[Grovenet] Grovenet

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Linda wrote:

I had a lot of responses to my email--many of them apologizing for Ron's
comments. 

---------------------------------------------

Interesting. Why would anyone feel the need to apologize for anything I've
written? 

I have not made any comment that has not been respectful of your or anyone's
position. All I've done is to outline exactly why I don't agree with you. 

Jim seemed to become angry, apparently presuming I was making a disparaging
comment about himself, when I carefully defined what I meant by "naysayer":

"The naysayers have no alternatives to offer. All they know how to say is
NO!

Any idiot can make a case for not doing something. It takes brains and
expertise to offer a solution with a careful assessment of the risks and
benefits, such as those below.

-------------------------------------------------

I stand behind that condemnation of those who say "no" to a solution
proposed by qualified experts but who offer no alternatives. 

In the many years I've followed and, I hope, contributed to the Grovenet, I
have appreciated the free-ranging discussions that sometimes erupt around
issues here.  

Your considered response to me was quite informative, and I appreciated it.
We don't agree, and that's what makes the sharing of ideas and viewpoints
productive. In my experience, little is learned by talking to those who
agree with me. Thank you for taking the time to respond.  

I took the time to respond so you could see how I interpret the information.
I hope it gives you some insight into the thinking of folks like me who
don't agree with you.

For what it's worth, others like David Morelli and I disagree on a whole
range of issues, yet I consider him a friend. Friendship and, more
importantly, respect, do not demand we be in agreement. It's hard to have an
exchange with David without learning something even if we end up on opposite
sides of the issue; perhaps because we are on opposite sides of an issue.  

Ron D'Eau Claire