OK I'm a tad confused (not difficult really considering you are adding your views to my posts... which seem to have disappeared? As in 'Tigger Wrote'.. and there are no words).

But I know for certain that the Celts were not a bunch of cannibals as you make out. Amazing what archeology, DNA and modern technology can do to make us question what we learned in history lessons

Still didn't answer my question Ewald. The developers, whom you profess are major proponents of ecological values which will help nature and the local community. They still have 8 hectares, and if they were serious they could prove to us all that the environment is a big issue to the developers.

So again, do you think they will cultivate this land that they already have and put it to good use?

Cesar reported it and he had not far to go,but nobody believed him in Rom

Only modern DNA gave the evidence.

Celts where indeed Cannibals only 2000 Years back

The Helvetii were a Celtic tribe or tribal confederation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetii

Wissenschaftler gehen davon aus, dass die Vorfahren der Schweizer Menschenfleisch gegessen haben
http://meinungen.web.de/forum-webde/post/2586900?sp=7

There you are mistaken. HK adopted Common Law and the Developer can apply again and again,specially if the house and financial Crisis brewing up is hitting with loads of unemployed.The planners will see how silly they acted to reject this great Opportunity for good and healthy housing and work on Lamma. Won't take long till they realize there Mistake.
Hong Kong will run after this Developer when they realize what a good proposal it was. Now all parties loose out,specially people who want cleaner seawater and the Oil tankers removed.

Ewald, I know enough about developers and what is at stake to know that what you are saying is true. The developers have invested hugely into their project in terms of money, time, and I'm sure, with their hearts as well. They won't give up their dream easily and I know that money can be as patient and tenacious as the very sea itself.

My father was a developer in Canada. He never ran into the kind of organized opposition that King Wong and friends have here, but I do know that once the wheels were well in motion on a project with significant resources sunk into it that he would not just 'give up' when problems arose. I also know that while he was a developer of rural residential subdivisions, he was also truly a lover of nature. I remember how he designed his subdivisions to honour the contours of the land. I remember, for example, that he would go to great lengths to avoid knocking down large beautiful trees - even moving roads to avoid this necessity. In like manner I can imagine that Bobby Li truly does love Lamma. It would be a very common human error to demonize him and think that since he is a developer - we know exactly what he is - what he thinks - and what his deepest motivations are. It has been suggested in earlier threads that it's only about money. And any statements about sustainability, Green values and loving Lamma are merely rhetoric designed to camouflage the true agenda and confuse the 'enemy'. Maybe there is some of this? Who Knows? But maybe some of the 'rhetoric' is true as well. We have to be careful in our judgements and not fall into the trap of a black and white - good vs evil - us and them dynamic. I, myself have, many times, made The Baroque out to be the 'bad guys' and have had fun thinking up slogans to take the piss out of the name 'Baroque'. But such polarizations lead to war and there would be no winners in such an event. Lamma's environment will certainly not win.

I know Lamma people are keen to sustain our beautiful island atmosphere and will continue to strive for the evolution of our community toward an even more harmonious relationship with the environment.
So, what is the best course of action, now?

Honestly, I think it would be best to transform the dynamic from one of Lamma environmental protectors against the developers (Against Baroque) to one of Lamma Environmentalists in support of truly (not in promotional materials only) environmentally sustainable development (appropriately controlled and limited).

movement toward such a relationship would require significant transformation of mindset by both 'sides'. But, it would be a more sustainable dynamic. There is a time for opposition - of course. Truly stupid proposals must be opposed. Damaging proposals must be opposed. But there is also a need to continually also seek for ways to build partnership. Opposition alone is exhausting. It is energy depleting, wasteful and itself, an unsustainable behavior.

Now, with the Town Planning Board having recently turned down the BOL proposal would be a good time for Lamma environmentalists to enter into a more open dialogue with BOL. We should learn more about the 'Greenness' of the BOL plan. How deep are these ideas? Is it merely a Green veneer? And if so, it's time to lobby hard to deepen it and make sure the sustainable elements of the development are truly fundamental in the development plan. So that when it eventually does (if it does) get approved it will be something we are all happy to live with. There's no reason BOL couldn't truly become a real showpiece of good environmental community planning that we could all be proud of. If this is their selling point - then let's make damned sure it's absolutely true!!!

This is a moment of power.

'Victory' is on the side of Living Lamma and other supporters of Lamma sustainability. It is the time to make an overture toward dialogue.

_________________
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
----- Margaret Mead

I disagree.

They would use any such engagement as a greenwash.
They already tried to quote some people out of context at the TPB hearing to make it look as if they had the endorsement of environmental groups:

As I've said elsewhere, if they gave a crap about agriculture and green values, they can do it on the land they already have, which is already zoned agricultural.

