21 Aug 2004 23:27:51
Andy Entrekin
Getting land owner's permission

The other day, some friends and I found some land that would be
wonderful for paintball games. It's an area that looks like the city
tried to develop something (we couldn't tell what it was supposed to
be), but it never worked out. There are a few roads into the area, but
they're all barricaded. A short walk from the roads, there are several
great areas for paintball. It even looks like others have been there
before us (dissolved paintballs on the ground). We also found evidence
of campfires, off-roading, and lots of trash-dumping (tree limbs, old
wood fences, mattresses, you name it). We are reluctant to play without
the owner's permission, but we have no idea who the owner is. Assuming
that we are able to find out who owns the land, what would be the best
way to approach them about playing? Does anyone else have experience
with this sort of thing?

Thanks!



22 Aug 2004 01:04:36
LCT Paintball
Re: Getting land owner's permission

If there is a bunch of trash on the ground from other people I would be very
hesitant to allow somebody else to come in. Why don't you offer to clean the
place up for him?

--
"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
www.LCTPaintball.com
www.LCTProducts.com


"Andy Entrekin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03...
> The other day, some friends and I found some land that would be
> wonderful for paintball games. It's an area that looks like the city
> tried to develop something (we couldn't tell what it was supposed to
> be), but it never worked out. There are a few roads into the area, but
> they're all barricaded. A short walk from the roads, there are several
> great areas for paintball. It even looks like others have been there
> before us (dissolved paintballs on the ground). We also found evidence
> of campfires, off-roading, and lots of trash-dumping (tree limbs, old
> wood fences, mattresses, you name it). We are reluctant to play without
> the owner's permission, but we have no idea who the owner is. Assuming
> that we are able to find out who owns the land, what would be the best
> way to approach them about playing? Does anyone else have experience
> with this sort of thing?
>
> Thanks!
>




21 Aug 2004 22:00:55
Insane Ranter
Re: Getting land owner's permission


"Andy Entrekin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03...
> The other day, some friends and I found some land that would be
> wonderful for paintball games. It's an area that looks like the city
> tried to develop something (we couldn't tell what it was supposed to
> be), but it never worked out. There are a few roads into the area, but
> they're all barricaded. A short walk from the roads, there are several
> great areas for paintball. It even looks like others have been there
> before us (dissolved paintballs on the ground). We also found evidence
> of campfires, off-roading, and lots of trash-dumping (tree limbs, old
> wood fences, mattresses, you name it). We are reluctant to play without
> the owner's permission, but we have no idea who the owner is. Assuming
> that we are able to find out who owns the land, what would be the best
> way to approach them about playing? Does anyone else have experience
> with this sort of thing?
>
> Thanks!
>

Try the County's or City's Department of Finance. To see who owns it..




22 Aug 2004 05:44:35
Phelps
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article <[email protected]_s03 >,
Andy Entrekin <[email protected] > wrote:

> We are reluctant to play without
> the owner's permission, but we have no idea who the owner is. Assuming
> that we are able to find out who owns the land, what would be the best
> way to approach them about playing? Does anyone else have experience
> with this sort of thing?

County tax records is usually the best way to figure out who owns it.
Someone has to be paying taxes on it, and the tax assesment is usually
an open record. Dallas county (the one I'm familiar with) has the tax
assessments online and searchable.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


22 Aug 2004 06:12:53
Graham
Re: Getting land owner's permission

Best way to get permission to play on their land. Ask. Offer to clean it up.
Maybe even have players sign waivers. The most you will be told is no.




22 Aug 2004 21:54:48
DGDevin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Graham" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Best way to get permission to play on their land. Ask. Offer to clean it
up.
> Maybe even have players sign waivers. The most you will be told is no.

The owner would be a fool to let anyone use the land for that purpose
however, the liability industry (formerly known as the legal profession)
would be all over him if someone got hurt.




22 Aug 2004 22:49:05
Phelps
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article
<[email protected] >,
"DGDevin" <[email protected] > wrote:

> "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> > Best way to get permission to play on their land. Ask. Offer to clean it
> up.
> > Maybe even have players sign waivers. The most you will be told is no.
>
> The owner would be a fool to let anyone use the land for that purpose
> however, the liability industry (formerly known as the legal profession)
> would be all over him if someone got hurt.

He's probably OK if there isn't any cash changing hands. No implied
warranty without that.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


22 Aug 2004 20:17:50
Insane Ranter
Re: Getting land owner's permission


"DGDevin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> > Best way to get permission to play on their land. Ask. Offer to clean it
> up.
> > Maybe even have players sign waivers. The most you will be told is no.
>
> The owner would be a fool to let anyone use the land for that purpose
> however, the liability industry (formerly known as the legal profession)
> would be all over him if someone got hurt.
>
>

Only if the people that got hurt sued. But I doubt that they win unless you
got some stupid idiotic court setting.....

Your a sue happy nut always looking to strike it rich by suing right and
left aren't




22 Aug 2004 23:39:15
Daniel Martin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

Worked for me, 14.1 acres of varied brush land, 100 ft from my cottage to
use when I like.
All I did was ask, nicely of course.

Dan

"DGDevin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> > Best way to get permission to play on their land. Ask. Offer to clean it
> up.
> > Maybe even have players sign waivers. The most you will be told is no.
>
> The owner would be a fool to let anyone use the land for that purpose
> however, the liability industry (formerly known as the legal profession)
> would be all over him if someone got hurt.
>
>




23 Aug 2004 01:08:53
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Insane Ranter" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Your a sue happy nut always looking to strike it rich by suing right and
> left aren't

"YOU'RE" as in YOU ARE, you non-sentance finishing retarded ADD sufferer...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





23 Aug 2004 07:42:49
DGDevin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Insane Ranter" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Only if the people that got hurt sued. But I doubt that they win unless
you
> got some stupid idiotic court setting.....

"If"? Look what happens when someone slips and falls in a shopping center.
They sue the mall, all the stores including ones that just signed a lease
and haven't opened yet, the janitorial company, and probably the company
that installed the floor. Why? Because they (or rather their lawyers) know
most of those companies will pay them off to be dropped from the lawsuit,
it's cheaper to settle out of court than to fight it. And guess what, it
happens in paintball too, don't kid yourself that you need a goofball jury
to lose a lot of money on something like this.




23 Aug 2004 07:17:59
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"DGDevin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > Only if the people that got hurt sued. But I doubt that they win unless
> you
> > got some stupid idiotic court setting.....
>
> "If"? Look what happens when someone slips and falls in a shopping
center.
> They sue the mall, all the stores including ones that just signed a lease
> and haven't opened yet, the janitorial company, and probably the company
> that installed the floor. Why? Because they (or rather their lawyers)
know
> most of those companies will pay them off to be dropped from the lawsuit,
> it's cheaper to settle out of court than to fight it. And guess what, it

Lawyers are generally money grubbing folks. They go for where the money is.
That's why they sue the company in a slip and fall, and not the 16 year old
mop pusher, the person directly responsible. And why is that? Because a 16
year old mop pusher has no money.

In this instance, some guy who happens to own some land with NOTHING
DEVELOPED ON IT, where's the money? If you're in the middle of a city, and
the land is simply appreciating in value for some real estate mogul, you
might have gotten extremely lucky and managed to hurt yourself on the land
of someone with money. However, if the land is on the outskirts of a city,
or in the middle of nowhere, odds are good that it's just "some guy". If
that's the case, there literally is no money to get. A lawyer is not going
to waste his time on such a case because there is no value in him pursuing
it.

Furthermore, the reason why people can sue a company for negligence
resulting in injury is because there is a certain level of expectation when
it comes to the upkeep of the area in question. A slip in a supermarket is
generally pursued because of water on the floor or something like that,
specifically water where there really shouldn't be water. In the case of
undeveloped land, there is no such expectation of upkeep, nor warranty as to
specific use. In other words, the land is not subject to a level of upkeep
that would allow a lawyer to realistically sue for personal injury as a
result of using that land.

Dev, you're really scatty these days.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





23 Aug 2004 17:45:47
DGDevin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Jeff Goslin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Lawyers are generally money grubbing folks. They go for where the money
is.
> That's why they sue the company in a slip and fall, and not the 16 year
old
> mop pusher, the person directly responsible. And why is that? Because a
16
> year old mop pusher has no money.

That's a valid point, Jerry Braun once told me in this forum that I was
"judgement proof" due to not having enough money to be worth suing.
However, if you stuck to what I actually wrote instead of making something
up, you'd note that I said the janitorial company, not the kid holding the
mop, the company probably is worth suing.

> In this instance, some guy who happens to own some land with NOTHING
> DEVELOPED ON IT, where's the money? If you're in the middle of a city,
and
> the land is simply appreciating in value for some real estate mogul, you
> might have gotten extremely lucky and managed to hurt yourself on the land
> of someone with money. However, if the land is on the outskirts of a
city,
> or in the middle of nowhere, odds are good that it's just "some guy". If
> that's the case, there literally is no money to get. A lawyer is not
going
> to waste his time on such a case because there is no value in him pursuing
> it.

I once sued a company that strictly speaking was no longer in operation,
they owed me an a lot of other guys some money, the way it works Jeff is
first you get a judgement against the owner, then if he fails to pay, you
get something like a writ of execution, and the Sheriff seizes their
property, sells it at auction, pays the people with the judgement and gives
the rest, less costs, back to the original owner. If you doubt this Jeff,
get yourself some real estate, then fail to pay taxes on it. Get back to us
with a detailed description of what happened after the government got tired
of demanding your back taxes.

> Furthermore, the reason why people can sue a company for negligence
> resulting in injury is because there is a certain level of expectation
when
> it comes to the upkeep of the area in question. A slip in a supermarket
is
> generally pursued because of water on the floor or something like that,
> specifically water where there really shouldn't be water. In the case of
> undeveloped land, there is no such expectation of upkeep, nor warranty as
to
> specific use. In other words, the land is not subject to a level of
upkeep
> that would allow a lawyer to realistically sue for personal injury as a
> result of using that land.
>
> Dev, you're really scatty these days.

Again you sidestep what I actually wrote in order to make your point, seems
to be your standard practice these days Goslin. The fact is that lawyers
sue all the time even with no expectation of actually winning a judgement,
because they know in the long run many of their targets will just settle out
of court rather than go through a long and expensive legal battle. I know
of several paintball companies that have written big checks to grinning
lawyers because it was just easier and cheaper than spending years in court
paying their own lawyers to eventually "win."

Oh, silly me, I forgot, anything that Jeff hasn't seen with his own eyes
never really happened, doesn't exist, so why am I wasting my time.




23 Aug 2004 13:30:17
Jason G
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article <[email protected] >, DGDevin
says...
>
>I once sued a company that strictly speaking was no longer in operation,
>they owed me an a lot of other guys some money, the way it works Jeff is
>first you get a judgement against the owner, then if he fails to pay, you
>get something like a writ of execution, and the Sheriff seizes their
>property, sells it at auction, pays the people with the judgement and gives
>the rest, less costs, back to the original owner.

Or, if the owner was smart, he would just wave his Articles of Incorporation at
you, and you'd be SOL.



23 Aug 2004 16:53:50
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"DGDevin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> That's a valid point, Jerry Braun once told me in this forum that I was
> "judgement proof" due to not having enough money to be worth suing.
> However, if you stuck to what I actually wrote instead of making something
> up, you'd note that I said the janitorial company, not the kid holding the
> mop, the company probably is worth suing.

And, if you could follow a line of reasoning, a person owning "some
undeveloped land" may not be a good candidate for suing, mainly because the
land itself may not be that valuable, and the person may be an individual,
rather than representing a corporation worth suing. So, yes, I agree, the
individual is not worth suing. But what is important is to note that a
person who owns land may be just as "sue-worthy" as any other individual out
there(ie not very likely to be a good "sue" candidate). Unfortunately, you
can't seem to grasp the notion I'm putting forth.

[description of lein execution snipped]
> the rest, less costs, back to the original owner. If you doubt this Jeff,
> get yourself some real estate, then fail to pay taxes on it. Get back to
us

I'm well aware of how this process works. However, for a person owning a
"plot of land", specifically undeveloped land in the middle of nowhere, like
would typically be used to play paintball, the land is rarely worth enough
to cost justify the process for a lawyer.

> Again you sidestep what I actually wrote in order to make your point,
seems
> to be your standard practice these days Goslin. The fact is that lawyers

Actually, if anyone is doing that, you are. Or at least you are
specifically avoiding seeing the line I am making from one point to the
next.

> Oh, silly me, I forgot, anything that Jeff hasn't seen with his own eyes
> never really happened, doesn't exist, so why am I wasting my time.

Honestly, you're simply being deliberately obtuse.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





23 Aug 2004 23:52:32
Phelps
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article <[email protected] >,
"Jeff Goslin" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Lawyers are generally money grubbing folks. They go for where the money is.
> That's why they sue the company in a slip and fall, and not the 16 year old
> mop pusher, the person directly responsible. And why is that? Because a 16
> year old mop pusher has no money.

FYI: the legal slang is "deep pockets".

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


23 Aug 2004 23:55:00
Phelps
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article <[email protected] >,
Jason G <[email protected] > wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> DGDevin
> says...
> >
> >I once sued a company that strictly speaking was no longer in operation,
> >they owed me an a lot of other guys some money, the way it works Jeff is
> >first you get a judgement against the owner, then if he fails to pay, you
> >get something like a writ of execution, and the Sheriff seizes their
> >property, sells it at auction, pays the people with the judgement and gives
> >the rest, less costs, back to the original owner.
>
> Or, if the owner was smart, he would just wave his Articles of Incorporation
> at
> you, and you'd be SOL.

The "corporate veil" can be peirced, especially if the incorporation
is a corporate fiction. You really have to keep up with your bylaws and
hold and record your annual meetings to keep the seperation up. A lot
of small corporations don't.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


23 Aug 2004 20:10:15
Insane Ranter
Re: Getting land owner's permission


"Jeff Goslin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Insane Ranter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Your a sue happy nut always looking to strike it rich by suing right and
> > left aren't
>
> "YOU'RE" as in YOU ARE, you non-sentance finishing retarded ADD
sufferer...
>

Well you know I told you that..

LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!




23 Aug 2004 20:11:24
Insane Ranter
Re: Getting land owner's permission


"DGDevin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Insane Ranter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > Only if the people that got hurt sued. But I doubt that they win unless
> you
> > got some stupid idiotic court setting.....
>
> "If"? Look what happens when someone slips and falls in a shopping
center.
> They sue the mall, all the stores including ones that just signed a lease
> and haven't opened yet, the janitorial company, and probably the company
> that installed the floor. Why? Because they (or rather their lawyers)
know
> most of those companies will pay them off to be dropped from the lawsuit,
> it's cheaper to settle out of court than to fight it. And guess what, it
> happens in paintball too, don't kid yourself that you need a goofball jury
> to lose a lot of money on something like this.
>
>

Loser pays system is what we need..




24 Aug 2004 01:28:30
Rick Scott
Re: Getting land owner's permission

(Insane Ranter <[email protected] > uttered:)
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...Because they (or rather their lawyers) know most of those
>> companies will pay them off to be dropped from the lawsuit, it's
>> cheaper to settle out of court than to fight it. And guess what, it
>> happens in paintball too, don't kid yourself that you need a
>> goofball jury to lose a lot of money on something like this.
>
> Loser pays system is what we need..

In many cases, a loser pays system is what we have. I believe you
need to see things through to the end before the judge can give you
costs, though.


Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
What difference does it make if you have two tanks to my one,
when you spread them out and let me smash them in detail?
:Erwin Rommel


23 Aug 2004 21:41:07
Daniel Martin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

Homer simson voice : ON
"oh you and your lawyer speak."


Dan

"Phelps" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jeff Goslin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Lawyers are generally money grubbing folks. They go for where the money
is.
> > That's why they sue the company in a slip and fall, and not the 16 year
old
> > mop pusher, the person directly responsible. And why is that? Because
a 16
> > year old mop pusher has no money.
>
> FYI: the legal slang is "deep pockets".
>
> --
> Phelps <http://www.donotremove.net>
> "Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
> -- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"




23 Aug 2004 22:13:50
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Phelps" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> FYI: the legal slang is "deep pockets".

Scuuuuuuuze me... "deep pockets"... ;)

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Aug 2004 03:49:43
Phelps
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article <[email protected] >,
"Jeff Goslin" <[email protected] > wrote:

> "Phelps" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > FYI: the legal slang is "deep pockets".
>
> Scuuuuuuuze me... "deep pockets"... ;)

I wasn't correcting you. I was just under the impression that you
appreciated marginally useful trivia.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


24 Aug 2004 06:33:57
DGDevin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Jason G" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Or, if the owner was smart, he would just wave his Articles of
Incorporation at
> you, and you'd be SOL.

Didn't save them, it took years and the government getting in on the game
(dept. of labor) but eventually we got our money. If you can prove an
arms-length arrangement or prove a new company is really just a continuation
of an old company under another name, then those incorporation tricks don't
always work.




24 Aug 2004 06:42:23
DGDevin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Jeff Goslin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> And, if you could follow a line of reasoning

If you would advance a line of reasoning rather than a collection of blind
biases and myths I might make the effort, but as it is....

>Unfortunately, you
> can't seem to grasp the notion I'm putting forth.

