Reply from contact at Google!

[MakoMako]

I kinda disagree. It has already been pointed out that chopping down those trees had a negative effect on property value. How is this not affecting anyone else?

Furthermore, I'm a little irritated by the matter of "mind your own business". I feel that this phrase is only ever used to hide the fact you're doing something very wrong, and it's often the only defense people have to mask this sort of thing.

I normally don't have anything to hide that I put on my front lawn or backyard. But if my neighbor's house is becoming a dilapitated mess, essentially making my own place lose property value by appearance alone... Yeah. That starts to affect me. Living next to a forest gives my home an aesthetic appeal that grants it value should I choose to sell it. If you cut down all those trees, then suddenly it's not as appealing, affecting its values.

Really, the term "it's none of your business" shouldn't apply in these circumstances. People don't understand that many actions have far outreaching effects that most people don't consider at first, and I think the "It's none of your business" defense is used -waaaay- more often than it should be, to mask what you're doing wrong or illegal... Not to defend privacy.

Who you're sleeping with is private. Cutting down all the trees on your front lawn is something that affects the aesthetic of the street you live on, and I feel that's something you are allowed to criticize.

[JaguarX]

I kinda disagree. It has already been pointed out that chopping down those trees had a negative effect on property value. How is this not affecting anyone else?

Furthermore, I'm a little irritated by the matter of "mind your own business". I feel that this phrase is only ever used to hide the fact you're doing something very wrong, and it's often the only defense people have to mask this sort of thing.

I normally don't have anything to hide that I put on my front lawn or backyard. But if my neighbor's house is becoming a dilapitated mess, essentially making my own place lose property value by appearance alone... Yeah. That starts to affect me. Living next to a forest gives my home an aesthetic appeal that grants it value should I choose to sell it. If you cut down all those trees, then suddenly it's not as appealing, affecting its values.

Really, the term "it's none of your business" shouldn't apply in these circumstances. People don't understand that many actions have far outreaching effects that most people don't consider at first, and I think the "It's none of your business" defense is used -waaaay- more often than it should be, to mask what you're doing wrong or illegal... Not to defend privacy.

Who you're sleeping with is private. Cutting down all the trees on your front lawn is something that affects the aesthetic of the street you live on, and I feel that's something you are allowed to criticize.

Sometimes it isnt about hiding thing contray to belief. Sometimes it's that some people value their privacy a little bit more. If you dont care and would walk down the street without any clothes one because you have nothing to hide cool. But some people enjoy a little more privacy and it's annoying when people say "Well if you had nothing to hide you wouldnt mind me sticking my nose in your business" have no respect nor regards for other people's privacy because they personally feel they dont care about privacy.


It's just common courtesy to respect someone's space. Do you have cameras around your house giving live feed to every single event in your house even your bathroom, your kids room if you got any, and etc, on the world wide web for everyoen to see? if not, then even that is some semblemce of privacy. If you dont and dont care about privacy, why not? After all you have nothing to hide.

Or since you ahve nothing to hide, What was you doing last night? What is your favorite drink, how often do you travel, what is is your social, howe many crimes have you commited, What do you drive, how many times have you lied to to ya parents? Have you cheated on your significant other ever before, how often do you function check?, how much do you make, where do you work, do your boss, know you pick your nose? To you those type of questions may be a good neightbor looking out for one another. To me, those type of questions are a bit uncomfortable. Even though I have nothing to hide. Just because you and nosy neighbors like to throw away their privacy, I dont think it gives them automatic right to take that away from others. let the person choose how much they want people to pry and it's pretty rude to pry just as rude if I just came over your house and propped my muddy boots on ya coffee table as if I lived there and you dont know me from jack. But hey, what do you have to hide?

Not to mention this "I have nothing to hide" is comeing from someone hiding behind the name of MakoMako, cant even use their own real name. What are you really hiding? I think if you that adament about privacy is not needed  why dont even you use your real name? You have nothing to hide but yet, hide behind a fake name. Interesting.

The term private property may have no meaning to you but for many folk it still have meaning. I'm sure you dont have a mat at your door that says "All is welcomed, come on in, raid the fridge" on ya front door. I bet if there was a bunch of people that you dont know in ya house when you came home after a long day at work/school/whatever you do, I doubt you will welcome them with open arms. Then again I dont know maybe you do. Maybe your home is open to the public. You have nothing to hide so I guess you wouldnt mind if the local homeless just come and go out of your place of residence to use ya bathroom and take their shower. Would you offer them your bed, or will you call the cops?

But if the trees were that important, then maybe the people who thought the trees were affecting the property value that much if they was gone should have bought the property themselves or plant more trees on their own property. Seeing how they didnt, then it's up to the property owner, the person who spent money to make it private property.

[MakoMako]

To make things fair, a lot of what you're describing in the latter half there isn't privacy. I don't let people in the front door to mess with my stuff because it's not theirs to use. They are, however, free to ask me about my lifestyle if they so please.

