Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

[Rosenberg]

do these older threads refer to the same neighbour? and if they do, does this support arborlad’s suggestion that the neighbour might be using his drone to capture evidence seven years later?!?

He wanted legitimate uses for a drone - I gave him some.

No you didn't, aborlad. You said it was specific to my neighbour, thus they were slurs directed at me.

It's quite obvious that you thought you'd found a way of throwing mud. (Quick tip: don't; it will come back to hit you in the face.)

[Clifford Pope]

• an exhibitionist, or words to that effect (by Clifford Pope, again because I am a naturist)

More to do with your evident love of parading every facet of your life for everyone else to see.

[arborlad]

Rosenberg is correct.

Shhhh! Don't let on! The usual presumption on this forum is that I'm wrong about everything.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

[arborlad]

assumed that they remain unresolved,

I've assumed nothing - you were trespassing on the neighbours land and a fence was erected by the neighbour to prevent that trespass.

You are still shedding surface water on land you do not own or into a proper drain.

I'll update you...........

Pointless in this thread - it needs to be the individual threads concerned...........while you're at it, an unanswered question from five years ago: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19320&start=75

[Rosenberg]

• an exhibitionist, or words to that effect (by Clifford Pope, again because I am a naturist)

More to do with your evident love of parading every facet of your life for everyone else to see.

What facets, specifically? I have only posted about the same sort of issues that other people have posted on. I have just been more forthright about the stupid comments I get in response (like yours, specifically).

[Rosenberg]

You are beginning to sound desperate now arborlad.

Shhhh! Don't let on! The usual presumption on this forum is that I'm wrong about everything.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Logic's not your strong suit either, is it. Did you really mean to post that?

I've assumed nothing - you were trespassing on the neighbours land and a fence was erected by the neighbour to prevent that trespass.

We took the fence down and built a wall. You assumed otherwise - and you were wrong to do so.

You are still shedding surface water on land you do not own or into a proper drain.

You don't know what I am doing. You haven't visited my garden (unless you've been stalking me in real life as well), and you certainly don't have any evidence for your assertion. Water runs off higher land onto lower land naturally. That's basic physics. There is no requirement for us to install a drain. Nothing illegal is occurring. You assumed otherwise - and, again, you were wrong to do so.

I'll update you...........

Pointless in this thread - it needs to be the individual threads concerned...........while you're at it, an unanswered question from five years ago: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19320&start=75

I've noticed that you frequently complain of things appearing in the wrong thread, but in this case you are the one to blame. You referenced those three topics in this thread, hence I replied in this thread.

You really should be shocked by the stupidity of your assertions and depths to which you are sinking. Do you feel like you are being manipulated at all; like your thoughts aren't entirely your own?

[Collaborate]

No matter what you continue to post on this thread, the undeniable fact is that you came here hoping others would give their free time to help you. On people offering their advice you were rude and ungrateful, because the advice was not what you wanted to hear. You called people perverts for owning a drone (without a trace of irony when declaring you were a naturist), and seem to think the worst of everyone who has responded to your thread. Now your thread has strayed so far from its original purpose and has become a means by which you can slander members of this site.

[Rosenberg]

No matter what you continue to post on this thread, the undeniable fact is that you came here hoping others would give their free time to help you.

Some people have helped (notably Mac) and have been appropriately treated.

On people offering their advice you were rude and ungrateful, because the advice was not what you wanted to hear.

...because their posts didn't constitute advice or were derogatory.

You called people perverts for owning a drone (without a trace of irony when declaring you were a naturist),

...for using a drone to spy on their neighbours - i.e. most people who use them non-professionally.
By the way, your statement is a pretty clear admission that you do think all naturists are perverts.

and seem to think the worst of everyone who has responded to your thread.

No, just those who have made stupid comments.

Now your thread has strayed so far from its original purpose and has become a means by which you can slander members of this site.

You probably mean libel or (in broader terms) defamation, as this exchange is written rather than spoken (didn't you profess somewhere to being a solicitor?). It might be libel if anything I had said was untrue and directed to an identifiable individual. But I don't believe anything I have said is untrue.

How would you classify your accusations that all naturists are perverts, that I wave my genitals about in the garden, and the numerous other slurs that you and arborlad have made?

[arborlad]

You are beginning to sound desperate now arborlad.

Shhhh! Don't let on! The usual presumption on this forum is that I'm wrong about everything.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Logic's not your strong suit either, is it. Did you really mean to post that?

I've assumed nothing - you were trespassing on the neighbours land and a fence was erected by the neighbour to prevent that trespass.

We took the fence down and built a wall. You assumed otherwise - and you were wrong to do so.

You are still shedding surface water on land you do not own or into a proper drain.

You don't know what I am doing. You haven't visited my garden (unless you've been stalking me in real life as well), and you certainly don't have any evidence for your assertion. Water runs off higher land onto lower land naturally. That's basic physics. There is no requirement for us to install a drain. Nothing illegal is occurring. You assumed otherwise - and, again, you were wrong to do so.

I'll update you...........