Unless our theoretical game is taking place on a piece of land in the middle
of a swamp beside a nature preserve, then your image of a worthless piece of
land is questionable at best. How many lawyers of the predatory variety
would pass up getting their hands on almost any piece of land in or near a
city? Who knows, in a couple of years it might be the site of a new mall --
real estate is almost always worth acquiring, they aren't making any more of
it. If the owner doesn't have much money, excellent! He signs over the
land in lieu of a judgement, land is almost as good as money in the long
run.

And so on, blah blah, Jeff counter blah blahs whether he really believes
what he's saying or not, blah, we all go to sleep.




24 Aug 2004 10:56:49
defective
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"'sentEnce" jeff...

somehow...even with the girth, you're nimble enough to insert foot in mouth.
well done. ;)

"Jeff Goslin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Insane Ranter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Your a sue happy nut always looking to strike it rich by suing right and
> > left aren't
>
> "YOU'RE" as in YOU ARE, you non-sentance finishing retarded ADD
sufferer...
>
> --
> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>
>
>




24 Aug 2004 12:49:01
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

Of all the words in the english language, sentance vs sentence is the one I
most commonly misspell. I don't know why I misspell that word, except that
I've been doing it for quite some time. It might have to do with a
distinction made in queen's english or something, sentence being a structure
of words, sentance being a jail term, so both spellings might be english,
but I might have simply been mistaken. However, since we're in america,
I'll just take it as "wrong" and move on.

My most common grammatical error is possessive vs contractive use of an
apostrophe where it does not require it, as in "its" vs "it's". "it's" is,
of course, the contraction of "it is", and "its" indicates possesiveness, as
in "its stuff", whatever it refers to in regard to the stuff. I'll often
say "it's stuff", incorrectly.

Since I am willing to admit these two errors as ones that I commonly make,
I'd appreciate it if those specific mistakes weren't used against me. ;)

I will not admit to ever being 100% completely accurate 100% of the time
with regard to grammar and spelling, but I can say this much: I'm a hell of
a lot better at that sort of thing than the vast majority of the tards who
post on usenet.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right


"defective" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "'sentEnce" jeff...
>
> somehow...even with the girth, you're nimble enough to insert foot in
mouth.
> well done. ;)
>
> "Jeff Goslin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > "Insane Ranter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > Your a sue happy nut always looking to strike it rich by suing right
and
> > > left aren't
> >
> > "YOU'RE" as in YOU ARE, you non-sentance finishing retarded ADD
> sufferer...
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
> > It's not a god complex when you're always right
> >
> >
> >
>
>




24 Aug 2004 18:26:57
Rick Scott
Re: Getting land owner's permission

(Jeff Goslin <[email protected] > uttered:)
> ...It might have to do with a distinction made in queen's english or
> something, sentence being a structure of words, sentance being a
> jail term, so both spellings might be english, > but I might have
> simply been mistaken. However, since we're in america, I'll just
> take it as "wrong" and move on.

*nod* Yeah, I don't see `sentance' in the dictionary.



> My most common grammatical error is possessive vs contractive use of
> an apostrophe where it does not require it, as in "its" vs "it's".

This is my biggest grammatical pet peeve. It's even more annoying
because over the past year I've occasionally caught myself making it.
Now *that's* infuriating. =)

Canonical reference: http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif




> "it's" is, of course, the contraction of "it is", and "its"
> indicates possesiveness, as in "its stuff", whatever it refers to in
> regard to the stuff. I'll often say "it's stuff", incorrectly.

That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
shit is stuff! =)



> Since I am willing to admit these two errors as ones that I commonly
> make, I'd appreciate it if those specific mistakes weren't used
> against me. ;)
>
> I will not admit to ever being 100% completely accurate 100% of the
> time with regard to grammar and spelling, but I can say this much:
> I'm a hell of a lot better at that sort of thing than the vast
> majority of the tards who post on usenet.

Yes, the fact that you are able to form a coherent thought seems to
place you head and shoulders above the vast majority of the
internet-using populace these days. Your ability to construct a
rational argument also helps obviate my strong temptation to flame
you for minute spelling and grammatical errors.


As for myself, I too often fall prey to typos. I usually notice them
not long after I post the article in question, and occasionally
consider cancelling them in an effort to wipe the egg off my face,
but I have qualms about cancelling articles strictly based on content.




Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune, whose words do jarre;
nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous.
:Ben Jonson


24 Aug 2004 17:02:34
Insane Ranter
Re: Getting land owner's permission


"Rick Scott" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> (Jeff Goslin <[email protected]> uttered:)
> > ...It might have to do with a distinction made in queen's english or
> > something, sentence being a structure of words, sentance being a
> > jail term, so both spellings might be english, > but I might have
> > simply been mistaken. However, since we're in america, I'll just
> > take it as "wrong" and move on.
>
> *nod* Yeah, I don't see `sentance' in the dictionary.
>
>
>
> > My most common grammatical error is possessive vs contractive use of
> > an apostrophe where it does not require it, as in "its" vs "it's".
>
> This is my biggest grammatical pet peeve. It's even more annoying
> because over the past year I've occasionally caught myself making it.
> Now *that's* infuriating. =)
>
> Canonical reference: http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

There are people who still can not get they're grammar right. Who does we
blame? Is it where they went to skool or their location they, live in?




24 Aug 2004 21:02:35
LCT Paintball
Re: Getting land owner's permission

I can't stand when your is spelled ur.

