RE: WHAT THE 1998 TRINITY PROPOSITION ACTUALLY SAYS

Hard to see how else a guy who should know better can continue to look at facts and spin crap. The language of the bond proposition isn’t even a close call, Jim. Maintaining otherwise is disingenuous, or maybe just stubborn way past a fault. As for whatever argument I detect in your post, I’d be delighted to see the bond language and history play out in court, if that’s where it’s headed, although I’m sure your lawyerly riffs will settle the whole matter in the pages of the DO. Or not. Still, can’t quite figure why you want to personalize and insult, but, dude, if that’s how you roll, bring it on. Steve Blow? Please. At least give me Bob Mong.