You have no right to decide whether or not to cut down my trees. But since my decision affects you, you have every right to criticize and protest.

You're right. I hide behind a name online. :3 But also please reread what I said.

I said nothing about my internal working. I said what's on my lawn and backyard. Things readily seen and observable by the public at large on a constant and free basis. This could only change if I encased my property in a giant tent. As it stands, my property affects those around me. And if I chose to bulldoze the birch trees on my lawn, I have zero issues with my neighbor coming over to say "Hey! That's the state tree. Don't you think it may cause issue with some people that you're tearing them down?" That's not invading my privacy, that's raising a genuine concern over my actions which affect more people than just myself.

The thing is you need to think about how your actions affect others. If I gave my neighbor the finger and said "Fuck you, you love birch trees so much, you plant more on -your- lawn!" that's just highly rude, inconsiderate, and just plain douchebaggery. Which is on the same level of asinine as breaking into someone's house to criticize the things they do that affect nobody but themselves.

[JaguarX]

To make things fair, a lot of what you're describing in the latter half there isn't privacy. I don't let people in the front door to mess with my stuff because it's not theirs to use. They are, however, free to ask me about my lifestyle if they so please.

You have no right to decide whether or not to cut down my trees. But since my decision affects you, you have every right to criticize and protest.

You're right. I hide behind a name online. :3 But also please reread what I said.

I said nothing about my internal working. I said what's on my lawn and backyard. Things readily seen and observable by the public at large on a constant and free basis. This could only change if I encased my property in a giant tent. As it stands, my property affects those around me. And if I chose to bulldoze the birch trees on my lawn, I have zero issues with my neighbor coming over to say "Hey! That's the state tree. Don't you think it may cause issue with some people that you're tearing them down?" That's not invading my privacy, that's raising a genuine concern over my actions which affect more people than just myself.

The thing is you need to think about how your actions affect others. If I gave my neighbor the finger and said "pancake you, you love birch trees so much, you plant more on -your- lawn!" that's just highly rude, inconsiderate, and just plain douchebaggery. Which is on the same level of asinine as breaking into someone's house to criticize the things they do that affect nobody but themselves.

Well of course flipping off the neighbor is rude. Then again, if a person take it upon themselves to "protest" a tree cutting on someone property they should be prepared that someone may not love the tree as much and them and may politely turn down their concern. Like, "Thanks for your concern, but the tree is coming down."

On the flip side, while they are worried about their property value and how it affect them I notice, you gave not a single mention of how it could be affecting the actual property owner nor seemed the question is even raised. There may be many reasons why a person cut down a tree on their lawn that goes beyond the shallow thing of "making the neighborhood" look nice. The tree may be dead, it may be in danger of falling onto the house if a good wind came through, they may allegic to the pollen of that tree. ect. No, no concern of that, just worried about how it affect everyone else, outside looking in, non-owners of that property. In some cases it may as well be they just dont like the tree.

See even you have different levels of what is privacy and what is not. As you said, your house is not open to the public. See that is your threshold. Others may have higher or lower threshold. And I dont anyone that owns private land needs approval from their next door neighbor to cut down a tree, especially if the neighbor isnt offering any help. Maybe while they are criticising the tree cutting, someone probably dont like their garden, or the type of flowers as it drives down the property value because the color clash with the color scemes, Maybe the neighbors dont like the type of grass that is planted on another neighbors yard. And the list goes on.

Some people wouldnt mind if their neighbors pick at every niggle, on the excuse it drives down property value, on their yard but others would rather not be bothered by that nonsense especially if they have not paid a single bill on that property. Different threshold. Does this mean a person ahve to rant rave and curse and flick them off? No, and most probably would do that anymore than the nosy neighbor coming over giving the finger and saying "pancake you, you cut down the birch trees I love. You have no pancake right to do what you want to your property that I dont approve of! Stop being selfish and think about what I want!"

But this do remind of this story about this upscale neighborhood. A person was trying to sell a house and was getting pretty flustered that the house wasnt selling as fast as they thought it should. What was to blame? Well according to them, it was the Corolla parked next door. It made the neighborhod look cheap. Now mind you once we got on site, it wasnt as bad as described, as the Corolla was in running condition in fact it looked brand new and was only a few years old but in a neighborhood of million dollar homes and Benzes Lexus and Bimmers, the neighbor felt it was affecting the property value especially since the person parked the Corolla in the driveway, their own driveway of their own house. And the same points came up in that the owner of the Corolla wasnt thinking about the effect that car of that caliber was having on the look of the neighborhood. In the end my supervisor basically said, "well, you have a coupel of options. You can either lower the price of your home so you can move out faster and wont have to worry about a Corolla next door or you can leave your neighbor alone and let them buy what ever car they choose to. Lets say I was your neighbor and I personally dont like the Escalade you own as it's a gas hog, polluting and looks cheap next to my Maserati, but if I told you that you had to sell your Escalade because I dont like it, you would say..." Of course the person just cursed under their breath. And without missing a beat my supervisor said, "That is what I figured. You dont like me telling you or complaining about what you chose to buy so extend that same courtesy to your neighbor and stop harassing them. Or you can try your luck with the police but they probably wont be as nice as I am." Could the Corolla owner be a "good neighbor" and parked the car inside the garage? Of course, but for their own reason they chose not to and it was their choce to make and right to choose so or not to. Not to mention if they did that probably would mean either one of his classic original numbers perfect conditioned cars would have to sit outside in the elements including possible the Shelby GT500 or the Ferrari GTO. But of course the neighbor never asked why the Corolla was chosen to sit outside, but just assumed it was to affect them and be a thorn in their side. Because since they didnt like the Corolla it was their business as it was affecting the ability of them to sell their house and it was up to them to make sure their remidn their neighbor of this affect. After all to them too, it was not an invasion of privacy but just a neighbor voicing their concern to another neighbor. Different threshold. To them that Corolla is like that tree to another person but still on private property not owned by them.