--
"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
www.LCTPaintball.com
www.LCTProducts.com


"Rick Scott" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> (Jeff Goslin <[email protected]> uttered:)
> > ...It might have to do with a distinction made in queen's english or
> > something, sentence being a structure of words, sentance being a
> > jail term, so both spellings might be english, > but I might have
> > simply been mistaken. However, since we're in america, I'll just
> > take it as "wrong" and move on.
>
> *nod* Yeah, I don't see `sentance' in the dictionary.
>
>
>
> > My most common grammatical error is possessive vs contractive use of
> > an apostrophe where it does not require it, as in "its" vs "it's".
>
> This is my biggest grammatical pet peeve. It's even more annoying
> because over the past year I've occasionally caught myself making it.
> Now *that's* infuriating. =)
>
> Canonical reference: http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
>
>
>
>
> > "it's" is, of course, the contraction of "it is", and "its"
> > indicates possesiveness, as in "its stuff", whatever it refers to in
> > regard to the stuff. I'll often say "it's stuff", incorrectly.
>
> That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
> shit is stuff! =)
>
>
>
> > Since I am willing to admit these two errors as ones that I commonly
> > make, I'd appreciate it if those specific mistakes weren't used
> > against me. ;)
> >
> > I will not admit to ever being 100% completely accurate 100% of the
> > time with regard to grammar and spelling, but I can say this much:
> > I'm a hell of a lot better at that sort of thing than the vast
> > majority of the tards who post on usenet.
>
> Yes, the fact that you are able to form a coherent thought seems to
> place you head and shoulders above the vast majority of the
> internet-using populace these days. Your ability to construct a
> rational argument also helps obviate my strong temptation to flame
> you for minute spelling and grammatical errors.
>
>
> As for myself, I too often fall prey to typos. I usually notice them
> not long after I post the article in question, and occasionally
> consider cancelling them in an effort to wipe the egg off my face,
> but I have qualms about cancelling articles strictly based on content.
>
>
>
>
> Rick
> --
> key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
> Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune, whose words do jarre;
> nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous.
> :Ben Jonson




24 Aug 2004 17:17:54
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Rick Scott" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > My most common grammatical error is possessive vs contractive use of
> > an apostrophe where it does not require it, as in "its" vs "it's".
>
> This is my biggest grammatical pet peeve. It's even more annoying

For me, it's definitely they're, their and there.

> That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
> shit is stuff! =)

Much like your cult is a religion, but everyone elses religion is a cult.

> internet-using populace these days. Your ability to construct a
> rational argument also helps obviate my strong temptation to flame
> you for minute spelling and grammatical errors.

The amusing thing is that people will take great hedonistic pleasure in
pointing out even the smallest of grammatical errors on my part(as happened
to start this little diatribe), only serving to reinforce how few of those
mistakes I actually make! ;)

> As for myself, I too often fall prey to typos. I usually notice them
> not long after I post the article in question, and occasionally
> consider cancelling them in an effort to wipe the egg off my face,
> but I have qualms about cancelling articles strictly based on content.

Personally, I am usually of the opinion that "everyone is human". They're
entitled to make a few mistakes here and there as long as they get their
point across(note the correct use of all three versions of my pet peeve
words). I normally don't make a point of being a grammar or spelling
nazi(except in the pet peeve world).

When it starts to get dicey is in two specific situations. Personally, I
can't stand butchering the english language for it's own sake, especially
with regard to "leet speek" or whatever they call it, like when people start
using "2", "r" and "u" as complete words, when "to/too", "are" and "you" are
all very short english words to begin with. Do you *REALLY* lack the time
to write out the words? Do you really think it makes you look cooler or
something? Gah!

The other situation is where someone thinks they make no mistakes, but even
if you point them out, he goes "weres tha problim?". We had a guy hanging
out like that a while back, annoying as fuck, you might see him pop in from
time to time. He acquired the name "Scum" for very good reason(it wasn't
just for grammar and spelling).

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Aug 2004 14:04:42
Jason G
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article <[email protected] >, Phelps
says...

> marginally useful trivia.

Hell, that describes 90% of Usenet.



24 Aug 2004 17:19:35
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

Agreed, LCT. Whenever I see "ur", I want to pronounce it "uhr", like as in
"Ruhr".

That said which is worse, your as ur, or you're as ur?

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right


"LCT Paintball" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53...
> I can't stand when your is spelled ur.
>
> --
> "Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
> www.LCTPaintball.com
> www.LCTProducts.com
>
>
> "Rick Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > (Jeff Goslin <[email protected]> uttered:)
> > > ...It might have to do with a distinction made in queen's english or
> > > something, sentence being a structure of words, sentance being a
> > > jail term, so both spellings might be english, > but I might have
> > > simply been mistaken. However, since we're in america, I'll just
> > > take it as "wrong" and move on.
> >
> > *nod* Yeah, I don't see `sentance' in the dictionary.
> >
> >
> >
> > > My most common grammatical error is possessive vs contractive use of
> > > an apostrophe where it does not require it, as in "its" vs "it's".
> >
> > This is my biggest grammatical pet peeve. It's even more annoying
> > because over the past year I've occasionally caught myself making it.
> > Now *that's* infuriating. =)
> >
> > Canonical reference: http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "it's" is, of course, the contraction of "it is", and "its"
> > > indicates possesiveness, as in "its stuff", whatever it refers to in
> > > regard to the stuff. I'll often say "it's stuff", incorrectly.
> >
> > That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
> > shit is stuff! =)
> >
> >
> >
> > > Since I am willing to admit these two errors as ones that I commonly
> > > make, I'd appreciate it if those specific mistakes weren't used
> > > against me. ;)
> > >
> > > I will not admit to ever being 100% completely accurate 100% of the
> > > time with regard to grammar and spelling, but I can say this much:
> > > I'm a hell of a lot better at that sort of thing than the vast
> > > majority of the tards who post on usenet.
> >
> > Yes, the fact that you are able to form a coherent thought seems to
> > place you head and shoulders above the vast majority of the
> > internet-using populace these days. Your ability to construct a
> > rational argument also helps obviate my strong temptation to flame
> > you for minute spelling and grammatical errors.
> >
> >
> > As for myself, I too often fall prey to typos. I usually notice them
> > not long after I post the article in question, and occasionally
> > consider cancelling them in an effort to wipe the egg off my face,
> > but I have qualms about cancelling articles strictly based on content.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick
> > --
> > key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
> > Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune, whose words do jarre;
> > nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous.
> > :Ben Jonson
>
>




26 Aug 2004 06:35:56
Rick Scott
Re: Getting land owner's permission

(Jeff Goslin <[email protected] > uttered:)
> "Rick Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
>> shit is stuff! =)
>
> Much like your cult is a religion, but everyone elses religion is a
> cult.

