I have no objection to WTF and laughed when I read it. I can also understand Marcy’s objection from her POV.
Thanks all for weighing in.
Phil, I actually thought about your point from the book you were telling us about that debt makes governments more fragile when I was writing my initial anti-Prop-A argument, but it seemed to me that the need to preserve resilience in the face of disaster would tend to be an ineffective argument against spending to *prepare for* disaster. I think the fragility argument from the book you were recommending to us would be better employed against another type of spending proposal, e.g. "When the next big earthquake strikes and the city is unable to do much to help people left hungry and homeless because it is burdened down by debt, will people be glad that all this money was blown to purchase land for a new park?"
I think the "WTF" is amusing and adds some forcefulness to our point without coming out and asserting that the proponents are lying, or that their claim is "absolutely false", both of which seemed potentially more problematic to me. A bit of online jargon could also increase the argument's appeal to younger, Internet-savvy folks. But if people in our group like what I wrote otherwise but have strong objections to that, I'll bow to the consensus.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))