If a neighbor came to me complaining abouta tree that I'm having cut down, I'll lsiten to them more than likely on most occassion, unless they took it upon themselves to step foot on my property, to complain about something on my property, and get me out of my sleep for something that they dont own, nor invested in, I'll still not curse them out and be courteous but will view it as very rude that they would interupt my sleep to complain about something as petty as that. As nice as I would be, I'll probably tell them to either come back later in the day when I'm awake or dont ever step foot on my land again, in a very nice manner of course. But you would welcome it with open arms. Man, I love being human and glad we dont all think alike. It's intriguing. Different thresholds. See we may as well live on the same block. Two different people. One wouldnt mind if a neighbor prodded about every detail of life and complain about what type of grass you chose to grow or how many trees yo uallow on your property or type, while I probably wouldnt enjoy that convo if a person kept prodding and view it as a bit rude to prod into personal detail like that especially if I dont know them. I probably would kindly ask them to leave my land after a few prodding questions. You'll probably stay and talk for hours about life details? While some, would shoot if you trespass on their land with no questions asked. While I think that method is bit extreme but to them it serves the trespasser proper.

In fact not too long ago, a friend of mine shot someone that stumbled onto her land and then got pissed and sued the poor guy, who got a bullet in his behind (I would have thought that was enough), for emotional distress. She won her case and unfortunately the poor chap lost alot of his stuff and barely was able to keep his home between the lawsuit and medical bills. He ended up in financial ruin. COme to find out, my friend said she didnt give two craps about the money but wanted to make sure that guy was ruined for a long time and to teach him a great lesson in not tresspassing onto her property. A little too devious for my taste but to each their own. Not sure if she ever talked about that in public forum of the old but to her, the mere act of tresspassing was enough for her to ruin the poor guy. That was her threshold for privacy.

[MindBlender]

While I love a good debate, I never had any intention of causing one so indepth about Mr. T of all people.  :o  Let this not come to blows folks.  Very good points by all I have to say!

[MakoMako]

Well, diplomacy is always key in all things.

You mentioned people getting you out of your sleep to complain about the tree. Well, that's just being a big jerk. And in the case of Mr. T chopping down all his trees, doesn't apply. I'm pretty sure nobody had the cajones to wake him up in the middle of the night just to complain about it.

I do not decide my own property value. And that's an issue to think about. It's a quantifiable sum that can be actually appraised by others besides myself. Your attitude on the matter regarding people's issues with Mr. T's tree-cutting; claiming that they should've planted their own trees or purchased the land themselves, was pretty much poor diplomacy on your part.

Think of it. Nice piece of land, undisturbed for years. Makes the area very nice. Someone comes in, buys it up, tears it all down. You probably had no idea they were going to do that, when they bought it. Heck, it probably struck you as a very stupid idea. Especially from an individual whose influence comes from a comical support of milk, youth centers, and other 'pure' crap. Suddenly I'm left powerless because I don't have the money to preserve my own property value, nor the space on my own land to help build it up again. I'm helpless to stop the matter from driving down on me.

I think you have every right to complain. Does this mean I think you have a right to force a change to the decision? No. Diplomatically, a protest was made. Good. Mr. T made a statement that he's allergic to those trees. Good. I have no idea if a compromise was ever reached, and would probably regain respect  for the move if he replanted the area. That I'm ignorant of. But the point is pretty much that if your move is affecting other people, you should think about it.

The argument of the Corolla, lemme ask you. Did someone come by and appraise the area? Did they look at the Corolla and point out that the house shouldn't cost so much due to being in a "cheap" location? Or was it just the owner scapegoating? Really, if it's the latter, it doesn't apply to this argument, as it's a situation of an irrational homeowner trying to find any excuse he can to scapegoat why his home isn't selling, and is not a practical reasoning for how actions have broader reactions that shouldn't be hidden behind the veil of "My business is my own, and if it damages you, deal with it." I have sincere doubts anyone would've rationally looked at the Corolla and claimed it was lowering property value, but then again, I'm not a millionaire. Not being a millionaire, my standards of living are a lot lower, and just a silly Corolla wouldn't even enter my mind. (A busted up wagon on the front lawn might be a different story. Might be.)

