Neil Armstrong Threatens to Sue Barbershop

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Tom
Well, I don't watch tv much, so i guess it should be ok for someone to come in my apartment and put it to good use ?

When did we make the logical leap between CURBSIDE GARBAGE and OBJECTS INSIDE YOUR HOME?

You really want to give up your right to own something based on it's location ?

If you did not want to throw it away....why did you throw it away?

If UPS leaves a package for me outside, you think it doesn't belong to me, depending on where they put it ?

If someone takes my Sunday newspaper because I didn't pick it up as soon as it was delivered, you want the Constitution to say that the paper I paid for actually belongs to the public, because of where it was ?

Try to be reasonable. Do you have a problem in your neighborhood with the UPS man leaving packages next to your curbside trash? Or do you get trash pickup right from your doorstep?

For the 2nd time, I am not concerned with the particulars of how my own trash is currently being dealt with..

I am talking about a Supreme Court decision that creates out of thin air, a new condition on the right to own property. And the right to own property is FUNDAMENTAL to our Constitution and way of life.

And based on my reading of their decision, they did not even consider what they were doing.

And I do not like losing my Constitutional rights, sorry if that bothers you. There are certainly lots of people who care less about the Constitution than they do about the trains running on time, I'm just not one of them.

I can agree with part of your point.
What if someone's kid leaves what looks like a junk bike on the street that they actually use, but looks like trash?
If you take it, you have stolen the bike, but it looks like trash, so who's at fault?
Either you own it, or you don't, and there is a grey area caused by stuff which might be on the curb and look like trash, but isn't. IMO that's a dangerous aspect.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Tom

It would be theft if anyone takes the refrigerator other than who I intended to take it. So I don't know what you mean about "both ways" ?

And as far as credit cards, etc. you are confusing expediency and practicality, where I agree with you that it's prudent to be careful how it's disposed of, with a legal point I am asserting about when do I lose control of my property, legally speaking ?

I am saying that I should never lose my property rights other than in the very few cases that the Constitution allows for.

And I see as part of the difficulty in the Greenwood case, is it is purportedly about privacy, not property rights per se, but the Supreme Court seems to have ignored the relationship between property and privacy.

For instance, if I have a big sign in front of my house that says my social security number is 111-111-1111, then I can't claim that a policeman reading it is violating my right to privacy. But that doesn't mean the sign doesn't belong to me !

The Greenwood decision invents a new means of losing property rights, for the sake of allowing police searches.

So if you leave a something out for the garbage to take and someone else takes it they should be arrested for thieft? that fvcking dumb. really really dumb.

so you would rather have that in the ground wasting away then someone grab it and make use of it? ok..yeah thats a good idea!

Well, I don't watch tv much, so i guess it should be ok for someone to come in my apartment and put it to good use ?

What I am talking about here are legal rights. You really want to give up your right to own something based on it's location ?

If UPS leaves a package for me outside, you think it doesn't belong to me, depending on where they put it ?

If someone takes my Sunday newspaper because I didn't pick it up as soon as it was delivered, you want the Constitution to say that the paper I paid for actually belongs to the public, because of where it was ?

My goodness. there is a big diffrence between something you do not want (garbage) and a TV INSIDE the house.

IF you do not want anyone else ot have the a old fridge do NOT put it out on the curb. get a truck and send take it to the dump. By putting it on the curb you are giving up all rights to the item. Its that simple.

Every time i get a item by UPS, FedEX etc they leave it by my door. Now i don't know about you but i do not leave my garbage near my door. Everyone knows that it is something i want just as Everyone knows that the garbage i put out on the curb is something I DO NOT WANT.

I'm looking through the Constitution.. I don't see the part about losing my property rights by putting something by the curb.

What about people who don't have curbs ? Are they exempt from this new mandatory donation to the public of what used to be their property ?


The point about the tv is, you rationalize the new policy you've invented ,that it's ok to take stuff that is sitting in certain places, because what matters is putting things to good use. That this outweighs private property rights.

As far as the newspaper, will your new constitution have an exemption for newspapers that the delivery person leaves in the special "no private property" zones you advocate, or are they automatically lost to the original owner who paid for the subscription ?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: waggy
IF you do not want anyone else ot have the a old fridge do NOT put it out on the curb. get a truck and send take it to the dump. By putting it on the curb you are giving up all rights to the item. Its that simple.

The dump where I used to live would let you take pretty much whatever you liked from it... So did it transfer ownership at some point? If so, when?

hmm i soppose once you give it to the dump it is theres to do with as they please. i guess the only way would to be keep it on your property. but that wont work either.

