I am so using that at the next appropriate opportunity.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
I hardly call THIS a crime:
spot;1030381 wrote: Did nobody actually see "she refused to return the football or accept a written citation"? This isn't to do with private land or personal space, this is to do with bald-headed ornery intransigence.
I am so using that at the next appropriate opportunity.
I am so using that at the next appropriate opportunity.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
I don't mean to be argumentative but letting them come get the ball
back all the time is problematic, too. The same traipsing through
flower beds, etc. and the interruption to the senior's day. I just don't
see why she should continually have to put up with that. I was
fortunate to have plenty of room as a child but I never would have
continually played where my ball was going in someone else's yard.
But my parents raised me to respect my elders!
I bet you dollars to doughnuts (as my mom used to say) that this
is all BOYS doing this. Parents have allowed them to run wild and
not taught them respect for other people.
back all the time is problematic, too. The same traipsing through
flower beds, etc. and the interruption to the senior's day. I just don't
see why she should continually have to put up with that. I was
fortunate to have plenty of room as a child but I never would have
continually played where my ball was going in someone else's yard.
But my parents raised me to respect my elders!
I bet you dollars to doughnuts (as my mom used to say) that this
is all BOYS doing this. Parents have allowed them to run wild and
not taught them respect for other people.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
Steal her walker and trade it for the ball. Problem solved now everyone get back to work.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
valerie;1030687 wrote: I don't mean to be argumentative but letting them come get the ball
back all the time is problematic, too. The same traipsing through
flower beds, etc. and the interruption to the senior's day. I just don't
see why she should continually have to put up with that. I was
fortunate to have plenty of room as a child but I never would have
continually played where my ball was going in someone else's yard.
But my parents raised me to respect my elders!
The family that live behind me have 3 kids and numerous friends over all the time playing, balls are constantly coming over the fence and I have no problem with it. If I am out in the yard or notice their toys I always toss them back to the kids, they sometimes walk around the block and ask if they can get their balls, again no problem, get your balls and have fun. They have even broken the fence a time or two climbing over to retrieve their balls. A fence can easily be fixed no problem.
I bet you dollars to doughnuts (as my mom used to say) that this
is all BOYS doing this. Parents have allowed them to run wild and
not taught them respect for other people.
BOYS? You sexist.:wah:
The little girl behind me also accidently throws balls over my fence, I've even found a Barbie doll of hers once. I have never considered them disrespectful for having a little fun.
back all the time is problematic, too. The same traipsing through
flower beds, etc. and the interruption to the senior's day. I just don't
see why she should continually have to put up with that. I was
fortunate to have plenty of room as a child but I never would have
continually played where my ball was going in someone else's yard.
But my parents raised me to respect my elders!
The family that live behind me have 3 kids and numerous friends over all the time playing, balls are constantly coming over the fence and I have no problem with it. If I am out in the yard or notice their toys I always toss them back to the kids, they sometimes walk around the block and ask if they can get their balls, again no problem, get your balls and have fun. They have even broken the fence a time or two climbing over to retrieve their balls. A fence can easily be fixed no problem.
I bet you dollars to doughnuts (as my mom used to say) that this
is all BOYS doing this. Parents have allowed them to run wild and
not taught them respect for other people.
BOYS? You sexist.:wah:
The little girl behind me also accidently throws balls over my fence, I've even found a Barbie doll of hers once. I have never considered them disrespectful for having a little fun.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
Isn't there an entire sub-plot in To Kill A Mockingbird about this?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
spot;1030697 wrote: Isn't there an entire sub-plot in To Kill A Mockingbird about this?
You can be Atticus Finch, I'll play Sherriff Heck Tate and we will get Jimbo to be Boo Radley. I knew we would get this worked out eventually.
You can be Atticus Finch, I'll play Sherriff Heck Tate and we will get Jimbo to be Boo Radley. I knew we would get this worked out eventually.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
Jimbo's the perfect choice, magnificent call there.
Him that played Atticus Finch in the film grew up a couple of miles down the road from here, I can do the accent and I've even got the dimple.
Him that played Atticus Finch in the film grew up a couple of miles down the road from here, I can do the accent and I've even got the dimple.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
YZGI;1030696 wrote:
BOYS? You sexist.:wah:
The little girl behind me also accidently throws balls over my fence, I've even found a Barbie doll of hers once. I have never considered them disrespectful for having a little fun.
Again, you presumably aren't 89 years old?
I know girls are capable of this, just going from MY experience, which
is rather extensive.
As to broken fences... YOURS may be easily fixed but I'd bet folding
money that an 89 year old (maybe on fixed income?) has far fewer
resources to take care of something like that...
BOYS? You sexist.:wah:
The little girl behind me also accidently throws balls over my fence, I've even found a Barbie doll of hers once. I have never considered them disrespectful for having a little fun.
Again, you presumably aren't 89 years old?
I know girls are capable of this, just going from MY experience, which
is rather extensive.
As to broken fences... YOURS may be easily fixed but I'd bet folding
money that an 89 year old (maybe on fixed income?) has far fewer
resources to take care of something like that...
I hardly call THIS a crime:
valerie;1030716 wrote: Again, you presumably aren't 89 years old?
I know girls are capable of this, just going from MY experience, which
is rather extensive.
As to broken fences... YOURS may be easily fixed but I'd bet folding
money that an 89 year old (maybe on fixed income?) has far fewer
resources to take care of something like that...
Nope, I am not 89 but I hope to be some day and when that day comes I hope that a few balls in my yard don't upset me to this extreme.
I know girls are capable of this, just going from MY experience, which
is rather extensive.
As to broken fences... YOURS may be easily fixed but I'd bet folding
money that an 89 year old (maybe on fixed income?) has far fewer
resources to take care of something like that...
Nope, I am not 89 but I hope to be some day and when that day comes I hope that a few balls in my yard don't upset me to this extreme.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
Well that's where we part company then I guess because I don't
at all consider this extreme.
I revere seniors and have for a long time and I think there comes
a point where they deserve a little peace and quiet.
:-6
at all consider this extreme.
I revere seniors and have for a long time and I think there comes
a point where they deserve a little peace and quiet.
:-6
I hardly call THIS a crime:
valerie;1030733 wrote: Well that's where we part company then I guess because I don't
at all consider this extreme.
I revere seniors and have for a long time and I think there comes
a point where they deserve a little peace and quiet.
:-6
I revere seniors and children and would hope that the two could get along so the whole human race can coexist without a line being drawn in the sand over a ball.
at all consider this extreme.
I revere seniors and have for a long time and I think there comes
a point where they deserve a little peace and quiet.
:-6
I revere seniors and children and would hope that the two could get along so the whole human race can coexist without a line being drawn in the sand over a ball.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
I'm a mom and I've always told my kids to stay away from old farts like this woman..just invites trouble. On the other hand, the old fart would benefit if she were more friendly with these kids. Maybe a "Hello" on her end would help.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1030490 wrote: Yes the kids should have been equally empathetic towards the woman's preference for for the children to keep their balls out of the woman's yard. But you've already said you're not ready to not justify the children playing...Accidents are still very much a probability and seeing as how motivation is the key the children are more justified given the current facts pertaining to the case.