We've seen what they did at the Tannery: They just want to build ridiculously expensive flats and sell them at a premium.
Same as Discovery Bay, same as Cyberport. Nothing else matters but selling real estate. To engage with them is to make the destruction of South Lamma more likely.

They've hired a PR company to green up their image. Don't be part of it.

I agree. What's the point in talking to them? The govt has thankfully laid down a fairly clear directive that south Lamma should be left as is. The Baroque developers (for that is what they are) should take their plans somewhere more suitable.

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

Did send a long answer,don't no where the post went.

It will be expensive to only developed agriculture, google Whitbread plc statement how much one Restaurant cost to build

I understand your point. Maybe you are right. Maybe they totally don't give a rat's ass about any environmental or agricultural values.
For myself 9and I admit I haven't followed all of this nearly closely enough) I am not convinced that this is the case. I don't know. In my mind there is still some chance that they do care at some level and that they are at the very least, able to be convinced of the importance of these approaches if shown that their product would gain special recognition for being 'cutting edge' and that this caché would translate eventually for them into hard cash.

If there is even some chance of this it's worth considering.
Especially if you consider the possibility that they will continue to resubmit this application periodically until conditions change in their favour and it is eventually approved. i can tell you that I think it likely that this will prove in the long run to be the case. It is naive to assume that the project will now be shelved. It absolutely will not be. Think of all the money they have already spent and the potential profit in it for them if it goes ahead. All they have to do is wait. Play the game. Change things a little. Wait for for the members of the TPB to turn over. Lobby behind the scenes at who knows what levels. Eventually it will go ahead. You can count on it.

The only chance to REALLY stop it would be to get some sort of formalised protected status for the area. Turn it into a nature preserve, park or cultural heritage district. Then they would likely give up. But even in those cases they dont always walk away. I read recently about a group of shady business types in the new territories who want to rebuild or renovate a cultural heritage building. They couldn't of course under it's protected status. So what did they do - they just failed to maintain the building over the years, and keep putting periodic pressure to have it's protected status downgraded. As I recall this strategy was working for them. Developers who are well backed financially work with a very long horizon. They are not too put off by a group of active lobbysists because they know eventually we will give up - get tired - forget or move away. They just wait for conditions to change and do everything they can to nudge conditions towards a more favourable state. We must not be naive!!

The way I see it there are 3 possible futures:

1) Formally protect the land from development with a status enshrined in law that would be extremely difficult or impossible to change.
2) Create deep division and greater enmity between the developers and environmentalists. The project is stalled - perhaps for years but is eventually developed without any true care for principles of sustainability
3)Build positive (but boundaried) relationship between developers and environmentalists. Open dialogue would allow for increased mutual understanding and in time environmentalists would stand a chance of convincing developers to build a truly sustainable ecologically friendly community.

_________________
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
----- Margaret Mead

[/quote]

Cesar reported it and he had not far to go,but nobody believed him in Rom

Only modern DNA gave the evidence.

Celts where indeed Cannibals only 2000 Years back

The Helvetii were a Celtic tribe or tribal confederation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetii


>>> As a Guangxi person myself, Guangxi, being an isolated and poor "have not province". I wretched (puked), at learning of how Mao turned my people into beasts out of necessity to stay alive, as they resorted to Cannibalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?it ... catid=2#07
-Lots of books on this subject

Unfortunatly I can't seem to access sensitive essays about this over here for obvious reasons. When accessing unflattering things about the Reds. Internet searches go very very very slow.

However, when accessing things like "Big Ears Tu-tu ( a cartoon about a Chinese baby), or See Yam Yam (a cartoon about sheep), oddly enough the computer responds kosherly. hmmmmm.

I'd post more corroborating evidence of how Mao made animals of my people during his rule. Turning a once proud and civilized contributor to world science that the Chinese were once. To reflect his ugly beastly nature of this savage. During the "Cultural" revolution, similar to the Khimer Rouge killing people for wearing glasses. (See movie Killing Fields); China destroyed arts and culture and science was greatly discouraged. It's no surprise to see how such hell like condititions people had to resort to eating people....


As such, the CPC didn't even have rudimentary understandings for engineering and thus couldn't construct irrigation projects, thus crops failed, and nobody ate, except mao and his retarded children. (I love how his Grandson a 3 Star General, has really helter skelter szchiophrenic handwriting (wild graffiti like font).

But do a simple google on Guangxi, (and other places), Cannabalism, and Communist China......

Point the finger of accusation son. 3 point back at you.

How did we go from talking about the Seas of Lamma to Cannabalism. Now for once I'M CONFUSED. ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Living Lamma and others have gone to meetings with them and concluded they are totally insincere and have no commitment to green issues. The green trimmings on their plans are insubstantial and would never see reality.



