Quote:I wasn't attacking you at all. I simply asked you to clarify your comments. I asked a few simple questions.


1. <span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">So what exactly about what the EPA did was "reasonable"?
</span>

<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">2.
</span><span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">Which problem was "fixed"?
</span>

<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">3.
</span><span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">Should someone and/or some agency not be held accountable?
</span>

<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">Here is a bonus question for you. How do I "clearly hate" The Constitution?
</span>

Well there's alot of subtlety that's lost via this form of discussion. The tone seems overtly antagonistic at times when I read your posts.


1. The execution, or what they did, based on the policy was not reasonable. It was over reach. What I'm pointing out is that the policy was reasonable. The specific situation, based on the facts, was not. However, it is reasonable to have a policy that ensures tributary waterways are not compromised in order to ensure the public good I'd protected. That is reasonable, is it not?


2 the issue between the individual and the epa has been resolved. Additionally, the policy is also being scrutinized in federal court as well. The injustice that we all agree on is being corrected via the judicial system. That's a pretty good thing.


3 so you want a scape goat? That's also what the courts are for. I'm assuming that the individual is suing for damages? Also, if you've ever held a job I'm sure that some employee of the epa is getting a talking to. Whether that becomes public is another matter.


4 well, to me the absolute bitterness you sometimes espouse when discussing certain agencies in the government makes me question how much you care for our current system. I'll leave it there, for now

---