BS, K. An "accident" occurs once, maybe twice. Repeated instances are are on purpose. When someone asks you to keep your ball off their yard and you don't, that's not an accident. That's disrespect at its highest.
I would absolutely have no problem with people placing a watchtower in my yard upon no harm being done both to myself nor my yard...
Good. You control what happens in your yard. Let this woman control what happens in her own yard. It's only fair.
I would wonder why the hell they'd want to place a watchtower in my yard...What are they paranoid over?...They do realize this is 2008 and watchtowers are obsolete for the most part and seeing as how I live in Ohio there's no lions or bears around...
The Watchtower is the name of their religious magazine that they hand out door to door to anyone they can.
BS, K. An "accident" occurs once, maybe twice. Repeated instances are are on purpose. When someone asks you to keep your ball off their yard and you don't, that's not an accident. That's disrespect at its highest.
I would absolutely have no problem with people placing a watchtower in my yard upon no harm being done both to myself nor my yard...
Good. You control what happens in your yard. Let this woman control what happens in her own yard. It's only fair.
I would wonder why the hell they'd want to place a watchtower in my yard...What are they paranoid over?...They do realize this is 2008 and watchtowers are obsolete for the most part and seeing as how I live in Ohio there's no lions or bears around...
The Watchtower is the name of their religious magazine that they hand out door to door to anyone they can.
-
Jack Rabbit
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:18 am
I hardly call THIS a crime:
Don't the police have anything better to do?
I hardly call THIS a crime:
Peg;1030558 wrote: If the neighbor's ball came in my yard 100 times a day, I'd let them get it. I'd even let them play ball in my yard even if there was 50 of them. Why? Because as long as they are playing ball, they are not out on some street corner smoking a joint, busting out windows, etc.
I've personally never found anything wrong with smoking a joint.
I've personally never found anything wrong with smoking a joint.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1031322 wrote: I've personally never found anything wrong with smoking a joint.
so your the one busting windows!:sneaky:
so your the one busting windows!:sneaky:
Life is just to short for drama.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
Odie;1031327 wrote: so your the one busting windows!:sneaky:
Nothing in the books that says "If you smoke a joint you're to blame for busted windows." :sneaky:...
:yh_bigsmi...
Nothing in the books that says "If you smoke a joint you're to blame for busted windows." :sneaky:...
:yh_bigsmi...
I hardly call THIS a crime:
RedGlitter;1030483 wrote: I think we've torn this to shreds and we're still not going to agree. But I have to get to bed too. I need to be up at 6. See ya.
Hey Red, I think you did a slam up job and I agree 100% with what you have said. It seems she got tired of the ball going in HER yard, she took said ball, end of story. Also I was thinking last name JESTER...........
HMMMM
:-2:rolleyes:
Oh yah all charges were dropped today:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwvu ... wD93VRRIG0
Hey Red, I think you did a slam up job and I agree 100% with what you have said. It seems she got tired of the ball going in HER yard, she took said ball, end of story. Also I was thinking last name JESTER...........
HMMMM
:-2:rolleyes:
Oh yah all charges were dropped today:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwvu ... wD93VRRIG0
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
I hardly call THIS a crime:
BTS;1031364 wrote: Hey Red, I think you did a slam up job and I agree 100% with what you have said. It seems she got tired of the ball going in HER yard, she took said ball, end of story. Also I was thinking last name JESTER...........
HMMMM:-2:rolleyes:
Oh yah all charges were dropped today:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwvu ... wD93VRRIG0
Blue Ash Prosecutor Mark Arnzen said Wednesday that there was insufficient culpability to prosecute Edna Jester of Blue Ash, who was arrested last week.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwvu ... wD93VRRIG0
I could have told you that...
Doesn't excuse her for being a rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical woman upon any damage not being done to her property both physical and material wise...
Doesn't excuse the kids lack to honor her preferences but given the divine outcome throughout the entire conjecture of no damage being done to her property both physical and material wise the children playing is more justifiable than the sheer spite of this woman keeping a damn childs ball and preventing them from having "depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy."...Inexcusable.
HMMMM
:-2:rolleyes:Oh yah all charges were dropped today:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwvu ... wD93VRRIG0
Blue Ash Prosecutor Mark Arnzen said Wednesday that there was insufficient culpability to prosecute Edna Jester of Blue Ash, who was arrested last week.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwvu ... wD93VRRIG0
I could have told you that...
Doesn't excuse her for being a rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical woman upon any damage not being done to her property both physical and material wise...
Doesn't excuse the kids lack to honor her preferences but given the divine outcome throughout the entire conjecture of no damage being done to her property both physical and material wise the children playing is more justifiable than the sheer spite of this woman keeping a damn childs ball and preventing them from having "depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy."...Inexcusable.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
RedGlitter;1030876 wrote: BS, K. An "accident" occurs once, maybe twice. Repeated instances are are on purpose. When someone asks you to keep your ball off their yard and you don't, that's not an accident. That's disrespect at its highest.No, the highest level of disrespect is being "a rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical woman upon any damage not being done to her property both physical and matarial wise" and "depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy."...Inexcusable.
RedGlitter;1030876 wrote:
Good. You control what happens in your yard. Let this woman control what happens in her own yard. It's only fair.We're on that "Her yard" vs "Everyone's yard" thing...Argumentative.
RedGlitter;1030876 wrote:
The Watchtower is the name of their religious magazine that they hand out door to door to anyone they can.
Oh, I see, I see...I like the Jehovah's witnesses that visit me maybe 4-5 times a year for about 10 to 15 minutes at a time as we engage in delightful conversation...I mean I'm not that "rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical" of a person to tell them to F off because they like engaging in conversation...I mean I'm only all the more comfortable with my beliefs to not be a "rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical" person to be upset at a friend others like to call inconvenient human beings whom visit me.
RedGlitter;1030876 wrote:
Good. You control what happens in your yard. Let this woman control what happens in her own yard. It's only fair.We're on that "Her yard" vs "Everyone's yard" thing...Argumentative.
RedGlitter;1030876 wrote:
The Watchtower is the name of their religious magazine that they hand out door to door to anyone they can.
Oh, I see, I see...I like the Jehovah's witnesses that visit me maybe 4-5 times a year for about 10 to 15 minutes at a time as we engage in delightful conversation...I mean I'm not that "rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical" of a person to tell them to F off because they like engaging in conversation...I mean I'm only all the more comfortable with my beliefs to not be a "rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical" person to be upset at a friend others like to call inconvenient human beings whom visit me.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
valerie;1030687 wrote: I don't mean to be argumentative but letting them come get the ball
back all the time is problematic, too. The same traipsing through
flower beds, etc. and the interruption to the senior's day. I just don't
see why she should continually have to put up with that. I was
fortunate to have plenty of room as a child but I never would have
continually played where my ball was going in someone else's yard.
