Comment 72701

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted January 03, 2012 at 19:13:09 in reply to Comment 72699

My original concern was that there was some monetary motive to this study.

Why? Why would this be a 'concern'? What difference would it make to the validity of a study who paid for it? If a point-of-view is valid, why should it matter who funded it?

After closer examination I found out it was merely a university paper and largely a rehash of studies already commissioned.

Right. Because clarity can't be improved by fresh eyes.

In short, its really nothing new.

'Nothing new' as opposed to what, exactly? What were you expecting? And given your tone, who would you have expected to come up with something 'new'? Surely not the City; they're continuing to execute due diligence. Certainly not Metrolinx; they're quite fine with our progress, and besides; they're non-partisan. And I think the local thrust has shot its load. (For the time being.)

You either agree with the conclusions or you don't.

And...? Which camp are you in?

In the big picture it has very little influence in the process

And at this point in the process, what would have any 'influence'?

The ironic thing is that I don't think these essays serve any purpose at all in the overall effort to get LRT to Hamilton. I don't think they do much to accomplish what's clearly being set out to do...not that anything needs to be done at this point, not until the final background work has been done and it's time for Council to make some decisions...which is a hell of a long time off yet. And it saddens me to see the wheedling continue when it's not relevant to the process...and probably counter-productive.

However, what makes me more sad is people who dismiss someone's work because, in their eyes, it's 'nothing new' and it's not valid anyway because it's 'merely a university paper'.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools