SEELEY LAKE - With his letter in last week’s Pathfinder, Dennis Clark became a strong, though likely unwitting, ally to Citizens for Sensible Wastewater Solutions (CSWS) and the constituents of the Seeley Lake Sewer District.
We at CSWS found most of what Clark said quite agreeable as he applied criteria and a level of critical thinking skills rare to the current support’s side of the debate about the proposed sewer project.
Mr. Clark, while you and CSWS may seem to be on opposing sides of the issue, like England’s famed “Loyal opposition,” we all care strongly about most of the same things. We both will be able to better contribute to a sensible solution to the watershed’s wastewater predicament now that you have helped to elevate the quality of the discussion.
By calling for information based on documentable data and facts, as CSWS has been for well over a year, you have joined us in trying to make sure that the district property owners, as well as all residents and business interests, move away from misleading messages that are little more than unsupported opinion or propaganda.
When various factors relating to the sewer issue are numerous and complex, we both need the enthusiasm of the constituents to taking, absorbing and questioning information before locking into over-generalized statements and making erroneous conclusions.
We hear, Mr. Clark, that you want us to back up points we have made with greater detail and substantiating sources. We ask the same of you and other current sewer supporters. We especially ask you to challenge the output of the sewer board’s PR firm with your well-developed critical thinking skills.
We have observed that the vast bulk of questions the sewer district constituents have sought answers for have yet to be directly answered. Much of the website and printed materials content amounts to an appeal to emotion and can be tied to specified propaganda techniques. In return CSWS will continue to strictly judge our output regarding its reliability.
Data items you questioned do have proper underlying evidence. CSWS workers are not always in agreement about how much of it to include. One thought is to try to keep the length of our materials within reason; another is to write enough to show the relationship between certain factual statements and the sourced facts.
You caught us exercising brevity to make points and edited out the parts you were seeking. We apologize for seeming to shortchange you and other readers when you feel that we have not sufficiently documented some points.
Sometimes we will need to be briefer than one might wish. Our information set is like the undersea portion of an iceberg. It frustrates us, too, when we feel that we need to edit out material. We are pursuing an additional form for communicating valuable data in more detail. It should be ready in roughly a week. In the meanwhile, we encourage you to call 425-3601 between 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. to challenge us on any statements you think might be questionable.
We would be happy, not offended, to hear from you.
Reader Comments(0)