But my parents raised me to respect my elders!
I bet you dollars to doughnuts (as my mom used to say) that this
is all BOYS doing this. Parents have allowed them to run wild and
not taught them respect for other people.
Playing in their own yard is disrespectful?...
back all the time is problematic, too. The same traipsing through
flower beds, etc. and the interruption to the senior's day. I just don't
see why she should continually have to put up with that. I was
fortunate to have plenty of room as a child but I never would have
continually played where my ball was going in someone else's yard.
But my parents raised me to respect my elders!
I bet you dollars to doughnuts (as my mom used to say) that this
is all BOYS doing this. Parents have allowed them to run wild and
not taught them respect for other people.
Playing in their own yard is disrespectful?...
I hardly call THIS a crime:
valerie;1030675 wrote: All due respect, Peg... you aren't 89 years old!! Besides which, kids
with no respect for their elders are very likely to end up being the ones
smoking joints and busting windows.
I call 89 year old women with no respect for kids "very likely to end up being the ones smoking joints and busting windows."...
But at the risk of minimizing argument I'd like to express that my opinion is based solely off of the current facts pertaining to the thread...
Why people keep bringing in "gardens" and whatnot is completely speculative.
with no respect for their elders are very likely to end up being the ones
smoking joints and busting windows.
I call 89 year old women with no respect for kids "very likely to end up being the ones smoking joints and busting windows."...
But at the risk of minimizing argument I'd like to express that my opinion is based solely off of the current facts pertaining to the thread...
Why people keep bringing in "gardens" and whatnot is completely speculative.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
The kids continually toss their ball into this woman’s yard. She can get no cooperation from them nor their parents. In a rational world they would loose their ball and get a paddling to boot.
Instead, the parents call up the cops, who harass the old lady–and arrest her. SHEESHHHH...
I suppose it is gonna get worse after the election too.
Instead, the parents call up the cops, who harass the old lady–and arrest her. SHEESHHHH...
I suppose it is gonna get worse after the election too.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
I hardly call THIS a crime:
BTS;1031388 wrote: I suppose it is gonna get worse after the election too.Compulsory euthanasia at thirty, that's what we need. It would fix everyone's problems.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
BTS;1031388 wrote: The kids continually toss their ball into this woman’s yard. She can get no cooperation from them nor their parents. In a rational world they would loose their ball and get a paddling to boot.
Instead, the parents call up the cops, who harass the old lady–and arrest her. SHEESHHHH...
I suppose it is gonna get worse after the election too.
Well to be honest the father calling the police is ridiculous. The kids new she were unhappy about the ball flying into her yard so they should expect to lose their balls......
"Gardens" being trampled and "damage" being done however is a completely different story except given the current facts the motivation for her keeping the ball is sheer spite. "depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy."
Very simple...And very inexcusable if such is the case.
For the record I give the woman as much benefit of the doubt that the ball was probably hitting her house or damaging her yard but those facts have not been presented to the case...I don't know how more simple it could be.
Instead, the parents call up the cops, who harass the old lady–and arrest her. SHEESHHHH...
I suppose it is gonna get worse after the election too.
Well to be honest the father calling the police is ridiculous. The kids new she were unhappy about the ball flying into her yard so they should expect to lose their balls...
..."Gardens" being trampled and "damage" being done however is a completely different story except given the current facts the motivation for her keeping the ball is sheer spite. "depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy."
Very simple...And very inexcusable if such is the case.
For the record I give the woman as much benefit of the doubt that the ball was probably hitting her house or damaging her yard but those facts have not been presented to the case...I don't know how more simple it could be.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1031386 wrote: I call 89 year old women with no respect for kids "very likely to end up being the ones smoking joints and busting windows."...
But at the risk of minimizing argument I'd like to express that my opinion is based solely off of the current facts pertaining to the thread...
Why people keep bringing in "gardens" and whatnot is completely speculative.
It may be speculative but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE.
Unfortunately. I know whereof I speak!!
Even if they weren't damaging anything, they were harrassing her at
the very least. Glad the charges were dropped.
I might be willing to do a compromise, 1st ball in the yard, you get
back, time #2 she keeps it say 3 days... time #3 a week, etc. and
maybe train the little brats where the parents won't!!
But at the risk of minimizing argument I'd like to express that my opinion is based solely off of the current facts pertaining to the thread...
Why people keep bringing in "gardens" and whatnot is completely speculative.
It may be speculative but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE.
Unfortunately. I know whereof I speak!!
Even if they weren't damaging anything, they were harrassing her at
the very least. Glad the charges were dropped.
I might be willing to do a compromise, 1st ball in the yard, you get
back, time #2 she keeps it say 3 days... time #3 a week, etc. and
maybe train the little brats where the parents won't!!
I hardly call THIS a crime:
valerie;1031421 wrote: It may be speculative but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE.
Unfortunately. I know whereof I speak!!
Even if they weren't damaging anything, they were harrassing her at
the very least. Glad the charges were dropped.
I might be willing to do a compromise, 1st ball in the yard, you get
back, time #2 she keeps it say 3 days... time #3 a week, etc. and
maybe train the little brats where the parents won't!!
Very well...
My concern is as to why the woman is harrassed so easily...If the children weren't damaging the womans person both physically or mentally the children were more justified...My agreement lies in the latter...Why a woman cares of children playing is beyond me...
As I've said, "damage" is one thing,..being annoyed at people is completely another...
The fact of the matter is by your using the phrase "but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE." one could just as easily say "but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE." when referencing rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical woman" being irritated at children simply out of sheer spite...
See where this is going?...:yh_bigsmi...
Unfortunately. I know whereof I speak!!
Even if they weren't damaging anything, they were harrassing her at
the very least. Glad the charges were dropped.
I might be willing to do a compromise, 1st ball in the yard, you get
back, time #2 she keeps it say 3 days... time #3 a week, etc. and
maybe train the little brats where the parents won't!!
Very well...
My concern is as to why the woman is harrassed so easily...If the children weren't damaging the womans person both physically or mentally the children were more justified...My agreement lies in the latter...Why a woman cares of children playing is beyond me...
As I've said, "damage" is one thing,..being annoyed at people is completely another...
The fact of the matter is by your using the phrase "but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE." one could just as easily say "but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE." when referencing rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical woman" being irritated at children simply out of sheer spite...
See where this is going?...:yh_bigsmi...
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1031383 wrote: No, the highest level of disrespect is being "a rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical woman upon any damage not being done to her property both physical and matarial wise" and "depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy."...Inexcusable.
We're on that "Her yard" vs "Everyone's yard" thing...Argumentative.