Also, I'm wondering what happened with the case of that trespasser... Trespassing is not a crime unless actual damages of a sorts are incurred, otherwise it's considered "invasion of privacy". (Damage doesn't need to be vandalism or anything tangible. But actual suffered damage needs to occur and something quantifiable in terms of money to sue someone for.) It sounds more like someone was trying to cause actual harm. This isn't an argument of privacy, still. It's some jack ass causing mischief, damages, etc. Once again, doesn't seem to apply very well to the argument, as it's painting the owner in a light of being a tremendous dick taking advantage of how laws work just to be a vindictive jerk -OR- maybe the guy really needed a lesson to be taught, as there's a lot of unspoken things regarding that, and I do not know what damages he was causing with his trespassing and possibly intended something a lot worse than just peeping in on someone's window.

[Kuriositys Kat]

Wrong company  ;)

This was number (mumble) in the Elemental Masters series from DAW books.  This one is called "Steadfast."

Just saw the cover artwork on the DAW website.  Since Jody always manages to capture your books so well I can't wait to read it.

[JaguarX]

Well, diplomacy is always key in all things.

You mentioned people getting you out of your sleep to complain about the tree. Well, that's just being a big jerk. And in the case of Mr. T chopping down all his trees, doesn't apply. I'm pretty sure nobody had the cajones to wake him up in the middle of the night just to complain about it.

Yup.

The argument of the Corolla, lemme ask you. Did someone come by and appraise the area? Did they look at the Corolla and point out that the house shouldn't cost so much due to being in a "cheap" location? Or was it just the owner scapegoating? Really, if it's the latter, it doesn't apply to this argument, as it's a situation of an irrational homeowner trying to find any excuse he can to scapegoat why his home isn't selling, and is not a practical reasoning for how actions have broader reactions that shouldn't be hidden behind the veil of "My business is my own, and if it damages you, deal with it." I have sincere doubts anyone would've rationally looked at the Corolla and claimed it was lowering property value, but then again, I'm not a millionaire. Not being a millionaire, my standards of living are a lot lower, and just a silly Corolla wouldn't even enter my mind. (A busted up wagon on the front lawn might be a different story. Might be.)

Probably just the owner was lookign to find a scapegoat. Higher value homes dont tend to move very fast in the first place on average. But it applies with the term you described, diplomacy.  It goes both ways, with the owner of property and non-owners. And the veil of something "decreasing value of property" isnt always a legit reason to make complaint. Especially if it probably wouldnt do much in the case of the Corolla. The flip side is that like the tree, many things decrease the value of a neighborhood that people do. In some cases even something as simple as lawn ornaments or the color of paint on the  house compared to the other house or even building materials, to type of grass chosen or in the case of out here, the lack of grass. A more proper example would be the owner that feels the neighbor yard is decreasing and have appraisal that states the neighbor's grass condition is decreasing value, but the owner believe in water conservation. Yet, it seems that respect is supposed to be given to the neighbor more than the actual property owner. As you say diplomacy is two ways. And because the neighbor dont like something the neighbor does, doesnt mean it's in their right to try and force it upon the property owner. As you also stated. A legit complaint in a diplomatic manner, good stuff. But many take it too far and stick that nose a bit too far into the business. Best thing to do it to state the complaint and let the property owner ultimately decide on their choice. People forget, while worrying about the pennies off their own property value, that the neighbor value also goes up and down with the rest of the neighborhood. The ideal situation where other people not affecting property value is to not have neighbors, but probably not practical. Respect definately should be given more to the actual property owner than non-owners of the property. And if a complaint should be made it should be in respectful manner to the owner and left at that. Instead of the attitude of "You are decreasing my property value so you better not cut down that tree." As if the neighbor didnt buy his property like everyone else in that neighborhood. More than likely usually it affects the actual property than the surrounding properties in a more drastic way. I doubt anyone house decreased by 20,000 or so because some bloke down the block cut down a tree. And how this this fit in? Because many times, people will find any scapegoat to the reason why their property value decrease in reality or perceieved. If they dont like the neighbor cuttign down the tree, they will say the tree is decreasing their property value. If they dont think the neighbor is watering their grass enough, then it will be the neighbor's grass is bringing down the property value, if they dont like the person car, then the car is bringing down the property value. And they will use it as license to tell the neighbor what they cant or cannot do with their own property simply because it dont fit with their view of the standard. I'm saying that if they are so adament about telling what others can and cannot do on their property then yes they should of either purchased the property themselves, or planted more trees. Besides that the diplomatic thing would be to remember that their neighbor is also a property owner, with property that also rise and decrease in value and just as they wouldnt like people telling them they need to clear their land because "the leaves it sheds make the neighborhood look shabby" they shoudl show the same kind of respect to their neighbor. Or in this case diplomacy. AKA, they should nto act like the king of the neighborhood over property they dont own. 

