FOM wrote:
I had a fence installed last year. It is three sides that enclose my
backyard. Yesterday, my next door neighbor installed a fence and used
my existing fence to complete enclosing his backyard. He did not ask me
if he could do this, he just had the installers attach his fence to
ours. Now, we are paying for one third of this guy's fence. Is this
legal? What should I do?

What do you want to happen?

Do you want your neighbor to pay you or something?

What is your goal?

Figure out what you want and whether it's worthwhile. Then talk to your
neighbor and see what you two can do about it.

If that doesn't work, ask your attorney for advice.

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article . com,
FOM wrote:

This (from :http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat05.htm)

If someone erects a fence on a boundary line, the fence remains that
person's unless, or until, the neighbor uses the fence--which in most
states means until the neighbor actually encloses her property.

If someone encloses his property, using an already existing fence on
any side, most state fence laws require that he pay the other owner for
the value of the fence. In other words, he must actually buy a share of
the fence. Then he becomes a co-owner of the boundary fence. California
describes this as a refund to the other owner of a just proportion of
the value of the fence at that time.(16) Many states set the required
payment at one half of the value of the existing fence to the other
landowner.


So you want him to pay you? I'd tell you: "I'll see you in court."

I think we're overlooking something obvious, namely that the OP could
be neighborly and just talk to the neighbor in a friendly way and see
if there's something they could work out that would work for both of
them that would meet whatever the OP and the neighbors decide is the
goal.

Asking strangers in newsgroups, hiring an attorney, going to court,
etc. just seem like elaborate ways to avoid the obvious, which is to
communicate with the the only other party that matters, namely the
neighbor.

If the OP wants payment or some sort of compensation, it might be
possible to work out some easy form of compensation. We had a dispute
once with a neighbor, and we were able to negotiate and settled
everything easily and in ways that would benefit everyone. Nobody went
on the warpath and relsolving the conflict peacefully improved
relations with the neighbors.

Maybe you'd win, but I wouldn't pay you a dime without seeing a judge.

And that "win" might just lead to continuing hostility with the
neighbors. So assuming the OP got some money, in the long run it might
just be a big hassle, damage relationships with neighbors, and simply
not be worthwhile.

Assuming the OP enjoys conflicts, as some people do, it's smart to pick
your battles.

Is it really worth it to you? You sound like kind of an asshole. You
were going to pay for the fence in entirety whether or not your neighbor
enclosed his property.

I see your point. Anyway, I'd try for a peaceful, openminded
resolution. Assuming the OP wants compensation, maybe there's some way
that the OP could get that w/o straining neighborly relations further.

Had the neighbors been communicating to start with, the problem
wouldn't have occurred, IMHO. So they need to start communicating and
work out a peaceful resolution.

"Donna" wrote in message
news:RGcGe.13490$x32.6380@trndny09...

"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" wrote in message
...

has anyone ever thought that the new neighbor should have come
over
and offered the guy something for saving him some money? fences
can
be expensive. that's what i would have done.

Same here. As the neighbor, I would definitely have asked before
hooking
up to the fence, too. But the neighbor isn't posting, just the
other guy.
And I don't think this situation warrents anywhere near the drama he
seems
to be investing in it. He should shrug it off as a minor annoyance,
and be
glad if that is the worst problem he has with his neighbors.

actually, it's just a taste of the inconderate actions to come.

Dan wrote in :


has anyone ever thought that the new neighbor should have come over
and offered the guy something for saving him some money? fences can
be expensive. that's what i would have done.

That's why I think he should take down the portion of his own fence.
Once the neighbor pays to up a replacement, they both will have paid
an equal amount for that portion of the fence.

Uh, no. The OP will have paid for the entire section of fence, plus the
additional trouble/expense of removing 1/2 of it. The neighbor, if he's
dumb enough to engage in this childishness, would only pay the cost of
installing 1/2 the segment.

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote

You sound like kind of an asshole.

Dimitri


D. You are too kind! Could you imagine having this fool as your neighbor?
I'd have fun shooting his house/cars/ & him, with paintballs.