Oh, I see, I see...I like the Jehovah's witnesses that visit me maybe 4-5 times a year for about 10 to 15 minutes at a time as we engage in delightful conversation...I mean I'm not that "rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical" of a person to tell them to F off because they like engaging in conversation...I mean I'm only all the more comfortable with my beliefs to not be a "rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical" person to be upset at a friend others like to call inconvenient human beings whom visit me.
Good God. Give it a rest. Your logic goes off the deep end sometimes and this is one of those times. Where do you get off calling this woman a bitch among other things because she doesn't want carpet lizards in her damn yard?
Where do you get off saying that a child's right to play is more important that a senior citizen's right to be left in quiet?
If you think that having a ball taken away destroys some kid's happy upbringing, well we might as well just shoot the kids now because they won't make it past age seven without having their precious little lives destroyed by some mean old biddy whom no one respects or regards.
As for the Watchtower people, as much as you evidently think I'm a wretch for kicking them and their unsolicited crap off my porch, well I guess I can just think you're weird for talking to them. Seriously you need to let people live their lives as they see fit and not as you see fit for them.
We're on that "Her yard" vs "Everyone's yard" thing...Argumentative.
Oh, I see, I see...I like the Jehovah's witnesses that visit me maybe 4-5 times a year for about 10 to 15 minutes at a time as we engage in delightful conversation...I mean I'm not that "rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical" of a person to tell them to F off because they like engaging in conversation...I mean I'm only all the more comfortable with my beliefs to not be a "rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical" person to be upset at a friend others like to call inconvenient human beings whom visit me.
Good God. Give it a rest. Your logic goes off the deep end sometimes and this is one of those times. Where do you get off calling this woman a bitch among other things because she doesn't want carpet lizards in her damn yard?
Where do you get off saying that a child's right to play is more important that a senior citizen's right to be left in quiet?
If you think that having a ball taken away destroys some kid's happy upbringing, well we might as well just shoot the kids now because they won't make it past age seven without having their precious little lives destroyed by some mean old biddy whom no one respects or regards.
As for the Watchtower people, as much as you evidently think I'm a wretch for kicking them and their unsolicited crap off my porch, well I guess I can just think you're weird for talking to them. Seriously you need to let people live their lives as they see fit and not as you see fit for them.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote: Good God. Give it a rest. Your logic goes off the deep end sometimes and this is one of those times. Not at all.
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
Where do you get off calling this woman a bitch among other things because she doesn't want carpet lizards in her damn yard? I didn't call this woman a "bitch". You're puting words in to my mouth. I said she'd be a "bitch" if she had taken the childrens' ball with no legitimate reason. spite is not a legitimate reason and defines her as a "bitch" if such is the case.
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
Where do you get off saying that a child's right to play is more important that a senior citizen's right to be left in quiet? Again you're placing your own connotations upon the argument. I've readily said if she weren't mentally disturbed by the children the children are more justified among the divination of her property being damaged. Where at any time did I say anything involving noise?
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
If you think that having a ball taken away destroys some kid's happy upbringing, well we might as well just shoot the kids now because they won't make it past age seven without having their precious little lives destroyed by some mean old biddy whom no one respects or regards. Banning children from playing and being active at no cost to anyone's health ruins their upbringing. Yes. I wouldn't shoot them though.
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
As for the Watchtower people, as much as you evidently think I'm a wretch for kicking them and their unsolicited crap off my porch, well I guess I can just think you're weird for talking to them. You think I'm weird for talking to other human beings but I don't think you're a wretch. In fact if you've told people you didn't wish to be disturbed and those, and only those, very same people came back then I'd understand you're being upset with them.
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
Seriously you need to let people live their lives as they see fit and not as you see fit for them.I will not let other people live their lives so long as they are effecting the lives of the more moral to ill effect, and I'm not sorry for that.
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
Where do you get off calling this woman a bitch among other things because she doesn't want carpet lizards in her damn yard? I didn't call this woman a "bitch". You're puting words in to my mouth. I said she'd be a "bitch" if she had taken the childrens' ball with no legitimate reason. spite is not a legitimate reason and defines her as a "bitch" if such is the case.
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
Where do you get off saying that a child's right to play is more important that a senior citizen's right to be left in quiet? Again you're placing your own connotations upon the argument. I've readily said if she weren't mentally disturbed by the children the children are more justified among the divination of her property being damaged. Where at any time did I say anything involving noise?
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
If you think that having a ball taken away destroys some kid's happy upbringing, well we might as well just shoot the kids now because they won't make it past age seven without having their precious little lives destroyed by some mean old biddy whom no one respects or regards. Banning children from playing and being active at no cost to anyone's health ruins their upbringing. Yes. I wouldn't shoot them though.
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
As for the Watchtower people, as much as you evidently think I'm a wretch for kicking them and their unsolicited crap off my porch, well I guess I can just think you're weird for talking to them. You think I'm weird for talking to other human beings but I don't think you're a wretch. In fact if you've told people you didn't wish to be disturbed and those, and only those, very same people came back then I'd understand you're being upset with them.
RedGlitter;1031547 wrote:
Seriously you need to let people live their lives as they see fit and not as you see fit for them.I will not let other people live their lives so long as they are effecting the lives of the more moral to ill effect, and I'm not sorry for that.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
spot;1031390 wrote: Compulsory euthanasia at thirty, that's what we need. It would fix everyone's problems.
Why wait till 30............
;);)
Just kiddin....Not needed at all spotty, just a little home schoolin on others rights would save a lot of lives!!!!
Why wait till 30............
;);)Just kiddin....Not needed at all spotty, just a little home schoolin on others rights would save a lot of lives!!!!
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1031391 wrote: Well to be honest the father calling the police is ridiculous. The kids new she were unhappy about the ball flying into her yard so they should expect to lose their balls......
"Gardens" being trampled and "damage" being done however is a completely different story except given the current facts the motivation for her keeping the ball is sheer spite. "depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy."
Very simple...And very inexcusable if such is the case.
For the record I give the woman as much benefit of the doubt that the ball was probably hitting her house or damaging her yard but those facts have not been presented to the case...I don't know how more simple it could be.
Kevin...........I respect you and your points of views and think you are one of the most articulate posters in the garden. Butt........I think you miss the WHOLE point here. It does not matter if these kids trampled her garden, flowers, lawn or whatever...... They encroached on her private property and, evidentually one time too many. I saw her interview and she claimed she planned to give it back but wanted to teach them a lesson........ I have NO problem with that and this comes from a wild child of the 60-70's......
..."Gardens" being trampled and "damage" being done however is a completely different story except given the current facts the motivation for her keeping the ball is sheer spite. "depriving these children of an eventful childhood and memorization to the point of a potentially happy future having been negated by a woman's lack of empathy."
Very simple...And very inexcusable if such is the case.
For the record I give the woman as much benefit of the doubt that the ball was probably hitting her house or damaging her yard but those facts have not been presented to the case...I don't know how more simple it could be.