They're in financial straits. The longer it's delayed, the more likely they will go broke.

Every extra year delay is a win for the environment.
We don't have to give in just because they "will continue to resubmit".

They have been rejected comprehensively by a TPB where they had bought the chairman to be their lobbyist.

Compromising with them is not necessary.
The DAB and their cronies will gradually but inevitably lose power as the population changes. In the long term we may indeed get a more permanent protection.

Hey, the Helvetii were among my direct ancestors! So I'm descended from cannibals?

Maybe that's why my attempts to eat veggie food more often have been only modestly successful....

Maybe you guys could continue your long-running but moot feud in the dedicated BoL topic? It's over for now anyway, next major act of this saga in 18+ months, perhaps.
This topic is all about Lamma Sea Water, as it says in the title....

_________________
Click here for Lamma-zine stories and recent Lamma Spotlights of the Week:
Photo, Video, Person, Wildlife, Bird, Artwork.

If believe the account from TPB pasted on BOL thread these are excerpts from Bobby Li speech.
"… Can a person who loves nature go home and not have babies or shower with soap?...”

This is an old and often used argument against environmentalists or pacifists who, I admit, can be hypocritical and hysterical about the issue. It is wrong, generalizing and simplifying the problem, reducing preservation to dilemma eat or preserve the nature. This is ridiculous logic. This is not Baroque dilemma. In this case is about PROPER ZONING.

“Eventually we are going to have to develop the coastal areas. This is a good opportunity and Mr. Bobby Li knows Lamma very well.”

In other words he says: the area, as a result of pollution will degrade and soon nobody will see a reason to protect it, and is going to be developed sooner or later under pressure of developers - so who bothers, so give this opportunity to me.

“When the project is realised, Mr. Bobby Li and his associates will be retired, so the benefits will be for future generations, not for themselves."

This is the most outrageous. Such a sacrifice from Bobby Li and his co-workers! Almost an insult to the audience. He must have assumed he was talking to idiots. This kind of propaganda is familiar to me from behind the Iron Curtain.

"The project will not pose a lot of impact on the environment. Between the buildings there is a lot of space for greenery. The marina will give you a leisurely feeling and an entirely different lifestyle"

“…space of greenery.” between buildings Is not a habitat for any species and will shortly degrade and eventually will be paved to give place for cars, stalls and business. The environment will not only suffer impact from the project, it will be entirely lost

"Our proposed development will improve the environment and create a very nice ambiance for the whole of Lamma Island. Some roads will be open to the public as well and some green places will be retained."

He keeps forgetting that many people on Lamma do not want roads. The main value of Lamma is being no car zone. And what a generous offer of “some green places to be retained”! What way the BOL will improve the environment? What a promice! I can see all the pink dolphins rushing to the BOL marina to enjoy plentiful of fish and pristine water.

"Our proposal will turn Lamma Island into an important tourist site."

Lamma is an important tourist site. Perhaps, not in terms of money turnover which Mr. Bobby Li and many others think is the most important measure.

Generally, Bobby Li when advocating his project showed being completely misunderstanding environmental issues, tried to accuse environmentalists of hypocrisy, showed cynicism (All is going to be ruined so do it first, who cares), tried to gain sympathy by announcing his voluntarily work for future generations, and ignored the voice of some part of Hong Kong and local community (despite declaring his good knowledge and bonds to Lamma).

Narses ,after he won the war did send 250 000 Ostrogoth in about 550 from North Italy to Switzerland.I think the Celts Number was decimated by the Romans and very small by then.Also they where pushed towards the Rhone Delta. Therefore if you are not a Frank you perhaps are an Ostrogoth....

They may likely go what? What was that you said??

'go baroque'??? Haha!!
How uncannily apt their chosen name would have turned out to be in the end.
King Wong goes BOL (Broke On Lamma)

If you are right about this it's a crucial element in the whole equation. What makes you think they are in financial straights?

In any event - I still believe in open dialogue as a positive.
I'm certainly not suggesting presenting posteriors to 'the commodore' to let him him rock and roll us any which way he desires. I said 'properly boundaried' dialogue and I don't think talking with someone can be legitimately used as proof of support for whatever it is they want to do. They might try to use the event of dialogue having occurred in such a fashion, but that doesn't mean that they would be believed and it also doesn't take into account for the fact that Living Lamma has proven itself to be very effective in making it's views known. They would certainly be able to correct any such twistings of the truth.

_________________
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
----- Margaret Mead

From a post to Living Lamma in October:

The fact that Baroque is owned by a struggling Mainland property company makes the idea that they would put anything ahead of profit maximisation naive.
You can talk with them all you like. They will say whatever they think will get them the right to pour concrete and sell flats.