"FOM" wrote in message
I had a fence installed last year. It is three sides that enclose my
backyard. Yesterday, my next door neighbor installed a fence and used
my existing fence to complete enclosing his backyard. He did not ask me
if he could do this, he just had the installers attach his fence to
ours. Now, we are paying for one third of this guy's fence. Is this
legal? What should I do?


Hey Dick,

Did it occur to you, the neighbor was using that one side of your fence,
before they installed the other three sides?

Banty wrote:
In article . com, FOM says...

Dear Clark,

Kiss my ass.



I'm beginning to learn what the situation here concerning who is the reasonable
neighbor.

Cheers,
Banty


What you need to learn is this poster is a ****ing flake. Leave him to
his own ****pile and STFU.

In article , G Henslee says...

Banty wrote:
In article . com, FOM says...

Dear Clark,

Kiss my ass.



I'm beginning to learn what the situation here concerning who is the reasonable
neighbor.

Cheers,
Banty


What you need to learn is this poster is a ****ing flake. Leave him to
his own ****pile and STFU.

Charmed. So glad to meet you.

Banty

"Malcom" wrote in message
...

"FOM" wrote in message
I had a fence installed last year. It is three sides that enclose
my
backyard. Yesterday, my next door neighbor installed a fence and
used
my existing fence to complete enclosing his backyard. He did not
ask me
if he could do this, he just had the installers attach his fence
to
ours. Now, we are paying for one third of this guy's fence. Is
this
legal? What should I do?


Hey Dick,

Did it occur to you, the neighbor was using that one side of your
fence,
before they installed the other three sides?

i think he later indicated that there was no house behind him when he
put up the fence.

Banty wrote:
In article , G Henslee says...

Banty wrote:

In article . com, FOM says...


Dear Clark,

Kiss my ass.



I'm beginning to learn what the situation here concerning who is the reasonable
neighbor.

Cheers,
Banty


What you need to learn is this poster is a ****ing flake. Leave him to
his own ****pile and STFU.


Charmed. So glad to meet you.

Banty


Pleasure's all yours.

"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" wrote in
:


"Malcom" wrote in message
...

"FOM" wrote in message
I had a fence installed last year. It is three sides that enclose
my
backyard. Yesterday, my next door neighbor installed a fence and
used
my existing fence to complete enclosing his backyard. He did not
ask me
if he could do this, he just had the installers attach his fence
to
ours. Now, we are paying for one third of this guy's fence. Is
this
legal? What should I do?


Hey Dick,

Did it occur to you, the neighbor was using that one side of your
fence,
before they installed the other three sides?

i think he later indicated that there was no house behind him when he
put up the fence.

He indicated that, but it's completly irrelevant.

If I was planning to fence my yard, and my neighbor approached me and
said he was too, and would I split the cost of the common fence, I'd be
happy to do that. If my neighbor had an existing fence, and I intalled
one on the other three sides of my yard, and he then asked me to
reimburse him for 1/2 the common side, I'd tell him to pound sand. Why?
He wanted a fence and he put one up, end of story.

In article , David W. says...

"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" wrote in
:


"Malcom" wrote in message
...

"FOM" wrote in message
I had a fence installed last year. It is three sides that enclose
my
backyard. Yesterday, my next door neighbor installed a fence and
used
my existing fence to complete enclosing his backyard. He did not
ask me
if he could do this, he just had the installers attach his fence
to
ours. Now, we are paying for one third of this guy's fence. Is
this
legal? What should I do?


Hey Dick,

Did it occur to you, the neighbor was using that one side of your
fence,
before they installed the other three sides?

i think he later indicated that there was no house behind him when he
put up the fence.

He indicated that, but it's completly irrelevant.

If I was planning to fence my yard, and my neighbor approached me and
said he was too, and would I split the cost of the common fence, I'd be
happy to do that. If my neighbor had an existing fence, and I intalled
one on the other three sides of my yard, and he then asked me to
reimburse him for 1/2 the common side, I'd tell him to pound sand. Why?
He wanted a fence and he put one up, end of story.