Kevin...........I respect you and your points of views and think you are one of the most articulate posters in the garden. Butt........I think you miss the WHOLE point here. It does not matter if these kids trampled her garden, flowers, lawn or whatever...... They encroached on her private property and, evidentually one time too many. I saw her interview and she claimed she planned to give it back but wanted to teach them a lesson........ I have NO problem with that and this comes from a wild child of the 60-70's......
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
I hardly call THIS a crime:
I agree with BTS here (whoa- we have agreed with each other twice now! :wah: 
) but I'm apologizing to you K, because you know how fond I am of you and this dumb thread isn't worth nicking our friendship over. That means more to me than anything. I was salty too. I'm sorry. 
) but I'm apologizing to you K, because you know how fond I am of you and this dumb thread isn't worth nicking our friendship over. That means more to me than anything. I was salty too. I'm sorry. I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1031457 wrote: Very well...
My concern is as to why the woman is harrassed so easily...If the children weren't damaging the womans person both physically or mentally the children were more justified...My agreement lies in the latter...Why a woman cares of children playing is beyond me...
As I've said, "damage" is one thing,..being annoyed at people is completely another...
The fact of the matter is by your using the phrase "but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE." one could just as easily say "but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE." when referencing rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical woman" being irritated at children simply out of sheer spite...
See where this is going?...:yh_bigsmi...
Why a woman cares? If you have to ask that, then there's no dealing
with you, you just won't understand.
Ever heard of Chinese water torture? Drip, drip, drip... drives you insane.
Mentally this woman was probably at the end of her tether. I certainly
would be and I'm a lot younger than she is!
Children playing don't bother you? Great. Mostly, they don't bother me,
either. But to me, there is NO justification for them not showing
proper respect and arranging their games so a ball doesn't constantly
go in her yard!
My concern is as to why the woman is harrassed so easily...If the children weren't damaging the womans person both physically or mentally the children were more justified...My agreement lies in the latter...Why a woman cares of children playing is beyond me...
As I've said, "damage" is one thing,..being annoyed at people is completely another...
The fact of the matter is by your using the phrase "but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE." one could just as easily say "but it sure as heck is based on EXPERIENCE." when referencing rude, prudish, nonempathetic, cynical woman" being irritated at children simply out of sheer spite...
See where this is going?...:yh_bigsmi...
Why a woman cares? If you have to ask that, then there's no dealing
with you, you just won't understand.
Ever heard of Chinese water torture? Drip, drip, drip... drives you insane.
Mentally this woman was probably at the end of her tether. I certainly
would be and I'm a lot younger than she is!
Children playing don't bother you? Great. Mostly, they don't bother me,
either. But to me, there is NO justification for them not showing
proper respect and arranging their games so a ball doesn't constantly
go in her yard!
I hardly call THIS a crime:
valerie;1031609 wrote: Why a woman cares? If you have to ask that, then there's no dealing
with you, you just won't understand.
Ever heard of Chinese water torture? Drip, drip, drip... drives you insane.
Mentally this woman was probably at the end of her tether. I certainly
would be and I'm a lot younger than she is!
Children playing don't bother you? Great. Mostly, they don't bother me,
either. But to me, there is NO justification for them not showing
proper respect and arranging their games so a ball doesn't constantly
go in her yard!
I couldn't agree more.
If, in fact, she were being bothered by those children. "Bothered" being relative. I know plenty of people who hate children so much that they're bothered just by looking at them. But you wouldn't hardly justify that reasoning would you?(I don't think you would...My question was more so rhetorical and is there to make a point)...
You see, the facts of the case was not that the kids were damaging anything in the same way they weren't not damaging something of hers.
What's happened is the same position being taken only the majority giving more benefit of the doubt to the defendant after the evidence being biased towards the prosecuting case.
What else you get is that all those being sympathetic to the woman, you have people more inclined to assume people are innocent until proven guilty regardless of facts not to mention all those people who have given the woman the benefit of the doubt are more sympathetic to senior citizens than they are of children based on their experiences. All out of simple logic.
And I don't retract anything I've said because quite frankly the facts do not lie.
Hopefully people are more ready to look at all of the facts before they sit on a jury for murder. (Not trying to imply anything but it's very important)...
with you, you just won't understand.
Ever heard of Chinese water torture? Drip, drip, drip... drives you insane.
Mentally this woman was probably at the end of her tether. I certainly
would be and I'm a lot younger than she is!
Children playing don't bother you? Great. Mostly, they don't bother me,
either. But to me, there is NO justification for them not showing
proper respect and arranging their games so a ball doesn't constantly
go in her yard!
I couldn't agree more.
If, in fact, she were being bothered by those children. "Bothered" being relative. I know plenty of people who hate children so much that they're bothered just by looking at them. But you wouldn't hardly justify that reasoning would you?(I don't think you would...My question was more so rhetorical and is there to make a point)...
You see, the facts of the case was not that the kids were damaging anything in the same way they weren't not damaging something of hers.
What's happened is the same position being taken only the majority giving more benefit of the doubt to the defendant after the evidence being biased towards the prosecuting case.
What else you get is that all those being sympathetic to the woman, you have people more inclined to assume people are innocent until proven guilty regardless of facts not to mention all those people who have given the woman the benefit of the doubt are more sympathetic to senior citizens than they are of children based on their experiences. All out of simple logic.
And I don't retract anything I've said because quite frankly the facts do not lie.
Hopefully people are more ready to look at all of the facts before they sit on a jury for murder. (Not trying to imply anything but it's very important)...
I hardly call THIS a crime:
again she is 89 years old, she is tired, she also doesn't want to listen to kids anymore, I know I hate kids screaming and running over my front yard............its irriating the noise alone.
they should be playing in their own yards.
they should be playing in their own yards.
Life is just to short for drama.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
BTS;1031587 wrote: Kevin...........I respect you and your points of views and think you are one of the most articulate posters in the garden. Butt........I think you miss the WHOLE point here. It does not matter if these kids trampled her garden, flowers, lawn or whatever...... They encroached on her private property and, evidentually one time too many. I saw her interview and she claimed she planned to give it back but wanted to teach them a lesson........ I have NO problem with that and this comes from a wild child of the 60-70's......
"Property" is relative which helps to establish justification...Which ultimately establishes who was more right and who was more wrong...
Theories of property
There exist many theories. Perhaps one of the most popular was the natural rights definition of property rights as advanced by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes one’s labor with nature, one gains ownership of that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property#T ... f_property
I've already agreed that if any of her physical being or "property" were damaged I'd understand why she did what she did but the fact remains my position is based solely on the facts of the case...I do not justify a person keeping a child's ball simply because it rolled on their lawn and had not at any time damaged the integrity of the persons in question nor their property...I've said that...
Quite frankly the kids were probably tormenting the hell out of the woman with their noise and slamming baseballs against her aluminum siding to the point any sane being would have been half tempted to stomp outside and take a switch to the brats' heads...
