"…getting the facts right. ...this is an "opinion" forum (which
apparantly means you can make up the facts)."
I consider this forum to be primarily about feelings and perceptions
and I suspect the `lawyer' judges it to be about evidence. I believe
Asbury's future, like its past success, is dependent primarily on the
subjective and qualitative rather than the objective and quantitative.
I think communities are built by trades people but reach their most
livable and highest form when organized and assembled by visionaries.
There is undoubtedly overlap in these realms but where divergence is
greatest, communication collapses as though we speak in different
tongues.
For my part I recognized, when the lawyer introduced government
definitions of urban and suburban, that we were off to the land of
hair splitting (rather than deal with ideas we would quibble about
semantics). The topic at hand, what would improve the function,
usability and aesthetics of the boardwalk, an issue heavily dependent
on the subjective yet simultaneously requiring clear vision and
execution.
We seem to now have two parallel discussions, one is focused on
dissecting language into bits transmuting meaning into a simple
target; the other attempts to use this ill fitting tool, language, to
convey or picture what the final product, project, will look like.
The former appears to require fact for its very existence; the latter
may coincidently weigh fact but needs to free itself of the
constraints of language. Somewhere there's an adage, something about
words and a picture.
Two definitions, not from the federal government, which may illustrate
the difference in our use and meaning attributed to facts.
1. A statement agreed upon by the parties to a lawsuit that sets forth
the facts of the case and the parties' request for a judgment by the
court based on those facts.
2. Brute facts are opposed to institutional facts, in that they do not
require the context of an institution to occur. For instance, the fact
that a certain piece of paper is money cannot be ascertained outside
the institution of money in a given society. And that piece of paper
will only be money as long as the members of that society believe that
it is so. Being money is an institutional fact. On the contrary, being
a piece of paper is a brute fact.
Our lawyer, a guy fond of big trucks, seems to be of the opinion that
if he can quantify or enumerate the bits and pieces of each issue, he
will then have facts to prove the correct choice. I believe success
can't be tabulated but lies with the sensory; that we are fortunate to
have an outstanding waterfront, though worn not broken, and it
deserves restoration and renewal to its former glory. How we get
there is simply splitting hairs.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Skip Said:
>
> > Of course the republican party and federal government are now one and
> > the same; where have you guys been these last 4 ˝ years.
>
> Actually, the regs I referred to were not passed in the last 4 1/2
> years.
>
> Oops! There I go again getting the facts right. I'll try to abide by
> your previous post reminding me that this is an "opinion" forum (which
> apparantly means you can make up the facts).
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
