View Single Post
Old 03-08-2011, 11:43 PM   #76
DSettahr's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,529
Originally Posted by WaterRings View Post
I am not an "arm chair expert" like most everyone else on this forum.
I've been seeing these words mentioned here more and more often whenever discussion/debate gets contentious. Do we really need to be "real experts" in order to have and voice an opinion? The DEC has "real experts" in the field of forestry and in managing our wilderness areas, but what would happen if they did away with the public commenting sessions for UMPs and other management decisions simply because many members of the public are "armchair experts" (and there certainly are quite a few of them!)? To belittle or lessen the opinions held by others simply because you have more knowledge and experience in the topic of discussion, and then to further belittle the entire discussion as a whole and refuse to participate in it further isn't going to sway those who disagree with you.

Originally Posted by WaterRings View Post
As the law reads now the case with Phil Brown boils down to a simple trespass case.
How does the law read now? And, more importantly, how does your interpretation of the law imply that Phil's case is a simple trespass case? The only argument that you really give to back this up is that you are an expert in the field of surveying. That's like me saying "Apples are a fruit, because I'm an expert on fruits." It might be true, but I won't be convincing anyone who isn't an expert on fruits if they think about it.

That's certainly not to say that your argument is without merit, you just don't provide enough information for the reader to determine the validity of the facts upon which your opinion is based. I'm definitely curious to know more about your viewpoint, especially since as a licensed surveyor there is a lot you could share on the topic that everyone else here would certainly benefit from hearing. You state quite emphatically that you have a lot of knowledge about the subject, and just as emphatically that Phil is in the wrong. What you don't state is why, and without this key link between the extensive knowledge base you have and your opinion, your post won't change anyone's mind.

Help us to not be "armchair experts" and gain a better understanding of the situation.

Originally Posted by randomscooter View Post

Only one comment ... 99.999%
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
And I'll bet a dime to a dollar that if it was the other way around, that the AG was entering the suit to enforce the rights of some property owners, you wouldn't have an issue with it.
I agree with Hawk... I'm confused that those on the "private property rights" side of the discussion can argue that one of the negative aspects of the case is that it benefits so few people. If Phil loses, won't that have helped to solidify the rights of every New York State resident who owns property? If private property rights, and the defense of those rights, is what this case is about, then doesn't it potentially benefit a group of people far larger than the group of recreational paddlers who would use this route?
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote