Originally posted by Lighthouser:
Dennis, if you read the article, there should not be a need to explain my comment/ generalization.
While I appreciate your comments, please don't shoot the messenger.
I don't believe I shot anybody. I just posted my thoughts based on your comment and the article I read. I thought that's why you posted the article.
I addressed it to you only because you initiated the subject.
IMHO the two situations only have a lighthouse in the middle in common. The situations bear no other resemblence to each other IMHO. In the case of Currituck the complaining party had no long standing interest in taking care of the property whereas in the case of Pemaquid Bristol has a long standing involvement with the property if not the Lighthouse tower itself.
Sorry if you misunderstood my intent. No personal message was being sent to you or anybody else at this point. I believe I emphasised by reapeating that it seems to be not it's a fact.