Also, I'm wondering what happened with the case of that trespasser... Trespassing is not a crime unless actual damages of a sorts are incurred, otherwise it's considered "invasion of privacy". (Damage doesn't need to be vandalism or anything tangible. But actual suffered damage needs to occur and something quantifiable in terms of money to sue someone for.) It sounds more like someone was trying to cause actual harm. This isn't an argument of privacy, still. It's some jack ass causing mischief, damages, etc. Once again, doesn't seem to apply very well to the argument, as it's painting the owner in a light of being a tremendous dick taking advantage of how laws work just to be a vindictive jerk -OR- maybe the guy really needed a lesson to be taught, as there's a lot of unspoken things regarding that, and I do not know what damages he was causing with his trespassing and possibly intended something a lot worse than just peeping in on someone's window.

Well I dont think she was being a dick, as believe it or not, a lot of tresspasser get shot here. Some will shoot you because they dont liek your skin tone but if you are on their land, they dont need to go record with the real reason. How I know? It already happened to me personally. There was a car for sale in the front yard of this house, with the for sale sign, so me and a friend just got a closer look. The owner came outside yelling about stuff cocked and loaded, most I cant repeat here but included a few lines of he hate (insert n word) and want to kill every (n-word) in this world, and before could explain that we was interested in the car for sale, he started to unload. We ran for dear life or course and luckily he was a poor shot maybe due to old age as this guy had to be pushing 80 at least. I didnt think nothing more than just a crazy old dude that just happen to not like black people. My friend on the other hand was royally pissed. So of course he put in a police report but police said since we was on his land he had every right to protect his property using what ever force he deemed nessesary, even deadly force.   

My friend, the shooter, isnt exactly very open minded when it comes to people on her land or privacy. As she states, if she dont know them, then they have no business, especially in the realm of privacy or property. In Texas, as long as you have signs that says no tresspassing along the the property, you can legally shoot tresspassers as here it is assumed if someone ignore the signs they are there for more malicious intentions. Which this guy did, not to mention, purposely hopped the fence. He  said he was just taking a short cut, but here, if you ignore those signs the owner may shoot first ask questions later. And this extends to if someone is breakign into your car. In short, she shot first, asked questions later and got more out of him. The guy lived, went through the lower hip area and lodged in the right butt cheek. To her, the guy totally violated her rights to privacy and deserved to die. Luckily she isnt yet a sharpshooter or else, there would be a family mourning. To some, they may view it as someone being a prick. To me, she just protecting what she believe is her right. To her, the guy deserved to die for daring to tresspass on her land. I dont think she would have even bothered calling an ambulance if I wasnt there as I was the one that called them. She didnt seem to be in any hurry. She didnt care if the guy lived or die because in her eyes, he commited an offense that was a death sentence. I guess she figures since she didnt kill him literally she'd go ahead and kill him financially, either way no one was goign to stop her from collecting her pound of flesh and convinced the people that needed convincing that her life was in danger. Me, I probably would have asked the guy, is he lost and at worse escort him off the land. Other might invite the guy in for a drink of water as it was middle of one of el paso 100 degree summers and the guy looked a bit parched. As I said different threshold of privacy. From a legal standpoint, she could have killed him and no one would ask many questions and life go on for her. For me, not sure if I could sleep for a week if I murked a man without what is good reason and being sure of intentions. Other couldnt shoot a man at all. Different thresholds. None are right, as all are right to the person who matches that threshold. Andn one are wrong besides to those who threshold is different. Vindictive, no, being a dick, no. But emotional damage is easy when you can afford any lawyer you want like she can especially, when it's a female of average build, spotless criminal record, and resident of affluent neighborhood,  compared to a strange male in the yard with no better explanation than he was just takign a shortcut that didnt even live in the area. The man didnt stand a chance. She probably could have asked for any price and it would have been granted. She only asked for $90,000 (or rather the figure the lawyer came up with since she did misss work and since she was distraught, he husband the main bread winner had to stay home too and lost out on work and business and the fact that she dont feel safe and the usual), ended up getting judgement award of about $40,000. But the guy wasnt made of money, and probably didnt rake in that much as a construction worker in a year year and didnt even have medical insurance and so a medical bill ,on top of missing work,  then find out you owe $40,000 to the person that shot ya. Although to this day she havent seen the money and probably wont see much of it if any, but as she said it wasnt about the money it was about the law and the fact he tresspass and he had to pay. To her asa citizen and property owner, she was within her rights. That just go to show as it can be viewed as vindictive, or being a dick, to others is lawfully a right to another person they just excercised. To me, I think merely pointing the weapon at him and telling him to get going probably would have gotten results without harm. But thinking on it, I bet if if he was on my land, and I shot him and tried to sue for emotional distress, I would have a little more explaining to do and probably would have my "emotional distress" suit thrown out without hesitation, but even in this day and age, people that decide the law sometimes fall for the damsel in distress without much questioning. She probably could have said the guy tried to raped her, which she was originally going to go for, until I said "ok that is too far, I will sit up there and say that is bold face lie", did she finally back down. Sad part is, if she pursued it and I wasnt a witness, she probably would have won and that poor chap would be in jail right now for an attempted rape that he didnt do. As much I respect people choices, I just couldnt in good concience go that far. But besides that in the case I only could attest to what I actually saw. Yes, he was there, yes he did trespass, yes he did hop the fence and yes she shot him and that is all. The truth of what I saw even though I didnt agree with the method, I had to respect her decision because it's her land, her threshold of privacy invasion and tresspass, and her view of how it supposed to be dealt with.  It is not my choice to make. It's her land. Now if it was on my land, then yeah it would be my choice. But seeing how I didnt purchase or pay any bills or invest in her property, I had no say and no right to demand a say.