Yep.

Else maybe I should charge my neighbors for having a better view of my
incredible-this-year morningglories.

But it's still true - the neighbor gets benefit from any pre-existing fence.
So, for their just being in their own house next to a fenced yard, they owe that
neighbor? Huh?

I don't know where the OP's website came from, but I never heard of having to
pay for 1/2 of a shared prexisting fence either. Maybe there's some more legal
sources he can share with us...

Banty

Banty wrote:

I don't know where the OP's website came from, but I never heard of having to
pay for 1/2 of a shared prexisting fence either. Maybe there's some more legal
sources he can share with us...

I had never heard that before, so I did some research. Google on "shared
boundary fence." Turns out that some (mostly western) states do have laws like
that dating back to cattle grazing days. When people tried to apply to laws to
residential subdivisions, the states quickly ammeded the laws to limit the
forced shared cost to the amount of a 2 wire barbed wire fence for the shared
boundary. For the length of a typical residential lot, that amounts to about
$25.

The practical result is that you aren't going to force your neighbor to pay for
part of your fence after the fact, and if you put it right on the boundary, you
aren't going to stop him from doing whatever he likes with the fence on his
side. That includes painting it shocking pink or attaching additional fencing to
it.

"Banty" wrote

Yep.

Else maybe I should charge my neighbors for having a better view of my
incredible-this-year morningglories.

But it's still true - the neighbor gets benefit from any pre-existing
fence.
So, for their just being in their own house next to a fenced yard, they
owe that
neighbor? Huh?

I don't know where the OP's website came from, but I never heard of having
to
pay for 1/2 of a shared prexisting fence either. Maybe there's some more
legal
sources he can share with us...

Banty

Hey, great idea on charging the neighbor for viewing your morning glories.
I think I'll send my neighbor an invoice for benefiting the shade of my
Crimson King, when the time of day is just right. Maybe I'll send them
another invoice for sharing my outdoor lighting with them.

Considering that you posed a message to a newsgroup of strangers it would
appear that you wish to learn how those strangers would feel if their
neighbor installed a fence connected to theirs and how they would handle it.

So far - everyone who has provided a response, which evidentally you don't
want to hear - you respond with "Bite Me"

Well --- next time you have a question - answer it yourself cause posting on
a newsgroup may provide you with responses you obviously don't want to hear.

"FOM" wrote in message
oups.com...
I had a fence installed last year. It is three sides that enclose my
backyard. Yesterday, my next door neighbor installed a fence and used
my existing fence to complete enclosing his backyard. He did not ask me
if he could do this, he just had the installers attach his fence to
ours. Now, we are paying for one third of this guy's fence. Is this
legal? What should I do?

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:45:07 -0600, in misc.consumers.house "Clark W. Griswold,
Jr." wrote:

The practical result is that you aren't going to force your neighbor to pay for
part of your fence after the fact, and if you put it right on the boundary, you
aren't going to stop him from doing whatever he likes with the fence on his
side. That includes painting it shocking pink or attaching additional fencing to
it.


In my state the neighbor could force you to put your fence 5 feet back from the
boundary.

Dan wrote:
That's why I think he should take down the portion of his own fence. Once the
neighbor pays to up a replacement, they both will have paid an equal amount
for that portion of the fence.

If the poster takes down his portion of the original fence and forces the
neighbor to replace that section, he's going to end up with the ugly side of the
replacement fence instead of what he already has. If I were the neighbor and
the poster was so chicken**** that he pulled it down, you can be sure the
replacement would be butt-ugly on one side. I'd try to make it clash in some
way. One good turn....

If I put up a fence and my next door neighbor ties his own into it, who gives a
****? That's his side of the fence. What I don't see doesn't concern me.

The original poster is being an asshole.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , (D.
Gerasimatos) wrote:
In article .com,
FOM wrote:

Dear Dimitri,

You can bite me, too.


This is your way of proving that you're not an asshole?

Doesn't seem to be working too well, does it?