You said you had more facts?...I'd like to see them if you don't mind...
And I don't know how anyone could be against my logic I've been nothing but neutral throughout this entire thread and based my logic around facts. And the facts were there was nothing in my mind that justifies her being upset upon again no damage to her self or her yard...
"Property" is relative which helps to establish justification...Which ultimately establishes who was more right and who was more wrong...
Theories of property
There exist many theories. Perhaps one of the most popular was the natural rights definition of property rights as advanced by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes one’s labor with nature, one gains ownership of that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property#T ... f_property
I've already agreed that if any of her physical being or "property" were damaged I'd understand why she did what she did but the fact remains my position is based solely on the facts of the case...I do not justify a person keeping a child's ball simply because it rolled on their lawn and had not at any time damaged the integrity of the persons in question nor their property...I've said that...
Quite frankly the kids were probably tormenting the hell out of the woman with their noise and slamming baseballs against her aluminum siding to the point any sane being would have been half tempted to stomp outside and take a switch to the brats' heads...
You said you had more facts?...I'd like to see them if you don't mind...
And I don't know how anyone could be against my logic I've been nothing but neutral throughout this entire thread and based my logic around facts. And the facts were there was nothing in my mind that justifies her being upset upon again no damage to her self or her yard...
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1031633 wrote: What's happened is the same position being taken only the majority giving more benefit of the doubt to the defendant after the evidence being biased towards the prosecuting case.
What else you get is that all those being sympathetic to the woman, you have people more inclined to assume people are innocent until proven guilty regardless of facts not to mention all those people who have given the woman the benefit of the doubt are more sympathetic to senior citizens than they are of children based on their experiences. All out of simple logic.
Oh,..I forgot to mention that you all hate defense attorneys.
:yh_rotfl...
What else you get is that all those being sympathetic to the woman, you have people more inclined to assume people are innocent until proven guilty regardless of facts not to mention all those people who have given the woman the benefit of the doubt are more sympathetic to senior citizens than they are of children based on their experiences. All out of simple logic.
Oh,..I forgot to mention that you all hate defense attorneys.
:yh_rotfl...
I hardly call THIS a crime:
BTS;1031568 wrote: Not needed at all spotty, just a little home schoolin on others rights would save a lot of lives!!!!
I just had a vivid image spring into my head of a classroom of 89 year olds sat at school desks being instructed in civic by-laws, Ownership 101 and how to be polite regardless of perceived provocation.
I just had a vivid image spring into my head of a classroom of 89 year olds sat at school desks being instructed in civic by-laws, Ownership 101 and how to be polite regardless of perceived provocation.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I hardly call THIS a crime:
It was a while ago so i don't remember what council it was but local council here ruled that kids playing ball in the street that were a genuine nuisence to other residents, faced a fine.
This was met with mixed re-action by my neighbours should it become nationwide.
We live with a public field right outside our lounge window that often as a result, means we have balls come over.
My husband has a rule whereby if he believes it is accident, which 99% of the time it is, he gives the ball back but points out to the kids that we do have windows and plants in the garden etc. This normally works every time.
On odd occassions where he believed that particular kids were doing it out of devilment, he would tell them to send a parent round and he'd happily return the ball to them. This also works.
This was met with mixed re-action by my neighbours should it become nationwide.
We live with a public field right outside our lounge window that often as a result, means we have balls come over.
My husband has a rule whereby if he believes it is accident, which 99% of the time it is, he gives the ball back but points out to the kids that we do have windows and plants in the garden etc. This normally works every time.
On odd occassions where he believed that particular kids were doing it out of devilment, he would tell them to send a parent round and he'd happily return the ball to them. This also works.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I hardly call THIS a crime:
BTS;1031388 wrote: The kids continually toss their ball into this woman’s yard. She can get no cooperation from them nor their parents. In a rational world they would loose their ball and get a paddling to boot.
Instead, the parents call up the cops, who harass the old lady–and arrest her. SHEESHHHH...
I suppose it is gonna get worse after the election too.
No, in a rational world people wouldn't mind that children were playing sports in their own yards to have an occasional ball fly in their yard.
And upon no damage being omitted upon the woman's yard I would personally fine her. If damage has been done to the woman's property I'd suggest she counter claim and ask for not only reimbursement but punitive damages. Which would be all the more likely to be granted upon her ability to prove that many steps had been made through police calls and witness testimony of her attempt to minimize, again, her property being damaged.
But then again what do I know, that's just a rational world.
Instead, the parents call up the cops, who harass the old lady–and arrest her. SHEESHHHH...
I suppose it is gonna get worse after the election too.
No, in a rational world people wouldn't mind that children were playing sports in their own yards to have an occasional ball fly in their yard.
And upon no damage being omitted upon the woman's yard I would personally fine her. If damage has been done to the woman's property I'd suggest she counter claim and ask for not only reimbursement but punitive damages. Which would be all the more likely to be granted upon her ability to prove that many steps had been made through police calls and witness testimony of her attempt to minimize, again, her property being damaged.
But then again what do I know, that's just a rational world.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1037785 wrote: No, in a rational world people wouldn't mind that children were playing sports in their own yards to have an occasional ball fly in their yard.
And upon no damage being omitted upon the woman's yard I would personally fine her. If damage has been done to the woman's property
A rational world?
You seem to have no respect for a person's personal space unless of course damage has been done. That's not right. Or rational.
And upon no damage being omitted upon the woman's yard I would personally fine her. If damage has been done to the woman's property
A rational world?
You seem to have no respect for a person's personal space unless of course damage has been done. That's not right. Or rational.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
RedGlitter;1038032 wrote: A rational world?
You seem to have no respect for a person's personal space unless of course damage has been done. That's not right. Or rational.
I do not understand why people hate children, no. If no damage is being done to a persons yard and that person keeps a child's ball as the result of them playing then no I do not respect them as a person.
What isn't logical nor moral is being a prude to the point children are discouraged from playing sports altogether. Again, upon that person's yard not being damaged.
You seem to have no respect for a person's personal space unless of course damage has been done. That's not right. Or rational.
I do not understand why people hate children, no. If no damage is being done to a persons yard and that person keeps a child's ball as the result of them playing then no I do not respect them as a person.
What isn't logical nor moral is being a prude to the point children are discouraged from playing sports altogether. Again, upon that person's yard not being damaged.
I hardly call THIS a crime:
People live in constructions furnished with walls so I cannot imagine the noise is unbearable.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1038244 wrote: I do not understand why people hate children, no. If no damage is being done to a persons yard and that person keeps a child's ball as the result of them playing then no I do not respect them as a person.
What isn't logical nor moral is being a prude to the point children are discouraged from playing sports altogether. Again, upon that person's yard not being
damaged.
I'm sorry but i have to dis-agree with you KS.