Heh. There's a reason I get a kick out of Ambrose Bierce.
He was pointing this sort of thing out at a time when I think one
could have been drawn and quartered for it, and not merely critcized.

] SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion,
] as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which
] all other faiths are based.
] :Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911)



> When it starts to get dicey is in two specific situations.
> Personally, I can't stand butchering the english language for it's
> own sake, especially with regard to "leet speek" or whatever they
> call it, like when people start using "2", "r" and "u" as complete
> words, when "to/too", "are" and "you" are all very short english
> words to begin with. Do you *REALLY* lack the time to write out the
> words? Do you really think it makes you look cooler or something?
> Gah!

I used to ask these people why they used an ISP that charged by the
character, but I don't think that today's average Usenet denizen
appreciates that joke any more.



> The other situation is where someone thinks they make no mistakes,
> but even if you point them out, he goes "weres tha problim?". We
> had a guy hanging out like that a while back, annoying as fuck, you
> might see him pop in from time to time. He acquired the name "Scum"
> for very good reason(it wasn't just for grammar and spelling).

Two things make me shake my head in both of these scenarios:

* You Are What You Write. This is exceptionally true on Usenet, where
the only way that other posters can form an opinion of you is through
evaluating the merits of what you post, but it's also true to a
significant extent out in the Real World.

* Your use of language is intimately intertwined with how you think.
If you can only form marginally coherent sentences, you can probably
only manage to form marginally coherent ideas. I think this grills me
most when someone sneers at me for my choice of words --
"Why y'all gots ta use smart-arse highfallutin' words like `gargantuan'?
Why can't ya just say `big'?" Well, my monosyllabic friend, `big'
doesn't exactly convey the grandeur, the titanic immensity, or the
overwhelming collosal magnitude of `gargantuan', does it? If I had
meant to convey a concept as bland and pedestrian as `big', I would have
elected to use that word instead.

When you expand your vocabulary, or learn a new language, you're
expanding the number of concepts you can toss about in your head, not
just the number of different words you can write on a page. Someone
who doesn't know the word `adamantine' can't easily conceive of that
concept, nor can they express it coherently. Contrasting it with
something that is merely `hard' is out of the question; they simply
don't have the mental building blocks necessary to make that
fine-grained distinction. I think it's sad -- rather pathetic,
actually -- that there are people who can't distinguish between, say,
`criticizing' someone and `excoriating' them, simply because they
never cared enough to learn the words necessary to draw such
distinctions.



Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
:Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911)


26 Aug 2004 03:05:14
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Rick Scott" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> * You Are What You Write. This is exceptionally true on Usenet, where
> the only way that other posters can form an opinion of you is through
> evaluating the merits of what you post, but it's also true to a
> significant extent out in the Real World.

What's most important to note is that "power perceived is power achieved".
If people THINK you know what you're talking about, it doesn't matter
whether you actually DO know what you're talking about or not. People seem
to forget this little life truism all too often.

There's a buddy of mine who uses all sorts of flashy language and speaks
with such an air of authority that very few laypeople dare to question his
apparantly awesome intellect. However, scratch the surface of his
supposedly superior intellect, and you'll find that he's just a VERY good
bullshit artist. I will say this, however: it takes a decent amount of
innate intelligence to be a good bullshitter. He's actually incredibly
smart, a full on genius in every sense of the word. However, he makes
himself out to be a genius in EVERYTHING, which he is not. Catching him in
one of his displays of bullshit is remarkably difficult because of his
intelligence, which only serves to perpetuate the myth of his absolutely
stunning brilliance. Don't get me wrong, he's a smart guy, but he ain't
that smart! Myself and another friend know his routine backwards and
forwards (he's known Mr. Bullshit for his entire life, I've known Mr.
Bullshit for over a decade), and get a kick out of waiting for him to string
along some awestruck dimwits, and then collapse his house of cards with a
single deft blow of logic.

> * Your use of language is intimately intertwined with how you think.
> If you can only form marginally coherent sentences, you can probably
> only manage to form marginally coherent ideas. I think this grills me
> most when someone sneers at me for my choice of words --
> "Why y'all gots ta use smart-arse highfallutin' words like `gargantuan'?
> Why can't ya just say `big'?" Well, my monosyllabic friend, `big'
> doesn't exactly convey the grandeur, the titanic immensity, or the
> overwhelming collosal magnitude of `gargantuan', does it? If I had
> meant to convey a concept as bland and pedestrian as `big', I would have
> elected to use that word instead.

On the other hand, I would have used "big". ;)

> fine-grained distinction. I think it's sad -- rather pathetic,
> actually -- that there are people who can't distinguish between, say,
> `criticizing' someone and `excoriating' them, simply because they
> never cared enough to learn the words necessary to draw such
> distinctions.

On the other hand, there is a group of people who use "them thar
highfallutin words" just to leave the person they are speaking to with an
inflated opinion of the speaker. I don't know if you're one of those kinds
of people. I certainly hope not.

The key to my internet writing is that I write how I speak. If you were to
hold this conversation with me face to face, I would use the same words I am
using right now. Some people intentionally beef up their internet posts
after the fact. My posts are rarely edited after the fact. From top to
bottom is how I write, and when I hit the bottom, I hit ctrl enter, and it's
done.

Like right about n...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





26 Aug 2004 03:13:10
Insane Ranter
Re: Getting land owner's permission


"Rick Scott" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> (Jeff Goslin <[email protected]> uttered:)
> > "Rick Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
> >> shit is stuff! =)
> >
> > Much like your cult is a religion, but everyone elses religion is a
> > cult.
>
> Heh. There's a reason I get a kick out of Ambrose Bierce.
> He was pointing this sort of thing out at a time when I think one
> could have been drawn and quartered for it, and not merely critcized.
>
> ] SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion,
> ] as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which
> ] all other faiths are based.
> ] :Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911)
>

Drawn and Quartered in 1911? Hanged maybe or shot.




26 Aug 2004 19:58:55
Rick Scott
Re: Getting land owner's permission

(Jeff Goslin <[email protected] > uttered:)
> "Rick Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's a buddy of mine who uses all sorts of flashy language and
> speaks with such an air of authority that very few laypeople dare to
> question his apparantly awesome intellect. However, scratch the
> surface of his supposedly superior intellect, and you'll find that
> he's just a VERY good bullshit artist. I will say this, however:
> it takes a decent amount of innate intelligence to be a good
> bullshitter.

The only reply to this that comes to mind originated with a computer
graphics guest lecturer from the University of Abertay Dundee.
The topic of discussion was what kind of staffing one would need to
put together a game development company. Having earlier made reference
assorted publishers, venture capitalists, and other suits the company
would have to interact with, someone interjected that having an MBA
type on staff might not be a bad idea. His reply went something like,
"Let me put it this way. If your enemy's a bullshitter, you kind of
need a bullshitter of your own to keep them in check."



> On the other hand, there is a group of people who use "them thar
> highfallutin words" just to leave the person they are speaking to
> with an inflated opinion of the speaker. I don't know if you're one
> of those kinds of people. I certainly hope not.

In general, there are two situations in which the syllable count
of my diction starts to rise. The first is when more common words
don't do justice to the precise idea that I'm trying to express
(ie, when calling something `wrong' doesn't quite convey the fullness
of my disparagement, that's when I start breaking out the terms like
`contemptible', `abominable', `abhorrent', etc.)

The second is when I deliberately opt for the impeccably polite,
inordinately verbose, overblown pompous diction so as to cultivate
sarcasm or irony:

---
([email protected]@h <[email protected] > uttered:)
> damn gun is a peice of crap!!11!!
> i only got it 6 months now its jammed and wont [email protected]@1!!

Surely, my good man, you have been fastidiously maintaining your
marker as per the manufacturer's explicit instructions, enumerated as
they are in the edifying manual which so conspicuously accompanied it?
---


> The key to my internet writing is that I write how I speak. If you
> were to hold this conversation with me face to face, I would use the
> same words I am using right now. Some people intentionally beef up
> their internet posts after the fact. My posts are rarely edited
> after the fact.

On the other hand, I write for usenet as though I were composing...
well, a written response. I tend to read over an article, then section
things up and compose my reply piecemeal. I often write these pieces
out-of-order, mulling over ideas from one section while composing
another. If the discussion merits it, I'll hit up the dictionary or
thesaurus while I compose my response, to make sure that the words I'm
using really do convey the meaning I intend, or to find the term that
best expresses the shade of meaning that I'm after. I won't go back
and inflate things after the fact, though -- I'm writing for precision,
not verbosity. I'd use the same terms in my everyday speech (and
often do), but for some reason I often end up grasping for words while
trying to finish a thought, and people don't want to be left standing
around all day while I struggle to complete a sentence. I think I do
a fairly good job of verbal communication, but there's no question
that my writing is more eloquent.



> From top to bottom is how I write, and when I hit the bottom, I hit
> ctrl enter, and it's done.

The flow of your writing communicates this. I've noticed that in
your replies, you won't address anything discussed below the section
to which you're responding. By way of contrast, I'll have made
several passes over the entire article, so I'll discuss any relevant
section of the original article in any relevant section of my reply.
Interesting difference.



Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
Read over your compositions, and whenever you meet with a passage
which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.
:Samuel Johnson


26 Aug 2004 16:32:13
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Rick Scott" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In general, there are two situations in which the syllable count
> of my diction starts to rise. The first is when more common words
> don't do justice to the precise idea that I'm trying to express
> (ie, when calling something `wrong' doesn't quite convey the fullness
> of my disparagement, that's when I start breaking out the terms like
> `contemptible', `abominable', `abhorrent', etc.)


On a side note, which category does this particular post fall into? ;) cf:
disparagement, diction... hehe

It would seem a third situation category is in order: when talking to
someone who can actually understand you. ;)

> The second is when I deliberately opt for the impeccably polite,
> inordinately verbose, overblown pompous diction so as to cultivate
> sarcasm or irony:

...my personal favorite time to use such language... ;)

> On the other hand, I write for usenet as though I were composing...
> well, a written response. I tend to read over an article, then section
> things up and compose my reply piecemeal. I often write these pieces
> out-of-order, mulling over ideas from one section while composing

If I write out of order, what happens is that I forget that I meant to write
something in a paragraph above, and then it becomes intrinsic to the
following paragraphs, mainly because I had started thinking about it, so it
taints my thoughts until I express my view. That's the main reason I write
in consecutive order.

Luckily, I'm a person who doesn't have to do a lot of "mulling". My ideas
and opinions and views are fairly well established. Being a very
judgemental person, I know what I like, and I know what I don't, and I'm
happy to tell you which is which. What does this mean? Well, it means that
I don't have to go back over a post to make sure that what I said is what I
meant. I can be sure that it is.

> another. If the discussion merits it, I'll hit up the dictionary or
> thesaurus while I compose my response, to make sure that the words I'm
> using really do convey the meaning I intend, or to find the term that
> best expresses the shade of meaning that I'm after. I won't go back

Yikes. That's cheating! Everything I write is directly from my head. I
don't even spellcheck my posts!

Besides, you seem intelligent enough that if you put down the thesaurus, I
think you'd find that your vocabulary did ample justice to the thoughts you
were trying to convey.