Oh, he's definitely an asshole. As a registered nurse, I know one when I see
one.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Lady,

Please see my above post. The responses were full of assumptions about
this guy's intentions, and some of them contained personal barbs
calculated to provoke a response.

I've noticed FOM hasn't posted anything recently. I could draw all
sorts of conclusions from this, but I just don't know why he stopped
posting. It could be he's gotten some answers, became tired of the
thread, or never had time to come back and check.

The point is - we don't know why he stopped posting, because he hasn't
written anything to that point. Without more information we can't tell
why.

Why does this matter? In his original post, he didn't write any words
to indicate hatred, a thirst for revenge, or a pre-existing animosity
with his neighbor. Yet even though his questions could have been asked
innocently OR with malice, many replies imagined the latter with no
logical support and little enumeration. Many folks here have been quick
to level judgement and provocations, and are naively shocked at the
OP's "bite me". Like kids teasing another, you're all shocked at the
reply.

To paraphrase Lady, the next time you draw conclusions and opinions of
a person based on a few simply worded, child-level sentences, keep them
to yourself because posting them on a newsgroup may provide you with
responses you obviously don't want to hear.

In short, people, own your responses. Be prepared to reap what you sow.

what if the fence is inside his property line? can the guy then just
hook in and claim some of his property? does it matter if it's 1",
1', several feet? i can't see how fencing in anyone's property
would be allowed. and what if the property line is a line of trees?

just curious.

"bryanska" wrote in message
ups.com...
Lady,


Brian, unless you quote a little bit of the message you are replying to,
people aren't going to have the slightest clue what you are going on about.
All I can tell is that you seem to be replying to either a poster named
"lady" whose posts I haven't seen yet, or one of the female posters to this
thread. shrugs If you're trying to get a point across, using standard
usenet etiquette will help an awful lot.

Donna

In article . com, bryanska
says...

Lady,

Please see my above post. The responses were full of assumptions about
this guy's intentions, and some of them contained personal barbs
calculated to provoke a response.

I've noticed FOM hasn't posted anything recently. I could draw all
sorts of conclusions from this, but I just don't know why he stopped
posting. It could be he's gotten some answers, became tired of the
thread, or never had time to come back and check.

The point is - we don't know why he stopped posting, because he hasn't
written anything to that point. Without more information we can't tell
why.

Why does this matter? In his original post, he didn't write any words
to indicate hatred, a thirst for revenge, or a pre-existing animosity
with his neighbor. Yet even though his questions could have been asked
innocently OR with malice, many replies imagined the latter with no
logical support and little enumeration. Many folks here have been quick
to level judgement and provocations, and are naively shocked at the
OP's "bite me". Like kids teasing another, you're all shocked at the
reply.

I think it's that, firstly, his whole appproach is unreasonable - his neighbor
is "using his fence". We see a lot of that in this and another newsgroup I
frequent.

I'm afraid folks are going to react to that - and none of the reactions were
unreasonable. Think of it this way - we're a bunch of non-involved folks,
interested in the topic, giving a non-biased view. That being, after seeing
many similar discussions, that his neighbor is "using his fence" is the wrong
way of looking at it, ethically, practically, and in most places anyway, even
legally.

Then, once these initial resonpses are read, Mr. FOM went *immediately* to the
dismissive, nearly-obscene "bite me". Reasonable people dont' do that. They
may voice disagreement; they don't up and say "bite me".

That's how this person presented himself in this thread. The natural result of
this behavior is that people will observe that it comes from unreasonable, not
reasonable, people, and draw a conclusion as a result.


To paraphrase Lady, the next time you draw conclusions and opinions of
a person based on a few simply worded, child-level sentences, keep them
to yourself because posting them on a newsgroup may provide you with
responses you obviously don't want to hear.

Funny - I think this whole thread was about FOM not hearing the validation he
wanted, and learned that he probably has little recourse (because, truly, he
doens't actually have a problem), and reacting childishly and agrily. And
you're in effect telling us that we should keep those responses to ourselves.


