Posted Mon, Jul 5, 1:44 p.m.

Nope, think I think it reveals your character that you are willing to try to reveal someone else's identity while hiding your own. Makes everything you say suspect. BTW, Googling doesn't tell you who's doin' the typing just who's e-mail is being used.

Posted Mon, Jul 5, 1:16 p.m.

SimplyPut, If you want everyone to believe, you why are you hiding behind a user name instead of speculating on the identity of others. Seems a little cowardly.

Posted Mon, Jul 5, 12:49 p.m.

Wow, more speculation and opinion without facts. The pier quality was far from the deciding factor in the process. So, I guess now were down to speculating about the identities of the posters to this website. I guess that's what you do when you're out of arguments. Gee, I guess ...

Posted Mon, Jul 5, 11:08 a.m.

m-t-e, I doubt you have ANY conception of how much it would cost to "restart" the process ? Most of the Seattle posts here are not supported by data just crybaby rumors, unsubstantiated assertions, and uninformed biased opinions. Wah wah wah. SimplyPut, I don't care how much of an insider ...

Posted Sun, Jul 4, 7:52 p.m.

SimplyPut, The inclusion of the new criteria long preceded Lubchenco's entry into the picture. That is a verifiable fact. So is the 50,000.00 cost to get to the Pacific if you believe NOAA's own cost figures which I consider far more reliable than your uninformed opinion. No way to respond ...

Posted Sun, Jul 4, 5:53 p.m.

SimplyPut, You're dogged criticism of Lubchenco is still unwarranted. It's like blaming Obama for the collapse of the housing industry. The wheels were already in motion and there wasn't much she could do at that point. She barely had time to know what was going on. Especially, since NOAA was ...

Posted Sun, Jul 4, 2:38 p.m.

SimplyPut, First, I notice you never addressed your baseless accusation that Lubchenco had anything to do with this. I don't believe there was and you sure don't have any proof but if there was any favoritism she had nothing to do with it. Second, your statement of the cost to ...

Posted Sun, Jul 4, 9:54 a.m.

Simply Put, Your research is Simple and incomplete. While Lubchenco was sworn in before the results of the selection process was announced. The "flawed process" (i.e. the criteria by which the selection was made and the inclusion of Newport within the territory to be considered) long preceded Lubchenco's appointment. Further ...

Posted Sat, Jul 3, 10:41 p.m.

Previous post was to noah

Posted Sat, Jul 3, 9:41 p.m.

Seneca, From the article:"The report confirms the position that Seattle is the best place and even the most cost-effective for NOAA’s Pacific operations." Not true. Learn to read yourself.

Posted Sat, Jul 3, 6:10 p.m.

Elaine, The "flawed process" and the evaluation the lead to Newport was done BEFORE Lubchenco was appointed the head of NOAA. Check the facts yourself. So yes, it is a coincidence but thanks for spreading more uninformed conspiracy theories, it makes for fun reading no matter how untrue it is.

Posted Sat, Jul 3, 4:13 p.m.

Godden's comment is an out and out lie. The IG report NEVER and I mean NEVER said "that Seattle is the best place and even the most cost-effective for NOAA's Pacific operations" How dare she make such a lie when it is so easy to confirm that it's not the ...

Posted Sat, Jan 30, 4:05 a.m.

Are you kidding ? The only candidate that ISN'T in a flood plain is Lake Union and it isn't even close to a practical alternate. Furthermore, because of the continuing construction and the fact that a lease is already in place that NOAA is legally bound to honor or face ...

Posted Sun, Jan 24, 10:44 a.m.

One point that many are missing is that in a town of 10,000 people the needs NOAA and their employees will be a priority for the town. Seattle's attitude toward NOAA's needs and requirements during the bidding process should tell a lot to the people of NOAA just where NOAA ...