[Joshex]

Yup.

Probably just the owner was lookign to find a scapegoat. Higher value homes dont tend to move very fast in the first place on average. But it applies with the term you described, diplomacy.  It goes both ways, with the owner of property and non-owners. And the veil of something "decreasing value of property" isnt always a legit reason to make complaint. Especially if it probably wouldnt do much in the case of the Corolla. The flip side is that like the tree, many things decrease the value of a neighborhood that people do. In some cases even something as simple as lawn ornaments or the color of paint on the  house compared to the other house or even building materials, to type of grass chosen or in the case of out here, the lack of grass. A more proper example would be the owner that feels the neighbor yard is decreasing and have appraisal that states the neighbor's grass condition is decreasing value, but the owner believe in water conservation. Yet, it seems that respect is supposed to be given to the neighbor more than the actual property owner. As you say diplomacy is two ways. And because the neighbor dont like something the neighbor does, doesnt mean it's in their right to try and force it upon the property owner. As you also stated. A legit complaint in a diplomatic manner, good stuff. But many take it too far and stick that nose a bit too far into the business. Best thing to do it to state the complaint and let the property owner ultimately decide on their choice. People forget, while worrying about the pennies off their own property value, that the neighbor value also goes up and down with the rest of the neighborhood. The ideal situation where other people not affecting property value is to not have neighbors, but probably not practical. Respect definately should be given more to the actual property owner than non-owners of the property. And if a complaint should be made it should be in respectful manner to the owner and left at that. Instead of the attitude of "You are decreasing my property value so you better not cut down that tree." As if the neighbor didnt buy his property like everyone else in that neighborhood. More than likely usually it affects the actual property than the surrounding properties in a more drastic way. I doubt anyone house decreased by 20,000 or so because some bloke down the block cut down a tree. And how this this fit in? Because many times, people will find any scapegoat to the reason why their property value decrease in reality or perceieved. If they dont like the neighbor cuttign down the tree, they will say the tree is decreasing their property value. If they dont think the neighbor is watering their grass enough, then it will be the neighbor's grass is bringing down the property value, if they dont like the person car, then the car is bringing down the property value. And they will use it as license to tell the neighbor what they cant or cannot do with their own property simply because it dont fit with their view of the standard. I'm saying that if they are so adament about telling what others can and cannot do on their property then yes they should of either purchased the property themselves, or planted more trees. Besides that the diplomatic thing would be to remember that their neighbor is also a property owner, with property that also rise and decrease in value and just as they wouldnt like people telling them they need to clear their land because "the leaves it sheds make the neighborhood look shabby" they shoudl show the same kind of respect to their neighbor. Or in this case diplomacy. AKA, they should nto act like the king of the neighborhood over property they dont own. 

Also, I'm wondering what happened with the case of that trespasser... Trespassing is not a crime unless actual damages of a sorts are incurred, otherwise it's considered "invasion of privacy". (Damage doesn't need to be vandalism or anything tangible. But actual suffered damage needs to occur and something quantifiable in terms of money to sue someone for.) It sounds more like someone was trying to cause actual harm. This isn't an argument of privacy, still. It's some jack ass causing mischief, damages, etc. Once again, doesn't seem to apply very well to the argument, as it's painting the owner in a light of being a tremendous dick taking advantage of how laws work just to be a vindictive jerk -OR- maybe the guy really needed a lesson to be taught, as there's a lot of unspoken things regarding that, and I do not know what damages he was causing with his trespassing and possibly intended something a lot worse than just peeping in on someone's window.


Well I dont think she was being a dick, as believe it or not, a lot of tresspasser get shot here. Some will shoot you because they dont liek your skin tone but if you are on their land, they dont need to go record with the real reason. How I know? It already happened to me personally. There was a car for sale in the front yard of this house, with the for sale sign, so me and a friend just got a closer look. The owner came outside yelling about stuff cocked and loaded, most I cant repeat here but included a few lines of he hate (insert n word) and want to kill every (n-word) in this world, and before could explain that we was interested in the car for sale, he started to unload. We ran for dear life or course and luckily he was a poor shot maybe due to old age as this guy had to be pushing 80 at least. I didnt think nothing more than just a crazy old dude that just happen to not like black people. My friend on the other hand was royally pissed. So of course he put in a police report but police said since we was on his land he had every right to protect his property using what ever force he deemed nessesary, even deadly force.   

