So, you are saying you have no other interest or point to be made by asking it, You are only interested in the A to the Q itself, and only that, and nothing more? As in… you are considering actually doing so?
Would you like me to PM you the answer? If you have no other point to make, I think that would be more considerate to the lurkers.
Do you want me to PM you the answer?
I don’t care what you do
If you don’t care what I do, what are you hectoring me to google your shiz for you?
I never asked you to google anything? I replied to a post microbet made.
I definitely never asked microbet to google anything? Are you OK man?
So if you weren’t asking me, and you weren’t asking @microbet… well my bad again. Once again, sorry for the confusion.
Did I ask microbet to google something? Definitely not man, just scroll up and see for yourself.
I agree with this. Much more productive for me, at least.
Handwaving this away like they are isn’t helping.
This idea sounds fine, until you spend more than 15 seconds thinking about how it would be implemented.
And don’t tell me that this already exists in the form of adverse possession, because the bar on that is extremely high. Minimum of 3 years of clear and obvious hostile possession without the property owner showing up to begin eviction proceedings, and that’s assuming the municipality hasn’t come to take ownership due to nonpayment of taxes by then.
Sabo, the women in Oakland did exactly what SenorKeeed is suggesting would happen. They moved into a foreclosed home that had been sold to an investor who was preparing to rehab it. If a company buys four deals and only has manpower to actively work on two of them at once, it’s not reasonable to just say the other two are up for grabs because they’re not an “active construction site.”
Well, somebody is going to have to google that Q. Unless a lawbro wants to jump on in. And it seems, that someone won’t be you, and as far as you are concerned, won’t be @microbet or me either.
Someone is going to have to google your opinion on the questions I asked? Someone is going to have to google microbet’s opinions? Well, to be fair I actually buy the former but not the latter.
I only remember you asking the Q of what happens when someone tries to live at an active constriction site. I’ve already expressed my opinion of that Q: it’s stupid and trolling.
Why don’t you try rephrasing? Maybe if you used different words… I might be able to figure out WTF you are carrying on about.
I think you have me confused with one of the voices in your head.
Oh yeah, I got a Q for you…
The longest sleeping car route in the US was carried on a San Diegian to LA, on the Chief or Super Chief to Chicago Dearborn, and then on the Capitol Limited from Chicago Grand Central to Washington DC. In Chicago, there was like an eight hour layover. Sleeping car passengers could walk between the two stations (about 400 yds), or they could occupy the sleeper.
My Q is this… what route did the sleeping cars take between Dearborn & Grand Central? As far as I’ve been able to research, the closed rail connection between the two stations would have required a ~30 mile trip. And I find it hard to believe that is actually what they did. Mid 1950s.
Can you help me with this Q?
Fools: “So, in your fantasy Communist paradise, what happens if a car is vandalized? Huh?”
Again, I didn’t write the laws. As for what the people who did write those laws felt was reasonable… well, we do know a majority of them voted that way.
To give a less snippy answer…
Laws aren’t necessarily reasonable, any more than they are necessarily practical, coherent, useful, enforceable or even legible. The myth we tell ourselves that the laws are indeed reasonable/etc is a just-so-story. In fact, the laws are like rotten sausage… you’ll get sick seeing how they are made (by the pols), and you’ll get sick from eating them (enforced by the cops).
I know you were asking Keeed, but I can’t help it with something like this: