There's nothing disingenuous about my "take." What's disingenuous here is calling it a historical structure when, under the law, it was not. There are, of cours

There's nothing disingenuous about my "take." What's disingenuous here is calling it a historical structure when, under the law, it was not. There are, of course, all kinds of reasons why you believe in your position, including a perception of bad faith on the part of the landowners. I get that. I would expect nothing less. That doesn't make it acceptable to lie in defense of your views.