My friend, the shooter, isnt exactly very open minded when it comes to people on her land or privacy. As she states, if she dont know them, then they have no business, especially in the realm of privacy or property. In Texas, as long as you have signs that says no tresspassing along the the property, you can legally shoot tresspassers as here it is assumed if someone ignore the signs they are there for more malicious intentions. Which this guy did, not to mention, purposely hopped the fence. He  said he was just taking a short cut, but here, if you ignore those signs the owner may shoot first ask questions later. And this extends to if someone is breakign into your car. In short, she shot first, asked questions later and got more out of him. The guy lived, went through the lower hip area and lodged in the right butt cheek. To her, the guy totally violated her rights to privacy and deserved to die. Luckily she isnt yet a sharpshooter or else, there would be a family mourning. To some, they may view it as someone being a prick. To me, she just protecting what she believe is her right. To her, the guy deserved to die for daring to tresspass on her land. I dont think she would have even bothered calling an ambulance if I wasnt there as I was the one that called them. She didnt seem to be in any hurry. She didnt care if the guy lived or die because in her eyes, he commited an offense that was a death sentence. I guess she figures since she didnt kill him literally she'd go ahead and kill him financially, either way no one was goign to stop her from collecting her pound of flesh and convinced the people that needed convincing that her life was in danger. Me, I probably would have asked the guy, is he lost and at worse escort him off the land. Other might invite the guy in for a drink of water as it was middle of one of el paso 100 degree summers and the guy looked a bit parched. As I said different threshold of privacy. From a legal standpoint, she could have killed him and no one would ask many questions and life go on for her. For me, not sure if I could sleep for a week if I murked a man without what is good reason and being sure of intentions. Other couldnt shoot a man at all. Different thresholds. None are right, as all are right to the person who matches that threshold. Andn one are wrong besides to those who threshold is different. Vindictive, no, being a dick, no. But emotional damage is easy when you can afford any lawyer you want like she can especially, when it's a female of average build, spotless criminal record, and resident of affluent neighborhood,  compared to a strange male in the yard with no better explanation than he was just takign a shortcut that didnt even live in the area. The man didnt stand a chance. She probably could have asked for any price and it would have been granted. She only asked for $90,000 (or rather the figure the lawyer came up with since she did misss work and since she was distraught, he husband the main bread winner had to stay home too and lost out on work and business and the fact that she dont feel safe and the usual), ended up getting judgement award of about $40,000. But the guy wasnt made of money, and probably didnt rake in that much as a construction worker in a year year and didnt even have medical insurance and so a medical bill ,on top of missing work,  then find out you owe $40,000 to the person that shot ya. Although to this day she havent seen the money and probably wont see much of it if any, but as she said it wasnt about the money it was about the law and the fact he tresspass and he had to pay. To her asa citizen and property owner, she was within her rights. That just go to show as it can be viewed as vindictive, or being a dick, to others is lawfully a right to another person they just excercised. To me, I think merely pointing the weapon at him and telling him to get going probably would have gotten results without harm. But thinking on it, I bet if if he was on my land, and I shot him and tried to sue for emotional distress, I would have a little more explaining to do and probably would have my "emotional distress" suit thrown out without hesitation, but even in this day and age, people that decide the law sometimes fall for the damsel in distress without much questioning. She probably could have said the guy tried to raped her, which she was originally going to go for, until I said "ok that is too far, I will sit up there and say that is bold face lie", did she finally back down. Sad part is, if she pursued it and I wasnt a witness, she probably would have won and that poor chap would be in jail right now for an attempted rape that he didnt do. As much I respect people choices, I just couldnt in good concience go that far. But besides that in the case I only could attest to what I actually saw. Yes, he was there, yes he did trespass, yes he did hop the fence and yes she shot him and that is all. The truth of what I saw even though I didnt agree with the method, I had to respect her decision because it's her land, her threshold of privacy invasion and tresspass, and her view of how it supposed to be dealt with.  It is not my choice to make. It's her land. Now if it was on my land, then yeah it would be my choice. But seeing how I didnt purchase or pay any bills or invest in her property, I had no say and no right to demand a say.

Fake News by Joshex

Headline 1: tresspassers shot in colorado, law enforcement not allowed to take action

blah blah blah, if you're on my property you better have a good reason, also welcome to colorado *boom*


Headline 2: people getting stoned in colorado

no, they aren't being dragged outside of town and thrown into a pit and then pummeled with rocks till they die, they are all taking a daily hit of the old dubbie, it's hard to turn a corner without seeing someone wave a friendly hello in a very mello way as they light up a big fat spliff, welcome to joint towne colorado where everything moves slooooow man... word is a munchie factory has been proposed by the citizens, however when asked what exactly a 'munchie' is no body knew, they just said "get mine with extra cheese and like one of those big bottles of soda".

