CA Considers HOT Lanes

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
rec.autos.driving:
> See the spp map. So far proposals.

Have taken a quick look at the spp.gov site. I like the new "Myths vs
Facts," page.

<sarcasm> Wonder why that page was put in??? </sarcasm>

--
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
> rec.autos.driving:
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> > > In article . com>, js wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, as funny as it may seem, they were intended to be a business
> > > > run by the government.
> > >
> > > Not for profit.
> >
> > Yeh, the government's never been real good at that - another reason to
> > let an expert do it. The government is in a lot of businesses, by the
> > way. They are in the real estate business, the entertainment business,
> > indirectly in the transportation business, the health insurance
> > business, the retirement planning business....and on and on....and none
> > of these ventures seems to make money - in fact, the government lost
> > about 400 Billion.
>
> And do you think that allowing foreign entities do the work instead is
> better how?

Excuse me? "Allowing" foreign entities to do the work? Zachary (of
Cintra Zachary) is a San Antonio construction firm. Cintra Zachary is
a Texas Limited Partnership - it's parent, Cintra is a part of a
Spanish consortium that has a very deep pocket - they are the bankroll
for the project.

Better? Yes - much better. We get a road and they get a return on
their investment. There wont be too many Spaniards driving on the road
- or? If we borrowed the money from the taxpayers in Texas would it
make you feel better? Well, if you were a Texan, maybe not so better -
certainly poorer.

> > > > The land, by the way, still belongs to the
> > > > "people". All Uncle Sam did was outsource the care and feeding of the
> > > > roads in exchange for a lump sum payment and the rights to the toll
> > > > revenues. Its a business transaction.
> > >
> > > You're only seeing it as phase one. It's going to get worse.
> >
> > Worse? How can it get worse?
>
> And if Spain is taken over by groups hostile to the US and the company
> is nationalized?

Then we have a much bigger problem than a stupid road...but, what will
they do? Pick up the road and move it to Spain? Raise the toll above
the agreed to limits? Close the road to Americans? Yeh, right.

> > I see privatization of infrastructure as
> > a positive. The smaller the government the better.
>
> Not with infrastructure that is vital to the wellbeing of our economy
> and the security of our nation.

Over 90% of the wellbeing of our economy is private already. The other
10% is being phenomenally mismanaged.

> > > A 99 year lease is effective ownership.
> >
> > No, it is a lease - plain and simple. It is not ownership. The leasee
> > cannot tear it up and move it. The terms of the lease are extremely
> > clear on this.
>
> No, but they can make using the road (or the route in general)
> burdensome for the average citizen through restrictions on use and/or
> higher tolls.

No, they cannot. For two very simple reasons - the lease contract and
economics.

> > TTC-35. - I get it. So, you would feel better if the State of Texas
> > built the road, maintained the road, and collected tolls on the road?
>
> Yes, I would. Then it is being run by Americans for the benefit of
> Americans and not foreigers for the benefit of God knows who.

Then pony up the 7.5 billion dollars because if Texas has it, then what
the hell, why not. Unfortunately, Texas doesn't and it needs the road.

> > Is the problem you are having?
> >
> > So, the state of Texas has decided to build a road. To do so, they are
> > hiring a contractor to build and operate it. The contractor will be
> > paid from a variety of sources including from future tolls.
> >
> > What is your problem with this?
>
> The fact that it is going to be operated by a foreign entity with the
> profits going to foreign investors who are not necessairly friendly to
> We The People of the United States.

This is a road! It's a business deal. The creative financing is being
used around the world. How much of downtown Manhattan do you think is
owned by Spain?

> Its bad enough that we are held
> dependent on these people for our energy needs.

Our oil output is a bit higher than Spain's.

> Now you want them to
> take over our roads too?

"These" people? You mean investors with different surnames and
addresses than you?

You bet. I want competent administration of the road by a company that
actually has a vested interest in ensuring that I use it.

> Has any investigation into the owners and investors of this company been
> done?