Pointless in this thread - it needs to be the individual threads concerned...........while you're at it, an unanswered question from five years ago: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19320&start=75

I've noticed that you frequently complain of things appearing in the wrong thread, but in this case you are the one to blame. You referenced those three topics in this thread, hence I replied in this thread.

You really should be shocked by the stupidity of your assertions and depths to which you are sinking. Do you feel like you are being manipulated at all; like your thoughts aren't entirely your own?

It has nothing to do with being off topic, when someone asks for help and gets it, it's only common decency to update a thread when it is resolved or concluded.

The rest of your diatribe is not worthy of comment.

[arborlad]

..............do these older threads refer to the same neighbour? and if they do, does this support arborlad’s suggestion that the neighbour might be using his drone to capture evidence seven years later?!?

This is the type of problem the quadcopter may be monitoring...............

However I don't really think it matters what he says they are to be used for. The fact is he knew that they would be driven over when he installed them so if he didn't make them strong enough, that's his problem.

[Rosenberg]

It has nothing to do with being off topic, when someone asks for help and gets it, it's only common decency to update a thread when it is resolved or concluded.

The original threads were finished. The issues I discussed in them were resolved. There is no need for me to update them. I have provided only incidental / supplementary information in this thread. It is only you that assumes there is still something in the old topics that you can, in some rather pathetic way, use against me. I'd give up if I were you.

..............do these older threads refer to the same neighbour? and if they do, does this support arborlad’s suggestion that the neighbour might be using his drone to capture evidence seven years later?!?

This is the type of problem the quadcopter may be monitoring...............

However I don't really think it matters what he says they are to be used for. The fact is he knew that they would be driven over when he installed them so if he didn't make them strong enough, that's his problem.

Notwithstanding what I have just said, how on Earth could a quadcopter be monitoring that arborlad? Don't you think a quadcopter would be overkill and, indeed, a highly impracticable method of monitoring that type of situation - it's battery would likely run out well before anybody got the chance to drive over land which you, without any evidence, suppose is disputed. CCTV would be a much better option for my neighbour, but as I said monitoring is not needed. You are obviously getting desperate to justify the ridiculous statements you continue to make. I have already told you that we put up a wall many years ago so it would be impossible for us to drive over our neighbour's land even if we wanted to.

The rest of your diatribe is not worthy of comment.

What you mean is: you have no answer to any of the perfectly valid points I raised. The good thing about this forum is that what I wrote is a matter of record. It is not a diatribe; and I'd encourage any visitors to this thread to actually read what I wrote and judge for themselves which of us is being unreasonable here.


Setting aside all of arborlad's absurdity for the moment, it seems that we now have another illegal use for pervi-copters: thin and crispy's deluded mates in "Extinction Rebellion" are, according to the BBC, planning a criminal program of drone flights to close down Heathrow airport - and thereby prevent normal working people from going on their holidays - during June and July. What they haven't thought through is how their irate spokesman Emma Thompson is going to jet in from LA (or wherever) for her next bit of publicity?

Still think pervi-copters are a good thing, thin and crispy?

[Rosenberg]

• an exhibitionist, or words to that effect (by Clifford Pope, again because I am a naturist)

More to do with your evident love of parading every facet of your life for everyone else to see.

Evidence please? You would know a lot about me if your accusation were true. But, in fact, I've been careful to ensure that you know very little.

So come on CP, what do you think you know about me, apart from the fact that I'm a naturist? (I told you you were getting warmer before, but you seem to have veered off track now.)

[thin and crispy]

... thin and crispy's deluded mates in "Extinction Rebellion" are, according to the BBC, planning a criminal program of drone flights to close down Heathrow airport - and thereby prevent normal working people from going on their holidays - during June and July...

All I said was that many people enjoy using drones and, from that one statement, you conclude:

a) that I am a neighbour-spying pervert,
b) that my friends are deluded, and
c) that I support Extinction Rebellion.

And you were berating others for their (supposed) faulty logic!

You do talk a load of evenly-tanned testicles, Rosenberg. (Ahh, I've just realised why you are so uppity with me: you think my avatar is drone-cam footage from one your outdoor dessication sessions. Don't worry, my close-up lens isn't that powerful!)

[arborlad]

I've assumed nothing - you were trespassing on the neighbours land and a fence was erected by the neighbour to prevent that trespass.

We took the fence down and built a wall. You assumed otherwise - and you were wrong to do so.

Which is it - you took the fence down or you made the neighbour take it down?

[Rosenberg]

I've assumed nothing - you were trespassing on the neighbours land and a fence was erected by the neighbour to prevent that trespass.

We took the fence down and built a wall. You assumed otherwise - and you were wrong to do so.

Which is it - you took the fence down or you made the neighbour take it down?

We took down the part that we could prove was on our land. Our neighbour then took down the remaining stub, which I also believe was on our land but not so easy to prove. The wall it was replaced with has been in situ (in the correct place) for some years now, and defines the limit of our land. Hence there is no possibility of your assumption being correct. We could not drive over our neighbour's land even if we wanted to. It's hard work getting you to understand facts, arborlad.