Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Resolution Copper - Queen Creek Coalition: News Release
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 4 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 29, 2013
The loaf
Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:
Unfortunately, RCM simply ignores all of the NEPA related facts that are contrary to their very misleading public relations efforts.

That's the truth
I wish they could have a real discussion with integrity

FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 30, 2013
ClimbandMine wrote:
I don't speak for RCM, as I don't have inside information. As such, I have not stated how deep subsidence will be at Resolution.... So how can I change a number I haven't stated? They seem to be hearing a lot from the public without NEPA now, eh?


You offered up "cost" numbers on their behalf and I examined them here.

Subsequently you modified your cost numbers to add in other "costs."

You obviously were using the "cost" terminology in a specific and technical manner and when a person uses such technical language without clearly stating so in a public forum it is often done so in order to leave options open for modifications; as you did.

Similarly, RCM has used such technical language with the public with respect to their term "underground" mine.

It has taken years for the public to discover and understand that their "underground" mine proposal actually will impact the surface in a similar manner to an open pit; albeit from under ground mining rather than above ground overburden and ore removal.

My personal take on their use of the term "underground" mine technique is for PR purposes; to insinuate that the mine won't impact the surface in such a way as to be offensive or ugly to the casual, public observer and/or decision maker when in fact it very much will.

The ever expanding maw now 1000' deep in the center and 500' deep on the sides? The Eiffel tower (~1050' tall) would just peep over the top of the crater at that center depth.

I appreciate your technical knowledge but I take issue with the assertion that it is fully informing for the public when in many cases it often leads to mistrust because of a subtle nuanced use and meaning. Such legalese seems unnecessary and leads the community to demand definition and clarification of each and every word.

Witness the issue related to the NEPA language in the legislation; poorly worded and bad for the public in my view.

Just my impression and view.

Fred

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 30, 2013
Fred AmRhein wrote:
You offered up "cost" numbers on their behalf and I examined them here. Subsequently you modified your cost numbers to add in other "costs." You obviously were using the "cost" terminology in a specific and technical manner and when a person uses such technical language without clearly stating so in a public forum it is often done so in order to leave options open for modifications; as you did. Similarly, RCM has used such technical language with the public with respect to their term "underground" mine. It has taken years for the public to discover and understand that their "underground" mine proposal actually will impact the surface in a similar manner to an open pit; albeit from under ground mining rather than above ground overburden and ore removal. My personal take on their use of the term "underground" mine technique is for PR purposes; to insinuate that the mine won't impact the surface in such a way as to be offensive or ugly to the casual, public observer and/or decision maker when in fact it very much will. The ever expanding maw now 1000' deep in the center and 500' deep on the sides? The Eiffel tower (~1050' tall) would just peep over the top of the crater at that center depth. I appreciate your technical knowledge but I take issue with the assertion that it is fully informing for the public when in many cases it often leads to mistrust because of a subtle nuanced use and meaning. Such legalese seems unnecessary and leads the community to demand definition and clarification of each and every word. Witness the issue related to the NEPA language in the legislation; poorly worded and bad for the public in my view. Just my impression and view. Fred




The difference between capital and operating costs are simple and basic business terms, and are not overly technical. If those are difficult concepts maybe a high school economics class would be in order? And maybe 8th grade algebra, too? I'm not here to teach basics that someone could have learned by paying attention in school.

Regardless, we are talking about moderately technical subjects. It is not RCM's responsibility to teach its critics the engineering and babysit them through every little detail. If you don't understand what they are talking about, is that really their problem? Maybe only insofar that you might also be making improper assumptions and criticisms.

If it has taken you years to figure out something that a little basic math could have told you, then I wouldn't blame their PR for pulling any wool over your eyes.

Let's put it this way - if the USFS wants to ban bolts and bolting in an area, do you hand then the number of bolts already installed there, or let figure out there's bolts there and then count the bolts themselves? Why hand them the information on a silver platter if it is there to be seen, although with a bit of effort and a bit of knowledge.

FLAG
By David Arthur Sampson
Jul 1, 2013
Slap/Tickle
ClinbandMine;
I have followed this thread from the beginning. I have also followed other threads that you have "participated" in. I have a few comments/ observations; 1) Fred has been civil, and open, and believes in intelligent discourse, 2) you seem to feel threatened (or you are just being mean, I do not really know which) because you use insulting and antagonistic verbiage, 3) you do appear to be intentionally vague in your math.

I do understand that you likely hold a minority position on this site regarding this issue, but just think of the strength that your argument could hold if you created the possibility of presenting your position so that others understood you. That would give you true weight (and likely respect) in the discussion.

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jul 1, 2013
David Arthur Sampson wrote:
ClinbandMine; I have followed this thread from the beginning. I have also followed other threads that you have "participated" in. I have a few comments/ observations; 1) Fred has been civil, and open, and believes in intelligent discourse, 2) you seem to feel threatened (or you are just being mean, I do not really know which) because you use insulting and antagonistic verbiage, 3) you do appear to be intentionally vague in your math. I do understand that you likely hold a minority position on this site regarding this issue, but just think of the strength that your argument could hold if you created the possibility of presenting your position so that others understood you. That would give you true weight (and likely respect) in the discussion.


Which costs do I seem to be intentionally vague on? The ones where a climbing gym couldn't make money? The cut and fill costs? Block cave costs? OPEX, capex?

You guys seem to be a little vague about me being vague. :).

If you are specific, I might be able to clarify.

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 4 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4