On Feb 16, 2:48 pm, "Shrikeback" <hewpied...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > For the public to see a sign on a piece of property, there must be a
> > public road nearby.
>
> Supposing it's a private road?
Even that concedes too much to him.
> This isn't a coincidence. In fact, all communication with the public
> is always 100% dependent on public funding.
The reason is that he's equivocating on "public funding" and "100%
dependent". He does that with almost all of his pronouncements so that
he can constantly shell game the discussion and continually duck 'n
dodge.
Fred Weiss
