User talk:Vislander

Hi there,

I am sorry if I have offended you with my edits to the Kinsol Trestle page. I was merely editing them to reflect the current status of the Kinsol Trestle.

I just made a minor edit to something you changed recently, I changed "Completed in 1920, its dimensions measure 44m (145 ft) high and 188m (614 ft) long" from "Completed in 1920, it's dimensions measure 44m (145 ft) high and 188m (614 ft) long". When you entered the apostrophe in it's, the it's means it is, which does not fit the context.

As for the contrarian view which you continue to post, I did not remove that to hide one view of the argument. It was removed because that view is no longer being taken into consideration, and is no longer relevant to the Trestle. The way the contrarian view is written, it promotes negative views of the rehabilitation of the Trestle. The rehabilitation will bring in thousands of tourists each year, where a newly constructed bridge may not. While you do not feel the Trestle is a historic structure, many feel that it is very much a historic structure as it is a reminder of the mining and more specifically logging industries that were once so important to the Cowichan Valley. With the logging industry fading in the Valley, and tourism becoming the frontrunner in the Valley's economy, this is the perfect opportunity to unite the two with the rehabilitation of the Kinsol Trestle.

It is for this reason that I did not like your choice of words for the contrarian view. Espcially since the CVRD has fully approved the rehabilitation after weighing the pros and cons. They have also comitted to continue with the upkeep of the Trestle and the surrounding trail in the future, as they recognize the tourist value of such a sight.

Please explain to me why you feel so strongly about the contrarian view, and perhaps we can come to a compromise.

Thank you very much for your time. Kinsol trestle (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)