<p>Nope, read further back. You’ll see the other posts I’m referring to. You made mention several times of SU’s “superiority.” Your argument now (it has changed quite a bit since this thread began) would only make sense if someone on the thread was claiming that Cornell was better than SU, vice versa. That point wasn’t being made, yet you felt the need to point to areas where SU is stronger than Cornell in trying to downplay Cornell’s win. The argument was not about SU v. Cornell, but about the strength of the proposals put forth by the two schools. Period. </p>
<p>And here we go again with your “of course Bloomberg would say that.” You’ve made that argument earlier when trying to reinterpret previous statements by Bloomberg, but without any real reason or credible evidence to support that reinterpretation. Having done some work in historic preservation and related fields, I know the entire building does not need to be taken down for officials to get a sense of the toxicity levels at the site. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, my point has been vindicated. And while your argument as it is in the most recent post is not so disagreeable, your argument has been modified over the course of this discussion. Take a look at your past posts. Its like reading opinions from three or four different authors. Your evidence is continuously exposed for its shortfalls, yet you, without skipping a beat, simply pick yourself back up and continue with a modified narrative without acknowledging the evidence’s shortfalls (or just the fact that the evidence has been debunked, so the speak).</p>