Hello, Chad,
I'd like to respectfully, and with genuine appreciation, remind you of one of your own recent posts:
~~~~
You've said Harrington was "...impounding public waterway flows without permits..."
Digging a little deeper, I believe you may also be unintentionally misleading by mischaracterizing what actually happened...
I found a legal report commenting in greater detail on the events:
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1800&context=wlr
According to the report, Harrington did this: "On his property, he used impoundments to capture diffuse surface waters, which are waters from rain or melting snows flowing over land and not part of a defined watercourse."
I recognize that "legalese" is NOT plain English; nevertheless, "diffuse surface waters" does not remotely sound to me to be "public waterway flows."🤔
My appreciation for your above post is that you've reminded me that I have a distinct tendency to rapidly leap to the defense of those I perceive to be victims of state tyranny. I truly appreciate your reminder to investigate the details before I run off at the mouth.🙏🏻😁💖👍
The only valid first reaction to something that makes you angry as soon as you see it should be a desire to verify that it is true. If you don't focus that initial fury into getting the context behind what gets your blood to boil and making sure that it's not hype, you're giving away your power and control to someone else.
If you confirm that it is verified information, with an understanding of the full context and background, then you can plan actions to make changes in a direction that you would prefer things go.
But please, don't just react blindly. It's a good way to slam face first into a wall.
View quoted note →