Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 6:07 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Rosenberg,

is your only beef to do with ukmicky's "unsubstantiated" assertion that if we could sue each other for trespass if a tree encroaches on our property (which you seem to now concede we can't...) that we would see many trees owners sticking resolutely to a regular schedule of work to avoid being sued?

as a tree owner it is what I would do.

what would you do? I fancy you'd cut your trees back
what would authorities do? I fancy they'd cut their trees back
what would many other tree owners do? I fancy they'd cut their trees back

but given this is all hypothetical because you can't be sued for trespass if it's just encroachment then how on earth can we substantiate the above?

like I wrote before - I think you're aiming at something that isn't there (and, to me at least, it's bad form).

Kind regards, Mac


Hello Mac,

Sorry I missed your post when I checked in here earlier today. The answer to your question is "No". You are reading too much into what I said.

The criticism I made was of ukMicky's assertion that his argument must be correct otherwise (a) the courts would be knee deep in claims and (b) all councils would be bankrupt.

It is only statements (a) and (b) in his post that I object to because they seem to have been randomly plucked out of the air to support his argument. I asked him for evidence to back up statements (a) and (b) and, as I expected, none was forthcoming. Hence I conclude that they fabrications designed to support his central thesis and to protect his perceived status on this forum.

That's it. There is nothing more to it. It is really very simple, but despite explaining it several times since, nobody seems able grasp the point. Instead it has generated something akin to mass hysteria.

That, in itself, is very interesting, don't you think?
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 6:10 pm

nothingtodowithme wrote:Rosenburg I admire your honesty.

Thank you. Pity you're the only one who values that quality.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu May 22, 2014 6:12 pm

Hi Rosenberg,

I asked him for evidence

would you mind giving me an example of the sort of evidence you were expecting?

Kind regards, Mac
PS Pity you're the only one who values that quality. stated as fact again - can I have some evidence please?
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 6:35 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Rosenberg,

you seem to me to lack any self-awareness insofar as you keep stating your opinion "as fact" whilst castigating others for doing something similar:

he can get a bit uppity (I think he can get a bit uppity)
it is only reasonable for readers to conlude that you are indeed guessing. (I think it is only reasonable...)
ukMicky is doing this forum a disservice (I think...)
But when someone does provide what seem to be substatiating assertions (as ukMicky has done) (as I think ukMicky has done)
It appears that ukMicky simply made his "facts" up (It appears to me...)
You give the impression that you're extrapolating your prejudices to breaking point. (You give me...)
The fact that he is a regular contributor only makes his fabrications worse. (I think...)
Re your first point: discredit is too strong a word (I think discredit...)

and sometimes misrepresent other's contributions:

As you claim that your assertions weren't guesswork (this was not claimed)
in what way does dyslexia excuse fabrication of facts? (dyslexia was not put forward as an excuse)
But if the latter assertion had been fabricated (like ukMicky's assertions) (he made an observation - just badly worded IMHO)

the bit in blue is why I don't agree with your "substantiate or else" diatribe...

Kind regards, Mac


It's pretty obvious from the context that those statements are my opinions. If I had asserted something that would clearly need a large-scale socio-economic study to properly evaluate (as ukMicky did) then you'd be right to ask for evidence.

As far as my "misrepresentations" are concerned, I refute all three of them. If you still disagree, you can always go back and read this thread again. It's all there in black and white for anybody to read.

I haven't said or implied "substatiate or else" anywhere on this forum. Now I think you are misrepresenting me. Don't worry about it though, I am not as easily offended as some people here.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby COGGY » Thu May 22, 2014 7:01 pm

Hi

I think it may be true to say that, with the exception of Conveyancer and Pilman, most posters on this site, whilst attempting to help, would admit that they are not experts. It appears to me to be unfair and unwarranted for any poster to make unfavourable comments on another's post/opinion. Ukmicky for instance has to my knowledge spent time researching information to help others. Surely this is what should be recognised. The purpose of the site is to help and give advice. If one poster does not agree with someone else's opinion then surely free speech should prevail.

Kind regards
Coggy
COGGY
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 7:02 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Rosenberg,

I asked him for evidence

would you mind giving me an example of the sort of evidence you were expecting?

Kind regards, Mac
PS Pity you're the only one who values that quality. stated as fact again - can I have some evidence please?

I gave an example in my previous post.

PS Yes you can have some evidence:
(a) I have made only honest statements on this thread [ you'll have to take that as read I'm afraid, as It's impossible to prove my intent], and
(b) the collective response.

PPS. I do not intend to explain myself indefinitely. If people don't get it by now (whether that's intentionally or by virtue of limited intellect), I think it's unlikely they ever will. I'm not going to make a ukMicky-type "tactical withdrawl", but I will place a time limit on this. If you or any other members want to ask me anthing else, please do so this evening as I won't answer any more posts on this topic after 11pm. If anyone wants me to offend them further please join me on my thread in the General forum.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby COGGY » Thu May 22, 2014 7:08 pm

Hi Rosenberg

Possible this has got out of hand. The purpose of the site is to give advice, help and support.

Kind regards
Coggy
COGGY
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu May 22, 2014 7:21 pm

Hi Rosenberg,

I get your (IMHO poorly-aimed) point. We all do - I think.

your evidence:
the collective response.

if you mean the lack of posters saying "I think honesty is a good thing" is evidence that only 'nothingtodowithme' thinks honesty is a good thing then you're a disgrace IMHO.

why? because this is exactly the same sort of comment made by 'ukmicky' which you chastised him for making.

do you not see?

Instead it has generated something akin to mass hysteria. - stated as fact (that's the last example, just hoping you grasp my point?)

Kind regards, Mac
PS you can ladle as much passive-aggressive guff into your postings as far as I'm concerned, you just might want to consider that doing so can make one appear a prat...
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 8:00 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Rosenberg,

I get your (IMHO poorly-aimed) point. We all do - I think.

your evidence:
the collective response.

if you mean the lack of posters saying "I think honesty is a good thing" is evidence that only 'nothingtodowithme' thinks honesty is a good thing then you're a disgrace IMHO.

why? because this is exactly the same sort of comment made by 'ukmicky' which you chastised him for making.

do you not see?

Instead it has generated something akin to mass hysteria. - stated as fact (that's the last example, just hoping you grasp my point?)

Kind regards, Mac
PS you can ladle as much passive-aggressive guff into your postings as far as I'm concerned, you just might want to consider that doing so can make one appear a prat...


No, that's not what I mean Mac, and I think you know it.

No, it was stated as my opinon (the context here is relevant) on the basis of the numerous posts that repeadly missed the point.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "passive-aggressive". If you would elucidate, I'll be happy comment.

I don't think your opinion of me is relevant to the points I was making - and which I thought were the subject of this discussion. Personally, I suppose I should regard your use of the word "prat" as edging towards an insult, but as I implied previously, I'm not easily offended.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby COGGY » Thu May 22, 2014 8:18 pm

Hi Rosenberg

Are you trying to say that everyone else is wrong and you are right?

Kind regards
Coggy
COGGY
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu May 22, 2014 8:37 pm

Hi Rosenberg,

No, it was stated as my opinon

ah, I see - ukmicky needs to come back with the same sort of response - about courts being overrun etc - and we're all happy then

on the basis of the numerous posts that repeadly missed the point.

why would our alleged missing of your point mean none of us value honesty?

I think we're at crossed purposes here, and IMHO it is not helped by you failing to see my point - ukmicky was not fabricating things to back up his opinion, it is a fact of law - nuisance? yes. trespass? no.

without the relevant case law to hand he suggested you'd know about it if things were different (using 'hypebole' for affect).

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby arborlad » Thu May 22, 2014 8:55 pm

Rosenberg wrote:
nothingtodowithme wrote:Rosenburg I admire your honesty.

Thank you. Pity you're the only one who values that quality.



Rosenberg wrote:. As I have made very plain at the start of my paricipation on this thread, the thing I find objectionable is your fabrication of supporting "facts".



.............I too admire honesty, and I don't read it in the above baseless allegation.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 10:38 pm

COGGY wrote:Hi Rosenberg

Are you trying to say that everyone else is wrong and you are right?

Kind regards
Coggy

Over what issue, coggy? I get the impression some people think I have said more than I actually have. Nobody has actually disagreed with me on the points that I made in my first post.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 10:58 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Rosenberg,

No, it was stated as my opinon

ah, I see - ukmicky needs to come back with the same sort of response - about courts being overrun etc - and we're all happy then

on the basis of the numerous posts that repeadly missed the point.

why would our alleged missing of your point mean none of us value honesty?

I think we're at crossed purposes here, and IMHO it is not helped by you failing to see my point - ukmicky was not fabricating things to back up his opinion, it is a fact of law - nuisance? yes. trespass? no.

without the relevant case law to hand he suggested you'd know about it if things were different (using 'hypebole' for affect).

Kind regards, Mac

I doubt that we would all be happy, but I would be satisfied if he came back with adequate supporting evidence. Somehow, though, I can't see that happening.

Re valuing honesty: I don't know whether you value honesty in general. I can only assume you do, although I have seen no evidence of you applying that attitude to my posts, which as I have already said were made honestly.

I have already made clear on several occasions, I did not criticise his opinion on what you now call a fact of law. You really need to go back and read what I wrote.

What you call " using hyperbole for effect" I would call "making unsubstantiated statements to bolster his position". I note he has still not provided any evidence to back up those statements. Or do you think we should all take ukMicky's posts with a pich of salt, thinking "I shouldn't rely on that as it might just be hyperbole used for effect"?
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Fence problem with nasty neighbour

Postby Rosenberg » Thu May 22, 2014 11:02 pm

arborlad wrote:
Rosenberg wrote:
nothingtodowithme wrote:Rosenburg I admire your honesty.

Thank you. Pity you're the only one who values that quality.



Rosenberg wrote:. As I have made very plain at the start of my paricipation on this thread, the thing I find objectionable is your fabrication of supporting "facts".



.............I too admire honesty, and I don't read it in the above baseless allegation.

Your deficiency, not mine arborlad. If you can be bothered to read my posts rather than believing what other people have said that I've written, it should become painfully clear to you.
Last edited by Rosenberg on Thu May 22, 2014 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rosenberg
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Fences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests