Comment 39976

By Jarod (registered) | Posted April 19, 2010 at 20:38:45

I can agree with the idea that a panel should be comprised of a wide variety of perspectives.

Although, at the same time, I find myself not terribly concerned with the opposition the panelist will have. Mainly because logic, truth and facts should speak for themselves. The panelist could be a hundred to one in a room full of opposition and still come out on top depending on the facts and his ability to navigate the discussion.

I'm not saying I agree with aerotropolis (mainly because I don't) But what I am saying, is that there are/have been many conversations and debates where activists are routinely outnumbered, and persevere because they use logic, facts and truth and stand by their word. If they can do that on a semi-regular basis, why then, should it be so ridiculous for someone to defend their thought process publicly. If anything, (were I opposition) I would relish the opportunity to have the floor and speak my peace and maybe clear up some things that may be a little ambiguous.

I sat for an entire semester of transportation engineering in a room full of people who don't like buses (I enjoy riding the bus) who actively hate the proposed LRT (I am hopeful to see this come to pass sometime soon). What I found, after all the yelling stopped, is that people will listen to reason...eventually.

If the opposition had such a strong argument, that could stand the test of a single evening in a room filled with people who may disagree, I don't think you'd be so concerned.

Maybe just me

Comment edited by Jarod on 2010-04-19 19:42:19

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools