[at-l] 3

[sloetoe@yahoo.com (Sloetoe)]

--- Bob Cummings <ellen@clinic.net> wrote:
> Frankly, I found it difficult to follow all TJ's arguments,
> but if the North Carolina agency was still seeking public
comments on August 29, that suggests to me that letters starting
a month earlier probably were useful.

### Again, not to take sides one way or the other, but something
Weary said earlier bears repeating: letters from general public
do NOT guarantee that bureaucracies will "do the right thing" or
even follow their own rules in consistent ways, but they DO
offer a threat of "sunshine" (or "fire") to which bureaucracies
may not wish to subject themselves, and to which they MAY then
bow. This is Political Economy 101.

### The letter RNR cites *proves* nothing with regard to the
(ultimate) Putnam Mine permit revocation. But nor does the date
of the state's "Notice of Intent to Withdraw Permit".[*]
Suggestive? Sure. Indicative? MMMmmm, well, ok, maybe, perhaps.
But *proof*? "Substantial evidence of probative value"????? Nah.

I'd ask the person who signed off on the Notice of Intent to
Withdraw how many of those notices ever get issued; and then of
those issued, how many are acted upon, how many *not*, and
*why*. *Then* I'd ask a dweeb who worked for the person who
signed off on the notice (the lucky bugger who's doing all the
work, you can bet) whether the guy who signed off on the notice
was full of marlarkey on all of his answers. *That* would be
closer to proof. ("Closer", I said....)

Sceptoe
[*] what the Notice date *proves* is that the permit was on the
state's agenda months before it appeared at TP, and that TP was
not responsible for putting it before the state -- I think that
was TJ's primary point.

=====
Spatior! Nitor! Nitor! Tempero!
   Pro Pondera Et Meliora.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/