicksand to be its very foundation, and expediency to be its god. A post on the thread some time ago describing the perception of Coastal's claims, your post in fact...Message 8480961 do anything, say anything, inveigh, castigate and vilify any who oppose them in order to achieve their desired ends. The Court of Appeals decides against them? No matter; don't raise the bridge, lower the river. The Florida Supreme Court decides against them? No matter; it was "... a law passed for the benefit of of the greedy oil companies and their cronies". On to the United States Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court decides against them? No matter; this is our beloved, cherished environment about to be raped, looted, and pillaged, after all, by greedy, only-out-for-their-own-obscene-profits Big Oil Interests, so the Rule Of Law simply has in this oh-so-special-case only of course, since WE real war, only without bullets. Coastal and its supporters better start getting armed to the teeth with intellectual ammunition, because the opposition is NOT
