There are about five or six google groupers contributing to the problem,
of which he is but one, and he is not the one with the whopper I
I specifically did not single out any members of that subset, because
those who give a rat's ass will get the message and trim their posts,
and any that remain will have proven themselves as beyond repair. YMMV.
Yeah I know, didn't mean to single him out.
Let me rephrase it to google groupers, then<g>
Especially when replying to another googler<sheeze>
I don't understand why so many tolerate google with the
There are many free news servers to use, but folks don't use
I'm not sure they can do much about the way google formats
their post, but then I don't know much about what options if
any they give you.
I much prefer a NNTP server over web based anyday
I think it's like anything, really; once a person becomes accustomed to
something it becomes ingrained, and more difficult to change. Then
there are also some people who might use, say, a work computer, or
someone else's computer, so for them having a consistent HTML interface
My guess is that those users either don't know what they are doing,
because google hides all of the quoted content behind a "Show quoted
text" link, or they just don't care. Perhaps we should remind them
about etiquette more often, as those who came before us were more wont
Unfortunately, google doesn't care about usenet, and from their behavior
since taking over deja, most likely would prefer that it went away
entirely. Otherwise they might put up a prompt stating, "Your message
is quoting a lot of lines, are you sure about that?", among numerous
On 6/28/2013 6:00 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
...Major Snippage Occurred...
There's a huge, huge, huge (that's 3 x huge) difference between a
dispute involving the incorrect placement of a fence by a contractor
when the fence is entirely on the property of the individual that
signed the contract and the incorrect placement of a fence onto the
property of someone who is in no way involved in the contract.
I seriously doubt that even the same judge would consider an
encroachment onto a third party's property equivalent to the fence
between placed inside the property line of the land owner whocontracted
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:42:38 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
xpert witness over land issues. Consider the following:
verify that the block is 300 feet in total and find that the first propert
y is sitting on 26 feet width and everyone in between has exactly 25 feet.
Subdivision is about 90 years old. All houses are about the same age. A
judge would find it very inequitable to have every one of the owners mover
their improvements by one (1) foot. All 10 of the interior lots are encroa
ching on their neighbor by one foot. Fairness and equity are a big part of
What you keep missing is the law says you can't build something
on another man's property. The remedy for that is simple. The
fence gets moved. This isn't some innocent mistake. It's an overt
act of the neighbor or his workmen, not giving a damn and deliberately
putting a fence on another man's property, even after being told
by the owner not to. You want to now believe that a court is going
to get into what is "fair", to make the guy infringed prove that
he's really harmed. This is absurd. The court will order the fence
to be moved. And it's not that it's impossible to do, it's a tiny
backyard with what, 40ft of fence? Good grief.
On 6/29/2013 9:14 AM, email@example.com wrote:
...Major Snippage Occurred...
No argument from me, but just from a practical point of view, moving 40'
of fence 1.5 *feet* would probably be easier to do than moving 40' of
fence 1.5 inches.
If the post holes had the typical 80 lb bag of cement dumped into each
hole, moving them 1.5" is going to be kind of hard - I agree: not
impossible, but kind of hard.
On Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:25:22 AM UTC-6, DerbyDad03 wrote:
An awful lot of bullshit over 1 1/2 inches of space which WILL NEVER BE USED BY
ANYONE. This guy watches the contractor build the fence where it now is and THEN
complains. Why didn't he say something BEFORE it was completed? He KNEW that it was going AROUND that power pole...by letting the building continue he was
by his inaction OKAYING the whole shebang.
I'll tell you what he should have done based on what I've seen happen
OVER AND OVER again on major highway construction projects. IF it was
all that important to him that it NOT encroach he should have sent an
"inspector" out as the work was being done to protect his interests.
In court it would go like this...
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So you knew the fence was in the wrong
spot and told them not to put it there.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - so it was of some importance to you?
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - Did you tell the contractor why it was
Plaintiff - I just told him it was in the wrong place, that's all he
needed to know.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - And when the contractor started over
building the fence at the second line, did you go check that line?
Plaintiff - No.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - Why not if the location was so
important to you?
Plaintiff - I didn't think it was my job to inspect his work.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So it was important enough to check on
the first day, but not important enough to check on the second day
when he started over?
Plaintiff - no, it was still important.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - yet you didn't check. Why was it
Plaintiff - it's my property.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - And how will the loss of that 1.5"
affect your use of the property?
Plaintiff - it will just irritate me.
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - - but will it affect where you can park
your car or where you can grow flowers, or does it affect the drainage
Plaintiff - no, it doesn't affect any of those things, it just bothers
Defense Counsel to Plaintiff - So except for your hurt feelings, this
error has no actual impact to your continued use and enjoyment of your
Plaintiff - That's right
Closing arguments by Defense Counsel - Your honor, plaintiff has
admitted that this 1.5" error in no way affects his continued use and
enjoyment of his property nor will it affect the value of the
property. It may even raise the value since there is now a fence
where there was none before. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has
demonstrated no actual damages I move for dismissal.
Judge: There has been no evidence presented showing any actual damage
to the plaintiff. Therefore I rule in favor of the defense and award
them court costs and attorneys fees to be paid by the plaintiff.
Perhaps that will send a message that the courts time should not be
wasted on these trivial matters.
Not quite the way I see it. To a point I agree the yard is still
usable. My conclusion is different.
Judge: For ignoring the law, the contractor must pay damages of
$xxx.xx for loss of land use and court costs and attorney's fees.
Perhaps in the future you will pay more attention and respect the laws
and neighbor's property.
On Saturday, June 29, 2013 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Yawn.... This is like the a defense counsel for a rape
case blaming the victim for walking in the wrong neighborhood
And the plaintiff could just say they were not home
when it was being done. And then you conveniently assume
that plaintiff is going to be so dumb to just agree it's
about his "hurt feelings"? Of course he's going to say,
my back yard is tiny, I want that 1.5" instead of my
neighbor stealing it from me. I paid for it. It's mine.
I pay real estate taxes on it, and over the years it's
amounted to $500. Pretty weak strawman.
It may even raise the value since there is now a fence
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.