Yes - their money is the right shade of green. They have a pedigree of
similar successes. Their references are excellent. Cintra oversees
around 1,700 km of road infrastructure in Spain and Portugal, as well
as Ireland, Chile, USA and Canada. Overall, this totals 17 highways
(with tolls). They also have car parks across the world.
http://www.cintra.es/

> And what's to say that a group like al-queda (or a front company)
> won't try to acquire this company (and the lease) in the future. I'm
> sure that bin Laden and his people would just love an unimpeded route
> straight into the heart of the USA.

Go figure - how exactly is this going to be any different if the road
is built with bonds and toll collectors paychecks say State of Texas on
them? Honestly, I don't care who pays for the road or who operates the
road.

> > The concession stand at the state beach is leased by a taco vendor.
> > You have a problem with that?
>
> Irrelevant. The taco stand is not vital to our economy and security.

It is relevant. In fact more than you think. You see, I depend on
that taco stand for lunch. If that taco stand were closed, I'd need to
travel a half mile up the beach to the alternative.

Now - how exactly are the "investors" going to close the road? Send
the Armada?

> > Irrespective of the Connecticut decision, roads are "public" under the
> > law and eminent domain applies. So, the wider topic is not applicable.
> > Eminent domain is not at issue.
>
> Wait untill the foreigners want to bulldoze your house for a "public,"
> road.

It's not foreigners - its the State of Texas. You do understand that
this project isn't the idea of the Spaniards, right? The reason why
they are involved (they being Cintra) at all is because they see this
as an investment opportunity. They could just as easly buy up farmland
in Iowa or skyscrapers in New York. Which, by the way, they (not
Cintra directly) already have.

> > The anti-TTC-35 rhetoric has nothing to do with who owns the road but
> > rather who will be on it. At least you could have been a bit more
> > honest about this.
>
> Its about both. This road is being built to allow foreign nations
> (primairly mexico) to flood our markets and put American companies out
> of business and then to drag the USA down to third world status.

Thanks - so it doesn't matter if Texas builds it or hires
Cibntra-Zachary. You are ****ed because it allows for commerce with a
country you don't particularly care for. Aren't you at all concerned,
then, about the influx of products from China through Long Beach?

> > No, the toll authority is tracking where your car is driving. Another
> > reason to privatize. Atr least then it will take a court order to get
> > your driving records.
> >
> > Until you come to grips with your own biases, perhaps we should suspend
> > this discussion.
>
> Agreed. You are too blind to see what is happening.

I see it as an investment in infrastructure that Texas sorely needs
using capital from a source looking to invest in a framework that works
for both parties. You aren't going to sell 7.5 billion in muni's. And
if you look across the world, this infrastructure privatization is
becoming the rule, not the exception.

Here's the link to the agreement - read it and get informed.

http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/pdfs/...ed_version.pdf
js

In article .com>, js wrote:

>> Not for profit.

> Yeh, the government's never been real good at that - another reason to
> let an expert do it. The government is in a lot of businesses, by the
> way. They are in the real estate business, the entertainment business,
> indirectly in the transportation business, the health insurance
> business, the retirement planning business....and on and on....and none
> of these ventures seems to make money - in fact, the government lost
> about 400 Billion.

If you note how the leases work, it's a sale of infastructure to private
corporations. This is not good for the long term interests of the people
as then the people have even less recourse.

>> > The land, by the way, still belongs to the
>> > "people". All Uncle Sam did was outsource the care and feeding of the
>> > roads in exchange for a lump sum payment and the rights to the toll
>> > revenues. Its a business transaction.
>
>> You're only seeing it as phase one. It's going to get worse.

> Worse? How can it get worse? I see privatization of infrastructure as
> a positive. The smaller the government the better.

The roads are one of the things that government, a small government is
supposed to do!

>> A 99 year lease is effective ownership.

> No, it is a lease - plain and simple. It is not ownership. The leasee
> cannot tear it up and move it. The terms of the lease are extremely
> clear on this.

Maybe, maybe not. And maybe they will be obeyed and maybe they won't be.

>> In TX, the terms were even
>> secret. Much of it was released under the freedom of information act.

