Stuart
>I wouldn't say you posting needed an apology - it's an important issue.

I felt I was tiptoing on the edge of a personal attack, rather than
sticking to the issue - that was the part I regretted.

>Though I'm confused about your assertion that conservation groups are being
>politically naive. I understand that they oppose the measure so that makes
>them against the timber interest, right ?

Those that oppose it are not being politically naive, in my view.

The view that conservationists should support it, which was expressed in
the original post, was what I was attacking.

Sorry if that was unclear (there I go, apologizing again!)

Your points are well taken regarding the scale of damage in Puget
Sound vs. your native waters, BTW.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>