 

[Tom]

"By placing garbage (read: property you no longer want to own)"

That is not how I define garbage. I pay people to destroy it, bury it, burn it, possibly recycle it if reduced to it's original materials.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Tom
"By placing garbage (read: property you no longer want to own)"

That is not how I define garbage. I pay people to destroy it, bury it, burn it, possibly recycle it if reduced to it's original materials.

good thing nobody else does


Actually you pay them to pick it it up and haul it away. NOT TO burn it recycle it or destroy it.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
Do you have a link to the supreme court ruling you are questioning? Furthermore, what part of your constitutional rights are violated when "you discard personal property and someone else takes that property which formerly belonged to you?"

Are you talking to me ? I don't remember using the word "discard" so I guess not.

I can't find any reference to the quote you make above by anyone for that matter.

If you are talking to me, I never said anything remotely like that, but the case is

California vs Greenwood

 

[Quixfire]

Armstrong commanded NASA's Apollo 11 mission to the moon in 1969. He left the space program in 1971 to teach aeronautical engineering at the University of Cincinnati. He seldom appears at public functions or grants interviews.

I'm surprised one of the most famous men from the 20th century would feel that way about his accomplishment.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Tom
"By placing garbage (read: property you no longer want to own)"

That is not how I define garbage. I pay people to destroy it, bury it, burn it, possibly recycle it if reduced to it's original materials.

good thing nobody else does


Actually you pay them to pick it it up and haul it away. NOT TO burn it recycle it or destroy it.

I'm reading the definition you provided.. I don't see anything like the definition you gave that it is "property you no longer want to own".

And you used the word garbage, I was responding to what you said.

I am talking about property and who it belongs to. I see lots of problems with the idea that putting something by the curb means it doesn't belong to me anymore.

If it doesn't belong to me, then I'm not responsible if it cause injury to anyone, not being the owner, right ?

So if I'm a business owner I can pile up all my asbestos debris by the curb and get rid of any liabilities.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Tom
"By placing garbage (read: property you no longer want to own)"

That is not how I define garbage. I pay people to destroy it, bury it, burn it, possibly recycle it if reduced to it's original materials.

good thing nobody else does


Actually you pay them to pick it it up and haul it away. NOT TO burn it recycle it or destroy it.

I'm reading the definition you provided.. I don't see anything like the definition you gave that it is "property you no longer want to own".

And you used the word garbage, I was responding to what you said.

I am talking about property and who it belongs to. I see lots of problems with the idea that putting something by the curb means it doesn't belong to me anymore.

If it doesn't belong to me, then I'm not responsible if it cause injury to anyone, not being the owner, right ?

So if I'm a business owner I can pile up all my asbestos debris by the curb and get rid of any liabilities.

Illegal dumping of hazardous materials. Try again.

And listen, if you put a brand new tv out on the curb, surrounded by a bunch of garbage gans, you actually expect someone not to think it was garbage?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Tom
"By placing garbage (read: property you no longer want to own)"

That is not how I define garbage. I pay people to destroy it, bury it, burn it, possibly recycle it if reduced to it's original materials.

good thing nobody else does


Actually you pay them to pick it it up and haul it away. NOT TO burn it recycle it or destroy it.

That is factually just not correct. Landfills, incinerators, etc, I pay for all of that stuff one way or another, as a consumer of the various ways my property is disposed of, at my request.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
Do you have a link to the supreme court ruling you are questioning? Furthermore, what part of your constitutional rights are violated when "you discard personal property and someone else takes that property which formerly belonged to you?"

Are you talking to me ? I don't remember using the word "discard" so I guess not.

I can't find any reference to the quote you make above by anyone for that matter.

If you are talking to me, I never said anything remotely like that, but the case is

California vs Greenwood

its obvious i was talking to you.

YOU said :

Originally posted by: Tom

I am talking about a Supreme Court decision that creates out of thin air, a new condition on the right to own property. And the right to own property is FUNDAMENTAL to our Constitution and way of life.

And based on my reading of their decision , they did not even consider what they were doing.

And I do not like losing my Constitutional rights, sorry if that bothers you. There are certainly lots of people who care less about the Constitution than they do about the trains running on time, I'm just not one of them.

I bolded the part where you said you read their decision.

I asked you to cite what you were reading so I could read it myself.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Tom
"By placing garbage (read: property you no longer want to own)"

That is not how I define garbage. I pay people to destroy it, bury it, burn it, possibly recycle it if reduced to it's original materials.

good thing nobody else does


Actually you pay them to pick it it up and haul it away. NOT TO burn it recycle it or destroy it.

I'm reading the definition you provided.. I don't see anything like the definition you gave that it is "property you no longer want to own".

And you used the word garbage, I was responding to what you said.

I am talking about property and who it belongs to. I see lots of problems with the idea that putting something by the curb means it doesn't belong to me anymore.