> Here's your opposition:

ooh the assocation tactic!

> "The ATA wants a toll-free national highway system where funds to
> finance highway improvement primarily come from highway user fees such
> as the fuel tax."
> The ATA represents the trucking industry.

Of course the trucking industry wants to be subsidized. Duh.

> Did you know that the majority of toll roads in Europe are leased to
> private companies?

You want europe's socialism too?

>> See the spp map. So far proposals.

> You know, I looked for these and guess what - without the URL I've made
> enough of an effort.
> If you can't provide the link, then the data don't exist as far as I am
> concerned.

It used to be smack dab on the first page of spp.gov. Seems that having
it visible was getting people to oppose them. The website appears to be
much more sanitary now.

http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/projects/

"The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is a proposed multi-use, statewide network
of transportation routes in Texas that will incorporate existing and new
highways, railways and utility right-of-ways. Specific routes for the TTC
have not been determined."

So, it appears the specific roads to take over are not yet named
publically.

Also see:
http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-affected.htm
http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?page_id=36

> TTC-35. - I get it. So, you would feel better if the State of Texas
> built the road, maintained the road, and collected tolls on the road?
> Is the problem you are having?

I would feel better if government didn't make secret contracts.

> What is your problem with this?

The confiscation of property for a private business. This is going to be
a toll road system to unload cargo from china in mexico and truck it into
the USA. You might also note that land will be taken to give to
corporations to build hotels, gas stations, and other businesses. Maybe
when government comes to take your home and give it to a connected
business interest you'll understand the problem with this sort of
behavior.

> The concession stand at the state beach is leased by a taco vendor.
> You have a problem with that?

Given the level of corruption involved in IL, it's almost certainity even
the littlest thing wasn't done on the up and up.

> Irrespective of the Connecticut decision, roads are "public" under the
> law and eminent domain applies. So, the wider topic is not applicable.
> Eminent domain is not at issue.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo...road_in_tx.htm

(note: archive of article from ciob)

> It's not a big deal in states outside of Texas

When they came for the others I didn't stand up, when they came for me....

> The anti-TTC-35 rhetoric has nothing to do with who owns the road but
> rather who will be on it. At least you could have been a bit more
> honest about this.

The race card.... if you oppose <whatever> you must be a racist. Lame.

The whole thing appears shady, right from the fact that much of was kept
secret. People should not have to give up their land for the benefit of a
corporation's profits by the force of government.

>> > And you don't pay taxes to drive today?

>> Government is tracking my driving.

> No, the toll authority is tracking where your car is driving. Another
> reason to privatize. Atr least then it will take a court order to get
> your driving records.

Actually that should have been not tracking it, as in the present tax
scheme doesn't allow for driving to be tracked.

And as far as private corporation being a barrier, hA! Most roll over and
give the government the information.

> Until you come to grips with your own biases, perhaps we should suspend
> this discussion.

You mean my bias towards individual liberty? Or the racist strawman you are
attempting to build?

In article et>, necromancer wrote:

> Has any investigation into the owners and investors of this company been
> done? And what's to say that a group like al-queda (or a front company)
> won't try to acquire this company (and the lease) in the future. I'm
> sure that bin Laden and his people would just love an unimpeded route
> straight into the heart of the USA.

So far from the articles I've read, investigations show the typical
patterns of corruption, kick backs, etc. No links to US enemies. The
concerns you voice above are however well justified with regards to
hutchinson whampoa, where investigations have turned up ties to the
Chinese military and them having been caught in the past bringing weapons
into the USA. I do agree that Cintra should be checked for various ties.

In article et>, necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>> See the spp map. So far proposals.
>
> Have taken a quick look at the spp.gov site. I like the new "Myths vs
> Facts," page.
>
><sarcasm> Wonder why that page was put in??? </sarcasm>

I should have visited it again before mentioning. It appears to have been
sanitized for public consumption. It used to have the map front and
center even. Have to dig around, most of the information was saved and
posted elsewhere I believe.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
rec.autos.driving:

> Excuse me? "Allowing" foreign entities to do the work? Zachary (of
> Cintra Zachary) is a San Antonio construction firm. Cintra Zachary is
> a Texas Limited Partnership - it's parent, Cintra is a part of a
> Spanish consortium that has a very deep pocket - they are the bankroll
> for the project.

Which makes it foreign owned as far as I am concerned.

> Better? Yes - much better. We get a road and they get a return on
> their investment. There wont be too many Spaniards driving on the road
> - or? If we borrowed the money from the taxpayers in Texas would it
> make you feel better? Well, if you were a Texan, maybe not so better -
> certainly poorer.

And what difference does it make if the money goes to TX or to Cintra's
investors? You will still be the poorer for it. The difference is
between the money staying in TX or going overseas to who knows who.

> Then we have a much bigger problem than a stupid road...but, what will
> they do? Pick up the road and move it to Spain?

No, but thay can close it to American commerce and or use it for a
convienent conduit for terrorists to enter the US. And if a dirty bomb
that entered the US through the TTC goes off in my home town are you
going to take the blame for it?

> Raise the toll above
> the agreed to limits? Close the road to Americans? Yeh, right.

They could do that and more. As the owners of the road (which AFAIC will
be foreign soil) they can do as they damn well please. Just because the
current owners are profit minded does not mean that the next owners
will. Don't forget that there are many out there with deep pockets who
would love to see the US brought to its knees.

> Over 90% of the wellbeing of our economy is private already. The other
> 10% is being phenomenally mismanaged.

No kidding. But this part of the economy either needs to be government
run or run by American companies. Are any of our companies allowed to
run highways in other countries???

> > No, but they can make using the road (or the route in general)
> > burdensome for the average citizen through restrictions on use and/or
> > higher tolls.
>
> No, they cannot. For two very simple reasons - the lease contract and
> economics.

Yes they can. Contracts can be disregarded and as I said earlier, future
owners of that lease might be motivated by something other than profit
and economics.

> > > TTC-35. - I get it. So, you would feel better if the State of Texas
> > > built the road, maintained the road, and collected tolls on the road?
> >
> > Yes, I would. Then it is being run by Americans for the benefit of
> > Americans and not foreigers for the benefit of God knows who.
>
> Then pony up the 7.5 billion dollars because if Texas has it, then what
> the hell, why not. Unfortunately, Texas doesn't and it needs the road.

Tell your buddy bush to pony it up. He seems to like spending billions
in iraq etc...

> This is a road! It's a business deal. The creative financing is being
> used around the world. How much of downtown Manhattan do you think is
> owned by Spain?

Too damn much. Just as US interests own too dam much outside the US.

> > Its bad enough that we are held
> > dependent on these people for our energy needs.
>
> Our oil output is a bit higher than Spain's.

You know what I'm talking about.

> > Now you want them to
> > take over our roads too?
>
> "These" people? You mean investors with different surnames and
> addresses than you?

I'm talking about people who don't necessairly have the best interests
of the USA in mind. And that includes people here in the US as well as
overseas.

> Yes - their money is the right shade of green. They have a pedigree of
> similar successes. Their references are excellent. Cintra oversees
> around 1,700 km of road infrastructure in Spain and Portugal, as well
> as Ireland, Chile, USA and Canada. Overall, this totals 17 highways
> (with tolls). They also have car parks across the world.
> http://www.cintra.es/
>
> > And what's to say that a group like al-queda (or a front company)
> > won't try to acquire this company (and the lease) in the future. I'm
> > sure that bin Laden and his people would just love an unimpeded route
> > straight into the heart of the USA.
>
> Go figure - how exactly is this going to be any different if the road
> is built with bonds and toll collectors paychecks say State of Texas on
> them? Honestly, I don't care who pays for the road or who operates the
> road.

They why are you so bent out of shape that some oppose allowing a
foreign entity to do the job? Why can't an American company do the job??