In short, people, own your responses. Be prepared to reap what you sow.


Hmmm, isn't that what FOM did?

Banty

In article , Mortimer Schnerd,
RN says...

Dan wrote:
That's why I think he should take down the portion of his own fence. Once the
neighbor pays to up a replacement, they both will have paid an equal amount
for that portion of the fence.

If the poster takes down his portion of the original fence and forces the
neighbor to replace that section, he's going to end up with the ugly side of the
replacement fence instead of what he already has. If I were the neighbor and
the poster was so chicken**** that he pulled it down, you can be sure the
replacement would be butt-ugly on one side. I'd try to make it clash in some
way. One good turn....

If I put up a fence and my next door neighbor ties his own into it, who gives a
****? That's his side of the fence. What I don't see doesn't concern me.

In New York state, if the fence is on the property line (or less than some xx
feet inside - I forget), the nice side has to be out.

Of course, it can be the nice side of a high-as-zoning-allows ugly stockade
fence, or whatever, and the O.P would have to live with it. Because, at that
point, pretty likely he isn't on speaking terms with the neighbor to come up
with something close to mutual. Or any other issue in the future for that
matter..

It would be a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.


The original poster is being an asshole.

Yep.

Banty

wrote:

"bryanska" wrote in message
ups.com...
Lady,


Brian, unless you quote a little bit of the message you are replying to,
people aren't going to have the slightest clue what you are going on about.

This seems to be a lamentable feature of using the google newsgroups
software to do f/ups. I've noticed it in many n/groups over the
last year or so, and you're right, it does make it almost impossible
to follow the offender's argument, or understand their comment.
webtv users do this too, for technical reasons they have no choice, I gather,
but i long ago did a blanket KILLfile entry on them!

All I can tell is that you seem to be replying to either a poster named
"lady" whose posts I haven't seen yet, or one of the female posters to this
thread. shrugs If you're trying to get a point across, using standard
usenet etiquette will help an awful lot.


The latter I think.
From the header, it seems the response is to:
=====================
References: .com
9kSGe.5354$W72.4711@trndny05
=========================
I haven't checked this against previous messages, but i
imagine he may be responding to the poster who
claimed to be a registered nurse and therefore knew about bodily
orifices.

The original article didn't seem unduly interesting to me, but the
ensuing conflagration has kept me quite amused .....thanks to all for brightening
my week!

--
Ian

In article , Banty wrote:

In New York state, if the fence is on the property line (or less than some xx
feet inside - I forget), the nice side has to be out.

That doesn't make any sense - if it's *on* the property line, which side is
"out"?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Ian" wrote in message
...

This seems to be a lamentable feature of using the google newsgroups
software to do f/ups.


Personally, I think Brianska and FOM are the same guy.

Donna

Pardon me. I was referencing Lady's post, number 61. I have summed up
quotes and main points in my posts 44, 46, 48 and 51.

In article , Ian says...

wrote:

"bryanska" wrote in message
ups.com...
Lady,


Brian, unless you quote a little bit of the message you are replying to,
people aren't going to have the slightest clue what you are going on about.

This seems to be a lamentable feature of using the google newsgroups
software to do f/ups. I've noticed it in many n/groups over the
last year or so, and you're right, it does make it almost impossible
to follow the offender's argument, or understand their comment.
webtv users do this too, for technical reasons they have no choice, I gather,
but i long ago did a blanket KILLfile entry on them!

All I can tell is that you seem to be replying to either a poster named
"lady" whose posts I haven't seen yet, or one of the female posters to this
thread. shrugs If you're trying to get a point across, using standard
usenet etiquette will help an awful lot.


The latter I think.
From the header, it seems the response is to:
=====================
References: .com
9kSGe.5354$W72.4711@trndny05
=========================
I haven't checked this against previous messages, but i
imagine he may be responding to the poster who
claimed to be a registered nurse and therefore knew about bodily
orifices.

There was a poster using a hotmail account who used the name "Lady".


