Good questions......
The answers are....
If various groups provide a series of bad ideas that have not worked repeatedly for decades.......someone who knows this has the right (maybe the duty) to point it out. If that person is "eloquent" and the opposition can't counter, maybe the opposition's lack of "eloquence" is, in fact, a lack of substance.
If the opposing point of view to the historical perspective is strong and valid, it will prove its point based on the facts...not on crap like cheerleading and "positive attitude" .....That's the essence of debate. Someone wins and someone loses......... based on content......... not style points.
On the other hand, if every voice is raised in support of flimsy and previously failed efforts, you have the 21st Century version of the Pied Piper of Hamlin leading the children out of town.
I am reading through this thread and seeing grandiose plans defeated because one person feels more competent to be a "spokesman" for the U.S. while another "representative" wants the European teams to adopt turbines. Meanwhile the WPPA is sort of partnered with the UIM, as well as P1, and OSS is scheduling against SBI at Clearwater, while CBS is going to approve "sponsorships" for 12-20 boats at Marathon. Do you guys ever listen to your own hot air??????????? How in the world is anyone with half a brain supposed to take any of this seriously?
You have a silly, fragmented sport..... which has wasted money, talent, and band width for decades, created absurd debates like this one and continues to decline.
Deal with that as your only agenda and maybe....just maybe....... your "critics" will become your allies.....
with "eloquence" of course....