> > > The concession stand at the state beach is leased by a taco vendor.
> > > You have a problem with that?
> >
> > Irrelevant. The taco stand is not vital to our economy and security.
>
> It is relevant. In fact more than you think. You see, I depend on
> that taco stand for lunch. If that taco stand were closed, I'd need to
> travel a half mile up the beach to the alternative.

And what's the alternative for someone who doesn't want to pay (or can't
afford) the tolls that Cintras will be charging? Go to NM and use I-25?
>
> Now - how exactly are the "investors" going to close the road? Send
> the Armada?

What's to say that future lease holders won't do just such a thing
(except with soldiers/fighters through mexico instead of ships by sea)?

> It's not foreigners - its the State of Texas. You do understand that
> this project isn't the idea of the Spaniards, right? The reason why
> they are involved (they being Cintra) at all is because they see this
> as an investment opportunity. They could just as easly buy up farmland
> in Iowa or skyscrapers in New York. Which, by the way, they (not
> Cintra directly) already have.

Then if TX wants it so bad, let them build it. Don't compromise the
security of the rest of us so you can save a few bucks.

> Thanks - so it doesn't matter if Texas builds it or hires
> Cibntra-Zachary. You are ****ed because it allows for commerce with a
> country you don't particularly care for. Aren't you at all concerned,
> then, about the influx of products from China through Long Beach?

Yes, I am, but it is off topic for r.a.d.

> I see it as an investment in infrastructure that Texas sorely needs
> using capital from a source looking to invest in a framework that works
> for both parties. You aren't going to sell 7.5 billion in muni's. And
> if you look across the world, this infrastructure privatization is
> becoming the rule, not the exception.
>
> Here's the link to the agreement - read it and get informed.

You mean read it and be brainwashed to your way of thinking. No Thanks.

--
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
> rec.autos.driving:

In spite of my best efforts, you are incorrigable. Your underlying
premise is faulty because you haven't a clue and you didn't make the
effort to educate yourself. I won't waste any more time with you.

Here is your fallacious premise. Since the rest of the argument is
solely dependent on this fallacy, it has no merit.

> Which makes it foreign owned as far as I am concerned....

> They could do that and more. As the owners of the road (which AFAIC will
> be foreign soil) they can do as they damn well please.

The agreement is one of lessee and lessor. There is a second
management contract for operations. The road is owned by the State of
Texas. The financing for building the road comes from a consortium of
investors from around the world. The road is managed by the
consortium. The consortium gets paid back its investment and interst
from the tolls collected.

The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.

js

In article .com>, js wrote:

> The agreement is one of lessee and lessor. There is a second
> management contract for operations. The road is owned by the State of
> Texas. The financing for building the road comes from a consortium of
> investors from around the world. The road is managed by the
> consortium. The consortium gets paid back its investment and interst
> from the tolls collected.

And there lies the problem.

I would wager that you would object to a similiar plan if it were for
healthcare and you had no other choice but to use the government's
contractor. You get service per the contract and the contractor is out to
make a profit. So if the government forgot some detail and the contractor
can then use that to profit you get to die because of the government's
oversight in the contract.

The same will apply with these road contracts. Holes in the contract will
be used for profit. Some may cause safety issues and people may be
harmed. As if a contractor has never used substandard concrete in road
building before..... now they have the whole ball of wax to find ways to
cheat here and there and make a little more money.

Sure, for now, we could use other roads that have yet to be placed under
such plans. But if we don't take a stand, even the backwoods road that
hasn't been upgraded since 1932 will eventually be 'leased'.

Not to mention that the government will allow other roads to decay to
advance this sort of thing.

In the end, it's just another form of theft from the people.

> The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
> remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
> the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
> creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.

You mean the one that government tried to keep secret (and still is in
some part), from the people. The only creativity here is coming up with
new ways to fleece the people for their own enrichment and get around
pesky things like the treaty process with regards to the spp.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, js wrote:
>
> > The agreement is one of lessee and lessor. There is a second
> > management contract for operations. The road is owned by the State of
> > Texas. The financing for building the road comes from a consortium of
> > investors from around the world. The road is managed by the
> > consortium. The consortium gets paid back its investment and interst
> > from the tolls collected.
>
> And there lies the problem.