The original article didn't seem unduly interesting to me, but the
ensuing conflagration has kept me quite amused .....thanks to all for
brightening
my week!

:-)

Banty

Banty, excellent reply. Your post is a good example of "all things
considered".

I guess I'm still resonating with FOM's early reply of "way to make all
sorts of judgements about me from my post". That really hit home, and I
thought it would keep folks from doing more of the same.

I admit the first "bite me" was unecessary, especially after he had
posted such a succinct and perfect reply with the "way to make..."
statement.

However, I still believe FOM merely wanted information and was prepared
to listen. But when it was packaged with so much hostility and
assumption, I couldn't blame him for his response. He replied with
interesting quotes from some law source and invited further comment
(without inserting any of his own). In effect, he offered a blank
canvas and was undeservedly characterized as an ass.

As more and more people have posted to this thread, I wonder if any are
interested in the original topic. I'm captivated by the group's
behavior in assuming so much about this person's attitude.

I don't think the group should keep responses to themselves (I was
trying to illustrate the double-edgedness of Lady's point). But
everyone seemed so shocked that FOM could be offended.

The situation is quite similiar to unfamiliar culture ettiquette. The
OP could have been asking why Japanese won't look him in the eye on the
Tokyo subway. Now imagine the OP is asking YOU how he should react -
should he be offended? Is there anything he should do?

Would you answer him by telling him he's being a bit anal?

In article .com, "bryanska" wrote:
Pardon me. I was referencing Lady's post, number 61. I have summed up
quotes and main points in my posts 44, 46, 48 and 51.

What on earth are you talking about? *Please* quote some of the context you're
replying to next time.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Nope, not the same guy. I just feel strongly about my position and am
willing to patiently discuss it. I wish FOM would post a bit more, this
is rapidly deteriorating into futility.

Hell - I'm considering posting under a second name to argue the group's
point, as a debate exercise. I'd like to understand the other side.

Sorry Doug it's too much work. Interested folks will have to read the
thread. I wish I could supply quotes but summing up the whole thing
will take too much time.

If you don't feel like reading the whole thread, that's OK, but you
might not get the whole "feel".

The numbers come from viewing the thread with the "view as tree" frame
option. You can click on all the responses in a left-hand frame.

In article .com, bryanska
says...

Nope, not the same guy. I just feel strongly about my position and am
willing to patiently discuss it. I wish FOM would post a bit more, this
is rapidly deteriorating into futility.

Hell - I'm considering posting under a second name to argue the group's
point, as a debate exercise. I'd like to understand the other side.


Um, you didn't quote any previous text in your response to a post about how you
should quote previous text.

And there's no reason why you can't argue his side. That's what USENET is
about.

Banty

In article , Doug Miller says...

In article , Banty
wrote:

In New York state, if the fence is on the property line (or less than some xx
feet inside - I forget), the nice side has to be out.

That doesn't make any sense - if it's *on* the property line, which side is
"out"?


Meaning, if you put up a fence, the nice side has to be out to your neighbor.

Banty

"bryanska" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nope, not the same guy. I just feel strongly about my position and am
willing to patiently discuss it. I wish FOM would post a bit more, this
is rapidly deteriorating into futility.

It's not really a debate about facts, Bryan, but rather an issue of
perception. There is only so much interest most of us can gather once the
discussion has covered "You interpreted him wrong." "No I didn't, you
did.". I doubt you're ever going to get much of a debate.

Of the posts to this thread that I've seen, every single person but one
(that would be you) got the same impression from the way FOM phrased his
initial post, namely, that he was either trolling (my guess, at this point)
or wanted to make a buck off a benign, common situation. I was always
taught that it is the responsibility of the writer to accurately convey
his/her message. If everyone is getting an incorrect message (btw, not
what I think is happening. I think the group has tagged FOM's post's
gestalt accurately), then it is up to the OP to correct this. He has
chosen not to. shrugs That makes me think we (TINW) were correct.

Hell - I'm considering posting under a second name to argue the group's
point, as a debate exercise. I'd like to understand the other side.

