Quote from above: “I’m NOT looking for any funding, either—there’s a decent chance that the cost of the solution is lower than the Federal Government’s increased tax-revenue from hurricane-prevention, so I say that the government should pay for it.”
Hopefully, you read this comment BEFORE saying something like “But EA shouldn’t spend $1B on your idea” or “So you want us to fund this?”
I’ve received numerous mis-representations, each insisting that I am somehow asking for EA money. You demonstrate how poorly you pay attention; I’ll copy the quote again, in case anyone forgot by now:
“I’m NOT looking for any funding, either—there’s a decent chance that the cost of the solution is lower than the Federal Government’s increased tax-revenue from hurricane-prevention, so I say that the government should pay for it.”
Why am I repeatedly addressing such an obvious and shallow misrepresentation? What is going on with these people?
Quote from above: “I’m NOT looking for any funding, either—there’s a decent chance that the cost of the solution is lower than the Federal Government’s increased tax-revenue from hurricane-prevention, so I say that the government should pay for it.”
Hopefully, you read this comment BEFORE saying something like “But EA shouldn’t spend $1B on your idea” or “So you want us to fund this?”
I’ve received numerous mis-representations, each insisting that I am somehow asking for EA money. You demonstrate how poorly you pay attention; I’ll copy the quote again, in case anyone forgot by now:
“I’m NOT looking for any funding, either—there’s a decent chance that the cost of the solution is lower than the Federal Government’s increased tax-revenue from hurricane-prevention, so I say that the government should pay for it.”
Why am I repeatedly addressing such an obvious and shallow misrepresentation? What is going on with these people?