If it doesn't belong to me, then I'm not responsible if it cause injury to anyone, not being the owner, right ?

So if I'm a business owner I can pile up all my asbestos debris by the curb and get rid of any liabilities.

Illegal dumping of hazardous materials. Try again.

But according to you they are not my hazardous materials, as long as I put them by the curb.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Tom
"By placing garbage (read: property you no longer want to own)"

That is not how I define garbage. I pay people to destroy it, bury it, burn it, possibly recycle it if reduced to it's original materials.

good thing nobody else does


Actually you pay them to pick it it up and haul it away. NOT TO burn it recycle it or destroy it.

I'm reading the definition you provided.. I don't see anything like the definition you gave that it is "property you no longer want to own".

And you used the word garbage, I was responding to what you said.

I am talking about property and who it belongs to. I see lots of problems with the idea that putting something by the curb means it doesn't belong to me anymore.

If it doesn't belong to me, then I'm not responsible if it cause injury to anyone, not being the owner, right ?

So if I'm a business owner I can pile up all my asbestos debris by the curb and get rid of any liabilities.

Illegal dumping of hazardous materials. Try again.

But according to you they are not my hazardous materials, as long as I put them by the curb.

Wrong. Said materials were your property. When you decided you no longer wanted them and wanted to dispose of them, they became hazardous waste, a type of garbage. You can not put said garbage out on the curb. It is illegal to do so. It is not ordinary garbage in which you are allowed to dump said materials as such. You're trying to twist and break laws to support your line of thinking that doesn't make sense.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
Do you have a link to the supreme court ruling you are questioning? Furthermore, what part of your constitutional rights are violated when "you discard personal property and someone else takes that property which formerly belonged to you?"

Are you talking to me ? I don't remember using the word "discard" so I guess not.

I can't find any reference to the quote you make above by anyone for that matter.

If you are talking to me, I never said anything remotely like that, but the case is

California vs Greenwood

its obvious i was talking to you.

YOU said :

Originally posted by: Tom

I am talking about a Supreme Court decision that creates out of thin air, a new condition on the right to own property. And the right to own property is FUNDAMENTAL to our Constitution and way of life.

And based on my reading of their decision , they did not even consider what they were doing.

And I do not like losing my Constitutional rights, sorry if that bothers you. There are certainly lots of people who care less about the Constitution than they do about the trains running on time, I'm just not one of them.

I bolded the part where you said you read their decision.

I asked you to cite what you were reading so I could read it myself.

Well, I never said "discarded", because if I discard something then I don't own it anymore, and you would be correct that someone else could legally own it, or it could be public property.

I'm not talking about discarded items, I'm talking about property that still belongs to me that I want disposed of in a certain manner.

If I have some documents that I pay someone to shred them, I haven't discarded them.

Likewise if I pay someone to bury my old milk cartons, I haven't discarded them. I've paid someone to render a destructive process upon them, not transferred ownership.

Or at least I ought to have the legal standing to claim so. Suppose my wife's wedding ring ended up at the dump through a series of mistakes. Given the Supreme Court's decision the ring would no longer belong to her, once it was placed in a plastic bag by the curb.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Tom
"By placing garbage (read: property you no longer want to own)"

That is not how I define garbage. I pay people to destroy it, bury it, burn it, possibly recycle it if reduced to it's original materials.

good thing nobody else does


Actually you pay them to pick it it up and haul it away. NOT TO burn it recycle it or destroy it.

I'm reading the definition you provided.. I don't see anything like the definition you gave that it is "property you no longer want to own".

And you used the word garbage, I was responding to what you said.

I am talking about property and who it belongs to. I see lots of problems with the idea that putting something by the curb means it doesn't belong to me anymore.

If it doesn't belong to me, then I'm not responsible if it cause injury to anyone, not being the owner, right ?

So if I'm a business owner I can pile up all my asbestos debris by the curb and get rid of any liabilities.

Illegal dumping of hazardous materials. Try again.

But according to you they are not my hazardous materials, as long as I put them by the curb.

Wrong. Said materials were your property. When you decided you no longer wanted them and wanted to dispose of them, they became hazardous waste, a type of garbage. You can not put said garbage out on the curb. It is illegal to do so. It is not ordinary garbage in which you are allowed to dump said materials as such. You're trying to twist and break laws to support your line of thinking that doesn't make sense.

Not really. I'm pointing out why the Supreme Court's decision doesn't make sense. They are the ones that turned private property, with it's responsiblities, into public property, based on it's proximity to the curb.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Tom
Not really. I'm pointing out why the Supreme Court's decision doesn't make sense. They are the ones that turned private property, with it's responsiblities, into public property, based on it's proximity to the curb.

All they said was that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to objects placed curbside where they can be readily accessed by passersby without even standing on your property.