Is squatting wrong?

Is Squatting wrong?


  • Total voters
    26
Let me clarify the last example. I am not talking of those police that truly abuse their positions such as stealing from the confiscated drug supply or the money recovered in robberies and things of that nature. I speak of those who consider harassment being stopped and issued a ticket for driving while using a cell phone, or speeding, or simply being stopped while walking through a neighborhood holding a bag at 3am in the morning when there have been robberies. Those are the people who I roll my eyes at and there are quite a few of them here.

P.S. - I refuse to pick on anyone for a typo or a miss-wording. Sometimes the fingers type with a mind of their own so do not worry about it.


Oh great that means that she was "a little pregnant." You are or you aren't or do not use that word.


Absolutely not. I am demonstrating to you how data from any poll can be manipulated towards one's point of view. You should see the existence of God poll that was run awhile back. I stumbled across it last night. I have clearly stated throughout that all squatting is wrong at any place under any circumstance where records of ownership exist. I do not know how many more times I have to state that to you.



According to you if you can get into a building it was not secured properly and plum for the picking for squatters.

Sorry - inexcusable.
Public problems be damned ... it's mine. There is no other way to say it. So one more time. Mine- not yours.

I am relatively new here, but I don't recall anyone on this board complaining about receiving a speeding ticket or being stopped in the street at 3 in the morning with a bag of loot over their shoulders as police harassment. Therefore, all you long term saddo's (joke) can name names and let the flaming begin.

Again, the analogy of being a little pregnant is one that I have never used, as I think such social issues are much more complex than someone who is in the state of being physically pregnant or not. Beliefs are also not set in stone, although some are, say someone who follows a religion in a fundamental manner.

Also, the security of the building is actually quite important as it no longer becomes an issue of squatting (civil offence) but breaking and entering (criminal offence) [in England anyway]. From what I can gather from your response in this thread, it does seem that everything is one or the other, good v bad, right v wrong etc. You might think in completely more lateral ways, for example the God thread you discussed (which I haven't viewed), but that is the impression you give here.
 
No - not all things are lateral...

However when it comes to my property, that is a one way street. That is the point you do not seem to grasp. It is not for you or anyone else to decide what to do with it unless you consult me and gain my agreement as to what if any compensation will be delivered for your usage.

That is clear cut.

My personal interest in my property supercedes your or anyone else's personal problems or situations. The extent of which and if I even am charitable is my choice alone.

(On a side note how come "supercedes" comes up as a misspelling whereas I even checked it at dictionary.com and it is spelled correctly? Anyone else have that problem.)
 
(On a side note how come "supercedes" comes up as a misspelling whereas I even checked it at dictionary.com and it is spelled correctly? Anyone else have that problem.)

I thought the American version was 'supersedes'?

M-W:
Main Entry:
su·per·cede

variant of supersede
usage Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error.


Probably by false analogy to words like "intercede".
 
Tags
flamewar follies of youth
Back
Top Bottom