> and inflate things after the fact, though -- I'm writing for precision,
> not verbosity. I'd use the same terms in my everyday speech (and

Not me, I write like I talk, and I talk a lot. I'm in love with MEEEEEEE!!!
;)

> often do), but for some reason I often end up grasping for words while
> trying to finish a thought, and people don't want to be left standing
> around all day while I struggle to complete a sentence. I think I do

Luckily, I have very little trouble expressing myself, in either verbal or
written forms. I've run into a few people who I would consider otherwise
intelligent on the surface but who are so careful with what they say that
they end up sounding like retards, literally. That's something you might
want to watch out for. Instead of grasping for the best word to describe a
given thought, simply grab the best word you can think of at the time.

Specifically, there was a guy who did an internet radio talk show that I was
on who was obviously very smart, but he spoke very deliberately, to the
point that his deliberations ended up making him sound dreadfully stupid.
It was impossible to have a decent conversation with him, because he spent
ten minutes to get across a point that could have been made in ten seconds.

> > From top to bottom is how I write, and when I hit the bottom, I hit
> > ctrl enter, and it's done.
>
> The flow of your writing communicates this. I've noticed that in
> your replies, you won't address anything discussed below the section
> to which you're responding. By way of contrast, I'll have made
> several passes over the entire article, so I'll discuss any relevant
> section of the original article in any relevant section of my reply.

There are actually two reasons for that. The first is speed. I write fast,
I talk fast, I think fast(on the other hand, I move slow). I don't want to
edit, re-edit, go back, re-read the post, make sure everything is spiffy and
neetokeen, and take twenty minutes composing a post.

The second, and more important one, is that I like my usenet posts to sound
like a conversation. You would not "preempt" a person's argument in a
conversation before they even say it, which is essentially what a
re-ordering of a post is. What I do is read the entire post, then respond
from top to bottom. If a person makes an argument about a given thing that
they allude to earlier in a post, I'll often use something like "more on
that later" to convey that I will give my reasons to them once we hit that
point in the discussion.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





26 Aug 2004 14:25:52
Jason G
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article <[email protected] >, Jeff Goslin says...

When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds, would you let us
know?



26 Aug 2004 21:42:56
Jeff Goslin
Re: Getting land owner's permission

"Jason G" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Goslin says...
>
> When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds, would you let
us
> know?

You know, if you want in on the circle jerk, all you have to do is ask...
;)

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





26 Aug 2004 23:56:43
Insane Ranter
Re: Getting land owner's permission


"Jason G" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Goslin says...
>
> When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds, would you let
us
> know?
>

Jealious? Want to join the circle?




26 Aug 2004 22:25:03
Jason G
Re: Getting land owner's permission

In article <MgyXc.396[email protected] >, Insane Ranter says...
>
>
>"Jason G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Goslin says...
>>
>> When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds, would you let
>us
>> know?
>>
>
>Jealious? Want to join the circle?

No thanks. Tryin' to cut down.



27 Aug 2004 04:05:39
Insane Ranter
Re: Getting land owner's permission


"Jason G" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, Insane Ranter
says...
> >
> >
> >"Jason G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Goslin says...
> >>
> >> When you guys are finished giving each other reach-arounds, would you
let
> >us
> >> know?
> >>
> >
> >Jealious? Want to join the circle?
>
> No thanks. Tryin' to cut down.
>

Eveybodies doing it~!




27 Aug 2004 18:07:11
LCT Paintball
Re: Getting land owner's permission

you as u

--
"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
www.LCTPaintball.com
www.LCTProducts.com


"Jeff Goslin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Agreed, LCT. Whenever I see "ur", I want to pronounce it "uhr", like as
in
> "Ruhr".
>
> That said which is worse, your as ur, or you're as ur?
>
> --
> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>
>
> "LCT Paintball" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]_s53...
> > I can't stand when your is spelled ur.
> >
> > --
> > "Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
> > www.LCTPaintball.com
> > www.LCTProducts.com
> >
> >
> > "Rick Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > (Jeff Goslin <[email protected]> uttered:)
> > > > ...It might have to do with a distinction made in queen's english or
> > > > something, sentence being a structure of words, sentance being a
> > > > jail term, so both spellings might be english, > but I might have
> > > > simply been mistaken. However, since we're in america, I'll just
> > > > take it as "wrong" and move on.
> > >
> > > *nod* Yeah, I don't see `sentance' in the dictionary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > My most common grammatical error is possessive vs contractive use of
> > > > an apostrophe where it does not require it, as in "its" vs "it's".
> > >
> > > This is my biggest grammatical pet peeve. It's even more annoying
> > > because over the past year I've occasionally caught myself making it.
> > > Now *that's* infuriating. =)
> > >
> > > Canonical reference: http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > "it's" is, of course, the contraction of "it is", and "its"
> > > > indicates possesiveness, as in "its stuff", whatever it refers to in
> > > > regard to the stuff. I'll often say "it's stuff", incorrectly.
> > >
> > > That's right, because we all know that its stuff is shit, but your
> > > shit is stuff! =)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Since I am willing to admit these two errors as ones that I commonly
> > > > make, I'd appreciate it if those specific mistakes weren't used
> > > > against me. ;)
> > > >
> > > > I will not admit to ever being 100% completely accurate 100% of the
> > > > time with regard to grammar and spelling, but I can say this much:
> > > > I'm a hell of a lot better at that sort of thing than the vast
> > > > majority of the tards who post on usenet.
> > >
> > > Yes, the fact that you are able to form a coherent thought seems to
> > > place you head and shoulders above the vast majority of the
> > > internet-using populace these days. Your ability to construct a
> > > rational argument also helps obviate my strong temptation to flame
> > > you for minute spelling and grammatical errors.
> > >
> > >
> > > As for myself, I too often fall prey to typos. I usually notice them
> > > not long after I post the article in question, and occasionally
> > > consider cancelling them in an effort to wipe the egg off my face,
> > > but I have qualms about cancelling articles strictly based on content.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rick
> > > --
> > > key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F
8A75
> > > Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune, whose words do jarre;
> > > nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous.
> > > :Ben Jonson
> >
> >
>
>