[JaguarX]

Fake News by Joshex

Headline 1: tresspassers shot in colorado, law enforcement not allowed to take action

blah blah blah, if you're on my property you better have a good reason, also welcome to colorado *boom*


Headline 2: people getting stoned in colorado

no, they aren't being dragged outside of town and thrown into a pit and then pummeled with rocks till they die, they are all taking a daily hit of the old dubbie, it's hard to turn a corner without seeing someone wave a friendly hello in a very mello way as they light up a big fat spliff, welcome to joint towne colorado where everything moves slooooow man... word is a munchie factory has been proposed by the citizens, however when asked what exactly a 'munchie' is no body knew, they just said "get mine with extra cheese and like one of those big bottles of soda".

lol. So are the weed prices in colorado since it's technically legal to smoke there? At least from what I hear.

[BadWolf]

The point that JaguarX is trying to make, of course, is that City of Heroes is like a tree. And Google is like a Toyota...Corolla...? Which would make NCSoft a trespasser, shot by...um, Mister T...which is good, because diplomacy...?

Nope. I got nothing. Why is this on-topic for the thread again?

[JaguarX]

The point that JaguarX is trying to make, of course, is that City of Heroes is like a tree. And Google is like a Toyota...Corolla...? Which would make NCSoft a trespasser, shot by...um, Mister T...which is good, because diplomacy...?

lmao. Yep. That is right.

[Joshex]

lol. So are the weed prices in colorado since it's technically legal to smoke there? At least from what I hear.

still pretty expensive from what I hear, peeps are only allowed to grow 6 of thier own plants that means they can only have like 3 different varieties cause they need male and female plants.. and each leaf is only like 7 ounces or something so they might have like 100 ounces per plant and that wont last long if they're selling it, plus the medical stuff isn't any cheaper...

[JaguarX]

still pretty expensive from what I hear, peeps are only allowed to grow 6 of thier own plants that means they can only have like 3 different varieties cause they need male and female plants.. and each leaf is only like 7 ounces or something so they might have like 100 ounces per plant and that wont last long if they're selling it, plus the medical stuff isn't any cheaper...

Yeah they wont be a king pin anytime soon.

[Mister Bison]

...and if you mix gratuitous removal of plants you're allergic to, with weed price (the two topics we are mysteriously discussing now), you get me to remember this old video here.

Take Two:
"Rugged soldiers... the size of Wales... burning drugs. Painstakingly ! Uhhh"

Take three:
"Behind me painstaking barrens burningly drug soldiers in huge piles of Wale-nets Uohh, Wooh ! Now that's the one Jerry !"

[Joshex]

on the comment of Mr T the tree chopper, maybe he did it for reasons similar to my family's reasons, we cut down 3 trees for a nmber of reasons;

1, some could have fallen on the house during bad winds

2, some had those nasty roots that expose themselves above ground and break our lawnmower blades (we tried covering the roots witha mound of dirt and replanted grass on top of that but the roots decided to come up and expose themselves again on top of the mound!)

3, the trees were creating too much shade and my pinapple plant wasn't getting enough sun no matter where I put it on our property.

4, dad wanted to plant a vegtable garden and put up solar panels to reduce energy costs from coal burning powerplants and our trees were in the way of that..

just cause Mr T cut down a few trees doesn't mean he's not eco-friendly.

ok.. eco friendly image of Mr T just popped into my head... I envisioned snowwhite with all the birds and squirrels on her sleeves and shoulder singing and then I replaced snowwhite with Mr T.... it.. wasn't exactly disturbing, maybe a bit comical.

[JaguarX]

ok.. eco friendly image of Mr T just popped into my head... I envisioned snowwhite with all the birds and squirrels on her sleeves and shoulder singing and then I replaced snowwhite with Mr T.... it.. wasn't exactly disturbing, maybe a bit comical.

O.o.

Oh hell I just had a visual of that too. And it's stuck!! "I pity the fool..."

[Joshex]

O.o.

Oh hell I just had a visual of that too. And it's stuck!! "I pity the fool..."

Yep! thats one! o.O

[mrultimate]

So how is the proposal coming along?  :P

[MakoMako]

Actually, I think the argument wasn't so much about trees and such as it is about the limitations of "privacy" and if it's ever necessary to stick one's nose into the business of others. The 'chopping down of trees' just being an example because it was brought up already.

If we applied this to the City of Heroes situation, I think the problem is that NCSoft made a decision that affected a tremendous number of people very negatively, and as we stand here asking up and down "Why the hell would you do that?" their attitude is "None of your business." And if we keep trying to figure it out, they'll probably shoot us.

Are they free to keep it a secret? Yes, I believe so. Is it -right- to keep it a secret? I don't think so. And is it within our rights to keep making noise on the matter? Hell yes it is. I have no intention to stop asking until a real answer comes up. Whether it's my business or not, it still affected me quite a bit. And I think I at least deserve to know what the hell.