What can seem a very nonsensical matter to some-one in their twentie's or fourtie's, can be al living hell for some-one off her age.
I remeber when we were little kids, our ball kept going into an old ladie's garden. We certainly didn't do it on prurpose, but she was very old and miserable as i remember her.
Our parents simply said, you don't play at that end of the street.
When i hear cases like this, i see two things. One, the parents don't give a shyte if their offspring is being a downright bloody nuisence to another human being, and two, kids who think the world owes them a living and can go where they like and do what they like at any cost and misery to any-one else.
If it was an isolated incident, you could say the old lady is being unreasonable. It's repetative and sooner or later, that will make an old lady ill.
I have a friend with two young childre living in a built up area with no grass. Once a day, their dad or her walks them to the nearest park for a kick around. The parents are too bone idle to find an alternative,
What isn't logical nor moral is being a prude to the point children are discouraged from playing sports altogether. Again, upon that person's yard not being
damaged.
I'm sorry but i have to dis-agree with you KS.
What can seem a very nonsensical matter to some-one in their twentie's or fourtie's, can be al living hell for some-one off her age.
I remeber when we were little kids, our ball kept going into an old ladie's garden. We certainly didn't do it on prurpose, but she was very old and miserable as i remember her.
Our parents simply said, you don't play at that end of the street.
When i hear cases like this, i see two things. One, the parents don't give a shyte if their offspring is being a downright bloody nuisence to another human being, and two, kids who think the world owes them a living and can go where they like and do what they like at any cost and misery to any-one else.
If it was an isolated incident, you could say the old lady is being unreasonable. It's repetative and sooner or later, that will make an old lady ill.
I have a friend with two young childre living in a built up area with no grass. Once a day, their dad or her walks them to the nearest park for a kick around. The parents are too bone idle to find an alternative,
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I hardly call THIS a crime:
oscar;1038254 wrote: I'm sorry but i have to dis-agree with you KS.
What can seem a very nonsensical matter to some-one in their twentie's or fourtie's, can be al living hell for some-one off her age.
I remeber when we were little kids, our ball kept going into an old ladie's garden. We certainly didn't do it on prurpose, but she was very old and miserable as i remember her.
Our parents simply said, you don't play at that end of the street.
When i hear cases like this, i see two things. One, the parents don't give a shyte if their offspring is being a downright bloody nuisence to another human being, and two, kids who think the world owes them a living and can go where they like and do what they like at any cost and misery to any-one else.
If it was an isolated incident, you could say the old lady is being unreasonable. It's repetative and sooner or later, that will make an old lady ill.
I have a friend with two young childre living in a built up area with no grass. Once a day, their dad or her walks them to the nearest park for a kick around. The parents are too bone idle to find an alternative,
Well to be honest I would agree with you if the children are causing a nuisance...:wah:
This is the way I see it.
Kid kicks ball ---> Ball goes in to neighbors yard ------> Neighbor lets kid go into yard to get the ball -------> People smile :-6 -------> Kids play ball again --------> People smile :-6 --------> People smile :-6 ... :wah:...
I'm not trying to be an a** I swear I'm not...
The fact of the matter is is that there hadn't been any reports of damage and upon each specific incident I'd like to know the nature of the situation. What we cannot agree on, it seems, is the definition of "nuisance" in this particular context.
I see a ball rolling into a yard occasionally or even frequently doing no harm to any of the neighbor's yard as not being a nuisance. Why would it be? Why not let the kids go into the yard and get the ball?...
I would personally be irritated if kids were to disrespect the preferences of a person in continuously damaging their yard but the fact remains it's not right to assume such was the case. Especially when they're not at any time throughout this entire thread damage has been reported. "Gardens" keep coming up and none had been reported. Not one.
What's left is justifying a person from keeping a child's ball simply because it rolled on to their "property"...I completely and wholeheartedly disagree and find it to not only be rude but immoral.
If people hate me for saying that then fine...
What can seem a very nonsensical matter to some-one in their twentie's or fourtie's, can be al living hell for some-one off her age.
I remeber when we were little kids, our ball kept going into an old ladie's garden. We certainly didn't do it on prurpose, but she was very old and miserable as i remember her.
Our parents simply said, you don't play at that end of the street.
When i hear cases like this, i see two things. One, the parents don't give a shyte if their offspring is being a downright bloody nuisence to another human being, and two, kids who think the world owes them a living and can go where they like and do what they like at any cost and misery to any-one else.
If it was an isolated incident, you could say the old lady is being unreasonable. It's repetative and sooner or later, that will make an old lady ill.
I have a friend with two young childre living in a built up area with no grass. Once a day, their dad or her walks them to the nearest park for a kick around. The parents are too bone idle to find an alternative,
Well to be honest I would agree with you if the children are causing a nuisance...:wah:
This is the way I see it.
Kid kicks ball ---> Ball goes in to neighbors yard ------> Neighbor lets kid go into yard to get the ball -------> People smile :-6 -------> Kids play ball again --------> People smile :-6 --------> People smile :-6 ... :wah:...
I'm not trying to be an a** I swear I'm not...
The fact of the matter is is that there hadn't been any reports of damage and upon each specific incident I'd like to know the nature of the situation. What we cannot agree on, it seems, is the definition of "nuisance" in this particular context.
I see a ball rolling into a yard occasionally or even frequently doing no harm to any of the neighbor's yard as not being a nuisance. Why would it be? Why not let the kids go into the yard and get the ball?...
I would personally be irritated if kids were to disrespect the preferences of a person in continuously damaging their yard but the fact remains it's not right to assume such was the case. Especially when they're not at any time throughout this entire thread damage has been reported. "Gardens" keep coming up and none had been reported. Not one.
What's left is justifying a person from keeping a child's ball simply because it rolled on to their "property"...I completely and wholeheartedly disagree and find it to not only be rude but immoral.
If people hate me for saying that then fine...
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
I hardly call THIS a crime:
K.Snyder;1038259 wrote: Well to be honest I would agree with you if the children are causing a nuisance...:wah:
This is the way I see it.
Kid kicks ball ---> Ball goes in to neighbors yard ------> Neighbor lets kid go into yard to get the ball -------> People smile :-6 -------> Kids play ball again --------> People smile :-6 --------> People smile :-6 ... :wah:...
I'm not trying to be an a** I swear I'm not...
The fact of the matter is is that there hadn't been any reports of damage and upon each specific incident I'd like to know the nature of the situation. What we cannot agree on, it seems, is the definition of "nuisance" in this particular context.
I see a ball rolling into a yard occasionally or even frequently doing no harm to any of the neighbor's yard as not being a nuisance. Why would it be? Why not let the kids go into the yard and get the ball?...
I would personally be irritated if kids were to disrespect the preferences of a person in continuously damaging their yard but the fact remains it's not right to assume such was the case. Especially when they're not at any time throughout this entire thread damage has been reported. "Gardens" keep coming up and none had been reported. Not one.