Problem? Texas wants a road (assuming that's even true) and has
figured out how to do it. They borrow a lot of money and priomise to
pay it back with tolls. They just happen to have borrowed it from
someone in Spain.

> I would wager that you would object to a similiar plan if it were for
> healthcare and you had no other choice but to use the government's
> contractor.

Huh? What has healthcare got to do with it?

> You get service per the contract and the contractor is out to
> make a profit.

How about that.

> So if the government forgot some detail and the contractor
> can then use that to profit you get to die because of the government's
> oversight in the contract.

So, for your argument to stand you need to posit that the State of
Texas attorneys are idiots. Hmmmm....

If one were to extend this argument to include all state officials,
wouldn't outsourcing the management of the toll road make even more
sense?

> The same will apply with these road contracts. Holes in the contract will
> be used for profit. Some may cause safety issues and people may be
> harmed. As if a contractor has never used substandard concrete in road
> building before..... now they have the whole ball of wax to find ways to
> cheat here and there and make a little more money.

Sorry - but the State of Texas is not in the road building business.
The current contractor for is a Texas firm (Zacharry). Regardless of
how fiancing happens, the building of the road is contracted out. If
you believe the State of Texas government is incapable of executing on
the building of a road then theproblem has nothing to do with how its
being paid for.

> Sure, for now, we could use other roads that have yet to be placed under
> such plans. But if we don't take a stand, even the backwoods road that
> hasn't been upgraded since 1932 will eventually be 'leased'.

So you are aqgainst ANY privatization of any government "service"?

> Not to mention that the government will allow other roads to decay to
> advance this sort of thing.

Once again, the nefarious conspiracy.

> In the end, it's just another form of theft from the people.

No, it isn't but nothing I say will convince you.

Your arguments boil down to this:

The government is inept.
Private enterprise cheats
Therefore, we can't allow inept government to manage cheating
contractors.

Seems to me that you have a very negative view of the worls.

My argument boils down to one very simple thing:

The economic motive of the private sector is clear, open, and
manageable. The entire world economy is based on this.

> > The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
> > remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
> > the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
> > creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.
>
> You mean the one that government tried to keep secret (and still is in
> some part), from the people.

See - there's that conspiracy theory crap again. You have no evidence
to support the claim of inpropriety but it is a necessary condition for
your argument to hold.

Just like nefosucker - you need a fallacious premise to make your
argument.

> The only creativity here is coming up with
> new ways to fleece the people for their own enrichment and get around
> pesky things like the treaty process with regards to the spp.

I'm talking about a road. I don't do politics.

I guess that leaves us with little to discuss.

js

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> "js" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >
> >Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >> (Brent P) said in
> >> rec.autos.driving:
> >>
> >> >Haven't you seen the future?
> >> >
> >> >Interstates 'leased'* to foreign corporations and you'll being paying
> >> >tolls for any lane you use. Seems they are getting people used to the
> >> >concept of these roads having a toll.
> >>
> >> I have no problem with this, provided that said foreign corporation
> >> also pays to BUILD the road.
> >
> >When you use office space to generate revenue should you be obligated
> >to build it yourself or is renting an office OK?
>
> Was taxpayer money used to build the office building?

No taxpayer money was used to build the Skyway or the Indiana Tollroad.
No taxpayer money is planned to be used to build the actual TTC-35.

The US Government owns a multitude of office buildings in and around
Washington DC that were indeed built with taxpayer funds (actual
general revenue funds) and are leased to private organizations. Look
at the GSA's website in case you are unsure.

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/cha...annelId=-12925

> >> I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!
> >
> >As well as a reckless poster - gotta love the consistency.
>
> What's with the unprovoked Ad Hominem attack?

An observation of fact. Your post had a significant error of fact.

"But using taxpayer money to build a freeway and then
selling it to a private company for use as a toll road is bull****."

That, in my opinion, is reckless posting. If it bothers you to have
that pointed out then I would suggest you check your facts first.

js