FW: Re[2]: [at-l] A.N.W.R. VOTE - conservation issue - not trail

[Bob Cummings <ellen@clinic.net> (Bob Cummings)]

"...No new plants for 23 years, that preceded any attempts at deregulation by
decades," says Bryan

Aside from the fuzzy language (Yes. 23 years is exactly two decades and three
years, which technically is "decades", but we already knew that when he said 23
years. I'm not sure what the "that preceded any attempts at deregulation,"
means, other than the obvious that 23 years is two decades plus three years)
what Bryan doesn't say is why the plants were rejected. How many plants were
applied for? Why were they rejected?

 Bryan: Are you suggesting that we should do whatever industry wants, where ever
 industry wants, with no public review? Or only automatic approval?

 Question the basis of the decisions for rejection. But to argue that the
 rejections were wrong, without citing the reasons, is as Jim might say,
 "simpleminded."

 Weary