It's not a 'side', thing. It's a perception thing. And when N-1 perceives
a message one way, that is generally the way it was meant to be perceived,
IME.

You read it differently, which is totally ok.

Donna

"bryanska" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sorry Doug it's too much work. Interested folks will have to read the
thread. I wish I could supply quotes but summing up the whole thing
will take too much time.

If you don't feel like reading the whole thread, that's OK, but you
might not get the whole "feel".

The numbers come from viewing the thread with the "view as tree" frame
option. You can click on all the responses in a left-hand frame.


Bryan, most of us are using newsreaders, not google groups. *You* see a
tree. Most of the rest of us don't.

And if you choose not to quote who you are replying to, what will happen,
generally, is that people will stop taking the time to read you,
unfortunately. It's like top posting. If you make it difficult to follow
your posts, people will stop trying. That would be a shame.

Donna

No, and I'm not going to quote previous text. Interested people can
read the whole post. (I expect people will not like this; it's a small
transgression and I'm willing to live with it and defend it in a
different post.)

Donna, excellent reply. In my life I have always been willing to give
the benefit of the doubt, but most people do not. Without going on at
length to seem preachy, I must bow out here. Additionally, we're
descending into procedurals (quoting) that sideline the point.

I still believe the group is wrong, half-cocked and seeing themselves
in FOM's open-to-interpretation post. But without FOM's supoort, and to
prevent myself from obsessing over online groupthink, I have to go.

Thanks to all who provided the intelligent arguments on FOM's side.

I'm sorry - but have to standby my original comments.

And you need to also understand that this is a newsgroup which involves
complete strangers and if you want a "real" answer then you need to add ALL
supporting facts - otherwise those responding will HAVE to make assumptions.

1) the original poster could have said in his original post that he and his
neighbor have a fabulous relationship where they are at each other's homes
every day

2) he could have said that they have a very strained relationship but manage
to get along

3) he could have said they don't get along at all

So -- basically -- if one wants "realistic" answers to a situation without
those strangers responding based on assumptions, one needs to include all
the facts.


"bryanska" wrote in message
ups.com...
Lady,

Please see my above post. The responses were full of assumptions about
this guy's intentions, and some of them contained personal barbs
calculated to provoke a response.

I've noticed FOM hasn't posted anything recently. I could draw all
sorts of conclusions from this, but I just don't know why he stopped
posting. It could be he's gotten some answers, became tired of the
thread, or never had time to come back and check.

The point is - we don't know why he stopped posting, because he hasn't
written anything to that point. Without more information we can't tell
why.

Why does this matter? In his original post, he didn't write any words
to indicate hatred, a thirst for revenge, or a pre-existing animosity
with his neighbor. Yet even though his questions could have been asked
innocently OR with malice, many replies imagined the latter with no
logical support and little enumeration. Many folks here have been quick
to level judgement and provocations, and are naively shocked at the
OP's "bite me". Like kids teasing another, you're all shocked at the
reply.

To paraphrase Lady, the next time you draw conclusions and opinions of
a person based on a few simply worded, child-level sentences, keep them
to yourself because posting them on a newsgroup may provide you with
responses you obviously don't want to hear.

In short, people, own your responses. Be prepared to reap what you sow.

On 31 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "bryanska" wrote:

Pardon me. I was referencing Lady's post, number 61. I have summed up
quotes and main points in my posts 44, 46, 48 and 51.

When you learn a little about the newsgroups you will discover that the
messages are all numbered by the severer on which they were finally read.
For example, you message quoted above is number 141931 on my server and in
my newsreader. So your reference to numbers is meaningless.

You also need to know that the VAST MAJORITY of users do not use Google to
read news groups. Most use a real news agent and an nntp server.

Also, because of the way messages are distributed, it is VERY common for
replies to arrive at a particular server before the original message.

So if you want people to understand what you are writing about you need to
include the original. If you are too lazy to so, you will have
demonstrated that you messages aren't worth reading. If you don't want to
take the time to make them meaningful, the reader won't take the time to
try to interpret them.