"we're starting to hear that you're considering allowing that skydiving outfit to increase it's number of aircraft to 8 I think."

Sorry to get off track, but since it's been brought up, can you elaborate on this? I didn't think the city had any say in private business items as specific as the number of pieces of equipment they can have in service, but maybe that assumption isn't correct. Where did you hear differently if I might ask?

"A hand-picked audience clapping politely at the Coors Events Center while Donald Trump insults women and Ben Carson insults Muslims would be an insult to the intelligence of every University of Colorado student. The millions of viewers watching this debate deserve to see and hear how real people respond to these presidential candidates."

I'm quite sure everyone is very aware how "real people" respond to the candidates. What ProgressNow Colorado wants is the opportunity to disrupt a nationally televised debate. Good for the RNC for trying to keep the proceedings civil during the event itself. Us real people would prefer the story to be about what the candidates have to say rather than about immature children (who have made their positions on the candidates abundantly clear) shouting those candidates down.

I guess the QuietSkies moniker took the negative rating lower than Intense Debate could handle.

Owen nails it above. "Reasonable". Ms. Gibbs, everything you do and say indicates you take reasonable to mean "the way you want it". Literally everything. The public and the courts have repeatedly, over and over, again and again at much cost to you, tried to inform you that the current regulations ARE, in fact, reasonable, by the accepted definition, and what you think is reasonable is really not reasonable at all.

Oh so many points have been brought to your attention, essentially pointing out facts as obvious as "this apple is red", and you still continuously respond (when you choose to) with "no that red apple is actually green. Here is a link to our website and sign this petition". I truly do not understand that mentality, but I imagine this cause is so ingrained in you now that you really have no choice but to continue to respond with the same points you've been making since the beginning.

I'll again suggest that with the time, money and voracity you seem to have, your efforts would be much better spent working with other groups around the country that have legitimate noise problems due to arguably questionable actions from the FAA. You are truly an activist's dream come true, only your cause is extremely unpopular here and it is going to continue to be very financially and psychologically painful for you to continue with it the way you have.

Way too many points to argue against here, but I would like to address the Intense Debate issue you bring up. You are exactly right, people can create multiple accounts and have the ability to downvote (or upvote) any comments, but what you don't mention is that Ms. Gibbs and her supporters also have this exact same ability and do this exact thing. She plays the game every bit as well as anyone opposing her does, but she has the added advantage of an apparent abundance of time and (for now) money to actually play it.

I'd cite as an example the petition she's put up with a number of "reasonable conditions" to make the skies a quiet place. She tweets ad nauseum to the groups around the country and her supporters to sign this petition, and yet there are about 300 signatures on it now, I'd guess at least 90% of which are from areas around major airports that may truly have a beef with the way the FAA has changed its routing policy. Yes, it has only been up a few days, but that is a minuscule number of local supporters regardless of how you try to spin it.

Another example is the noise polls that have been taken. I explained pretty thoroughly in a blog post why every sign indicates an initial poll that showed airplane noise is the biggest offender was "fixed" (and most likely by the methods you've accused her opponents of using). The most recent poll showed a doubling of votes of almost every other category, yet votes for airplane noise (even with the trial publicity) were actually cut in half. Games were certainly played with those results the first time, but it wasn't from her opponents.

Ms. Gibbs and you can spin the public reactions any way you want in an attempt to show that CQS has a huge number of supporters, and your immediate circles of friends will probably help skew the reality for you, but the truth really is that there are far more people fed up with her actions than there are people such as yourself who have blindly pledged their loyal support for her cause.

Perhaps he did some of his own research and decided that he needed to reevaluate his position after he learned more. And while I'll never understand your strong conviction that seems to say "so what if that elected official got the city out of its financial ruin and cured cancer, he's against pot so he must go!", I can definitely back your attempt to remove him from office based on so many other things that I believe make him the wrong person for the job.

"We'll sacrifice whatever it takes for our beloved men in blue and orange."

Why do the handful of pro CQS letters write in absolutes such as this so often? No one is suggesting we "sacrifice whatever it takes". No one is suggesting that those of us who disagree with CQS and her tactics want all airplane regulations abolished. The exhibition team is a really cool thing, and I for one (of many I would imagine) think it is pretty awesome that they have a connection to our airport. I'll definitely put up with some noise for that.

"But the noise from those planes does so affect thousands around the airport. I have heard it. Friends in Longmont have heard it. Mr. Gibbons' statistics are erroneous."

Yes, all of us can hear the planes, so I guess by your definition we are all "affected" by it. Most of us choose not to let it affect us to the point where we would sacrifice countless time and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to shut it down. It is a cost of growth, and most of us accept that inconvenience because the benefits far outweigh that inconvenience.

Ms. Gibbs has latched onto the handful of other airplane noise complaint groups around the country in an effort to get some support for her cause here. Based on what I've seen, some of those places actually might have legitimate gripes, but the situation here is almost laughable compared to those. Focus your efforts in those areas, Ms. Gibbs, where there are much more significant problems and more citizens would be sympathetic to your cause. Your cause in this area is extremely unpopular, as anyone with a hint of objectivity can tell from the overwhelming negative responses to the pro-CQS letters and comments.

Mr. Ellis, you are clearly a kind and thoughtful man who has been led astray (to borrow a recent quote from Ms. Gibbs).

Ms. Gibbs...you state on your FB page that Mr. Henninger is "clearly a kind thoughtful man who has been lead astray". What an unbelievably condescending statement on your part. How exactly was he lead astray? Sounds like he put more effort into actually researching the situation than just about anyone has cared to at this point, and based on what he observed, he realized he had jumped to conclusions in his previous letter and was mistaken. Are you suggesting that he should have just taken your word for it and voiced his support based on that?

Please explain to me how on earth this is "being lead astray".

"Encana Spokesman Doug Hock said community service and grants are a priority for the company and a few naysayers won't change Encana's commitment."

Amen. Haters gonna hate, but good to see Encana putting some of that money back to the community. Are they doing it for the good publicity? Well duh, that's certainly on their minds, but so what? 20K seems like it could go a really long way into making the community a better place. Keep working the regulation side of fracking, but no reason not to graciously accept donations back when they are offered in the meantime.

Have to agree that standoffs that don't end in a death are usually the best outcome, but even had Buswold killed Rosales, I think it would have been equally justified. A person who makes as many bad decisions in a short time like Rosales did is one dangerous individual, even if that danger comes from his sheer stupidity. Even most of the recently publicized officer involved shootings were the result of a slew of stupid choices on the suspect's part. Rosales should be mighty thankful he isn't dead, and hopefully he'll use this incident to evaluate his future choices in life a little better.

Regardless, this one ended as good as could have been expected, and that's a good thing.