What's left is justifying a person from keeping a child's ball simply because it rolled on to their "property"...I completely and wholeheartedly disagree and find it to not only be rude but immoral.
If people hate me for saying that then fine...
I just feel sorry for her. I feel if the kids know that the ball is likely to roll into her yard and for whatever reason, that upsets her, then they should jusy be tolerant to a very old lady and move a few yards down the street.
We live bang next to a large primary school and nursery and have done for 11 yrs. We also have public fields right outside our louge window and you'd not believe the noise we suffer, but we do say , hey, it's kids, kid's will be kids. It's if they are doing it deliberately to make my dogs kick off that pisses me off.
This is the way I see it.
Kid kicks ball ---> Ball goes in to neighbors yard ------> Neighbor lets kid go into yard to get the ball -------> People smile :-6 -------> Kids play ball again --------> People smile :-6 --------> People smile :-6 ... :wah:...
I'm not trying to be an a** I swear I'm not...
The fact of the matter is is that there hadn't been any reports of damage and upon each specific incident I'd like to know the nature of the situation. What we cannot agree on, it seems, is the definition of "nuisance" in this particular context.
I see a ball rolling into a yard occasionally or even frequently doing no harm to any of the neighbor's yard as not being a nuisance. Why would it be? Why not let the kids go into the yard and get the ball?...
I would personally be irritated if kids were to disrespect the preferences of a person in continuously damaging their yard but the fact remains it's not right to assume such was the case. Especially when they're not at any time throughout this entire thread damage has been reported. "Gardens" keep coming up and none had been reported. Not one.
What's left is justifying a person from keeping a child's ball simply because it rolled on to their "property"...I completely and wholeheartedly disagree and find it to not only be rude but immoral.
If people hate me for saying that then fine...
I just feel sorry for her. I feel if the kids know that the ball is likely to roll into her yard and for whatever reason, that upsets her, then they should jusy be tolerant to a very old lady and move a few yards down the street.
We live bang next to a large primary school and nursery and have done for 11 yrs. We also have public fields right outside our louge window and you'd not believe the noise we suffer, but we do say , hey, it's kids, kid's will be kids. It's if they are doing it deliberately to make my dogs kick off that pisses me off.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
I hardly call THIS a crime:
I see a ball rolling into a yard occasionally or even frequently doing no harm to any of the neighbor's yard as not being a nuisance. Why would it be? Why not let the kids go into the yard and get the ball?...
I see an old lady resting in her home perhaps watching daytime TV or reading a book and a shadow passing her window, causing her distress or alarm.
She investigates to see children retrieving their ball.
She smiles and waves to them its OK.
Next time while drifting into daytime slumber, a clatter against her frontdoor/window/wall awakes her startling her.
After this happens many times over a period she begins to get angry, but only speaks to the boys to 'please take care'
Same thing happens the following day, and the day after that, and the day after that.
The old lady doesn't know where to conact the parents, and the kids always run away if she approaches them to talk......to them its part of a game.
Only after a prolonged period of her rest and peace of mind being disturbed, does she manage to get her hands on the ball and to make her point she retains it.
I see an old lady resting in her home perhaps watching daytime TV or reading a book and a shadow passing her window, causing her distress or alarm.
She investigates to see children retrieving their ball.
She smiles and waves to them its OK.
Next time while drifting into daytime slumber, a clatter against her frontdoor/window/wall awakes her startling her.
After this happens many times over a period she begins to get angry, but only speaks to the boys to 'please take care'
Same thing happens the following day, and the day after that, and the day after that.
The old lady doesn't know where to conact the parents, and the kids always run away if she approaches them to talk......to them its part of a game.
Only after a prolonged period of her rest and peace of mind being disturbed, does she manage to get her hands on the ball and to make her point she retains it.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
I hardly call THIS a crime:
oscar;1038264 wrote: I just feel sorry for her. I feel if the kids know that the ball is likely to roll into her yard and for whatever reason, that upsets her, then they should jusy be tolerant to a very old lady and move a few yards down the street.
We live bang next to a large primary school and nursery and have done for 11 yrs. We also have public fields right outside our louge window and you'd not believe the noise we suffer, but we do say , hey, it's kids, kid's will be kids. It's if they are doing it deliberately to make my dogs kick off that pisses me off.
Would me as well...
I would feel sorry for her as well if the kids were hitting her house and damaging her property.
:yh_bigsmi...
We live bang next to a large primary school and nursery and have done for 11 yrs. We also have public fields right outside our louge window and you'd not believe the noise we suffer, but we do say , hey, it's kids, kid's will be kids. It's if they are doing it deliberately to make my dogs kick off that pisses me off.
Would me as well...
I would feel sorry for her as well if the kids were hitting her house and damaging her property.
:yh_bigsmi...
I hardly call THIS a crime:
Bruv;1038270 wrote: I see an old lady resting in her home perhaps watching daytime TV or reading a book and a shadow passing her window, causing her distress or alarm.
She investigates to see children retrieving their ball.
She smiles and waves to them its OK.
Next time while drifting into daytime slumber, a clatter against her frontdoor/window/wall awakes her startling her.
After this happens many times over a period she begins to get angry, but only speaks to the boys to 'please take care'
Same thing happens the following day, and the day after that, and the day after that.
The old lady doesn't know where to conact the parents, and the kids always run away if she approaches them to talk......to them its part of a game.
Only after a prolonged period of her rest and peace of mind being disturbed, does she manage to get her hands on the ball and to make her point she retains it.
I see a report that states no damage whatsoever and upon my seeing such a report have divulged my opinion.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
so far the closest resemblance to damage having been assimilated is "Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard."
"kids' balls landing in the woman's yard." is not my idea of "a clatter against her frontdoor/window/wall awakes her startling her." and have based my opinion around the fact. That's all I've done in this thread...
She investigates to see children retrieving their ball.
She smiles and waves to them its OK.
Next time while drifting into daytime slumber, a clatter against her frontdoor/window/wall awakes her startling her.
After this happens many times over a period she begins to get angry, but only speaks to the boys to 'please take care'
Same thing happens the following day, and the day after that, and the day after that.
The old lady doesn't know where to conact the parents, and the kids always run away if she approaches them to talk......to them its part of a game.
Only after a prolonged period of her rest and peace of mind being disturbed, does she manage to get her hands on the ball and to make her point she retains it.
I see a report that states no damage whatsoever and upon my seeing such a report have divulged my opinion.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
so far the closest resemblance to damage having been assimilated is "Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard."
"kids' balls landing in the woman's yard." is not my idea of "a clatter against her frontdoor/window/wall awakes her startling her." and have based my opinion around the fact. That's all I've done in this thread...
I hardly call THIS a crime:
No 'damage' needs to be done to disturb an elderly ladies peace of mind.
Why does damage need to be done.
Noise and disturbance is a 'sort' of damage
Why does damage need to be done.
Noise and disturbance is a 'sort' of damage
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth