Didn’t anyone notice this:
Ah, so you live at the corner of Incest Avenue and Affair Street, right! :rolleyes:
Uh… I think he corrected this:
quote:
You know full well that her husband died of heart failure without warning her, any of the several children he had with you nor anyone else of his impending death.
Does this mean Innocent Neighbor's husband fathered the children of Hypocritical Cuntrag
Sorry, that should have read:
… with YOUR NEIGHBOR nor anyone else …
With the correction, it gives it a whole different meaning! 
::hangs head in shame::
Oops, sorry I missed that. :eek:
I guess Zenster’s right; some people aren’t reading the posts.
You live in the mid-west. Here in Silicon Valley (until recently) it has almost always been a landlord’s market. Many of them absolutely refuse to offer leases. Some people do not have a choice. Please try and take that into account, mkay?
Again, are you reading my posts?
This hag has had the nerve to walk right past me several times without responding to my own “hello” or even giving a wave if nothing is said. While I am not denying that she is human, she is acting inhuman. Attempting to get a newly widowed person evicted stikes me as pretty inhuman too.
And I’m glad too, but this is where I need to tell you to get a fucking clue. Do you know what “slander” means. Do you even understand what you are accusing me of? Have you been reading other people’s posts in this thread, fuckwit? (They have already made this exact same point.)
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: 2 slander
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense – more at SCANDAL
Date: 14th century
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person – compare LIBEL
[sub]bolding added[/sub]
Where the fuck have I said that I would spread lies about this hag? Try and take fifteen precious seconds of your precious fucking time and check the definition of your terms before you fucking post them asshole!
My sole intention is to spread the truth about the actions of this harpy. Did you bother to notice how I’ve already posted twice about waiting to talk to the widow one more time before taking action. I’ve posted it twice, fucknugget!
Yes, I prefer to help people. It’s one of life’s great rewards. I also prefer that assholes are exposed for what they are, especially when they parade around under the false colors of some sort of putatively benevolent religion.
Zenster chill for a moment -
truth may be an affirmative defense for slander, but keep in mind a few things:
-
if slander is charged, you may need to prove the veracity of the statements you made.
-
Even after your neighbor confirms the facts to you, that all by itself will not raise up to the burden of ‘proof’ you’d need to protect yourself.
-
Even if she is telling you what she percieves to be (or really is) the truth, how would anyone be able to prove it at this point? Yea, the landlord could testify re: what was said to him, but the underlaying incident that widow is talking about had only the two of them as witnesses.
So, folks urging caution on your part are attempting to help you not shoot yourself in the foot.
I know you to be a pationate defender of others, an admirable quality. The advice to focus on positives you can give this woman is good advice.
Fuckwit? Asshole? Fucknugget? Yeah you’re a real compassionate one aren’t you? Since your panties got so twisted by the word slander, I’ll apologize for the use of that inaccurate term and would ask you to substitute the word denigrate instead.
- To think, represent, or speak of as small or unimportant: belittle, decry, deprecate, depreciate, derogate, detract, discount, disparage, downgrade, minimize, run down, slight, talk down. Idioms: make light (or little) of. See ATTACK, SHOW. 2. To contaminate the reputation of: befoul, besmear, besmirch, bespatter, blacken, cloud, dirty, smear, smudge, smut, soil, spatter, stain, sully, taint, tarnish. Idioms: give a black eye to, sling (or throw) mud on. See ATTACK, CLEAN.
You also get your jollies cussing out people on message boards too.
wring, thank goodness I know you to be the good and decent person that you are.
This is precisely why I have every intention of talking to the widow again (as mentioned repeatedly) and then talking to the harpy’s sister (as mentioned repeatedly) before I do anything else.
Sheesh, it’s not like I said I was going to print up flyers and place a full page article in the newspaper.
I understand. I also understand that either or both may be lying, hedging, mis representing, just plain remembering wrong, and most definately in both cases, unable to prove what they’re saying happened happened.
However, there will be ample evidence of you planning to say stuff, should you decide that the one neighbor is truly being the harpy you believe her capable of being.
This thead, for instance.
So, if you should decided to embark on your stated course (even after verfiying to your satisifcation the truth), unless you can prove those truths (and I submit that you will not be able to), a slander suit could emerge.
“Truth” is an affirmative defense. “I believed it to be truth but cannot objectively prove it” is not.
What wring said.
And let me emphasize, the burden of proving the truth of your statements will be on you. All the neighbor has to show is you made statements damaging to her reputation.
Also, you can confirm things all day long with the widow and the neighbor’s sister, and as wring pointed out, it will not help you establish what the neighbor may or may not have said to the landlord.
It seems your beef is with your neighbor (who certainly does sound like an insensitive, hypocritical asshole) and the landlord. It’s not entirely clear, but it seems that you have not actually talked to either of them about the issue. I completely support your anger over this situation and desire to do something, but it doesn’t sound like you’re addressing anyone who can fix it. From several of your posts, it sounds like you view the neighbor, her sister, and the sister’s kids as mere aspects of the same entity, but I wonder how much impact complaining to the sister can really have on the neighbor.
As a purely practical matter, I think the widow should apologize, since that is a small price to pay to keep her children in the house, especially when the rest of their lives are in such horrific upheaval.
However, I can see why she would balk at it, if the neighbor never actually told the widow herself that she’d sprayed water into the house. From your description, it sounds like possibly the neighbor saw the water spray in, relished the thought of causing someone trouble, and immediately called the landlord. If so, she was deliberately being an asshole, and the only reason to apologize (in my mind) is the issue of protecting the kids.
On the other hand, if the neighbor (general asshole though she may be) pointed out the water to the widow directly, I don’t think it’s out of line to expect an apology.
Oh good lord. :eek:
I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.
And therein lies the problem. Territorial dogs like shepherds and wolf-mixes are bred to be protective. That’s a good thing if you want a watch dog. Not necessarily a good thing if you have kids around who like to rough house. Because sometimes dogs don’t understand the difference between a play attack and a real one.
I’m sure you’re careful with the kids. But just know that I am currently being sued for a dog bite that happened two years ago. My beagle nipped a neighbor boy in the ankle when he came into our yard and chased my girls with a jump rope raised above his head. He was making monster noises. Copper didn’t get the joke and he lunged and bit his ankle. Had never shown aggression of any kind to any child before. Now imagine the damage Zen could have done.
Like I said, I love dogs. Not so sure I’d want my kids playing with a wolf mix. Or a rottweiler. Or a german shepherd. I’m over-cautious. That doesn’t mean I’m not friendly.
Lol, I was thinking the same thing when he mentioned his wolf-hybrid…maybe the neighbor could even write “I’m sorry” on the bag!
Also, slight hijack to followup PunditLisa’s post.
Sorry if I’m a little overly-defensive about big dogs being singled out in your post, but I’ve been an activist against breed specific laws for quite a while now. There are many places where this has become a serious problem (to the point of owners of many of these so called “dangerous breeds” not being able to purchase home insurance, or the dogs being banned outright, forced to wear muzzles at all times, etc). I protested city hall to keep my breed of dog (Rottweiler) from being banned in the Chicago suburb I grew up in when they tried to pass a breed specific law.
On that note, I taught my daughter not to ever approach ANY strange dog of any breed or size without permission. ANY dog can be dangerous, or be provoked to bite without being a dangerous dog, in the wrong circumstances. Kids and dogs should always be monitored. That’s my 2 cp as the past owner of the sweetest, most loving 135 pound female Rottweiler to ever grace this Earth. I trusted MY dog with my daughter implicitly, if I didn’t let the big baby sleep on my kids bed, she’d lay outside her door and cry all night long till she was allowed into my daughter’s room. But I’d never leave my daughter alone with a strange Rottie, or one I didn’t raise, train and socialize myself.
Zen, sorry for hijacking your post here. Cerri, I agree that any breed of animal can turn vicious. I disagree with you, however, that a 4 lb Pomeranian is as inherently dangerous as a rottweiler. If a 4 pound anything attacked my daughter, he’d be airmailed to the next county courtesy of my foot. Can’t make the same claim about bigger breeds. Rottweilers are very, very strong. And they have more of an ingrained protective instinct than other breeds.
If you don’t believe me, ask your vet. Or an insurance agent. They are the ones that pay the claims, after all. As you might know, Nationwide won’t write homeowners’ policies for the owners of the following dog breeds — Rottweilers, Dobermans, pit bulls, Presa Canarios, chows and wolf-hybrids.
There’s a reason for that.
Oh, I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I completely agree. It’s obvious that a big dog incurring the same numbers of bites as a small one would incur FAR more damage.
But it’s not only big dogs that are bred for protection or aggressive tendencies, is the point I was trying to make. (also as an interesting side note, Rotties weren’t originally bred as attack dogs. They were cattle/draft dogs, they used to be referred to as The Butcher’s Dog, referring to it’s jobs both protecting and herding cattle, as well as pulling the carts of the owners to and from market)
The point about homeowners insurance is exactly what I try to lobby/petition/fight against. See, just because Rottweilers and other large so called “aggressive” breeds have been in recent past years for protection/attack purposes and/or trained that way, or whether they’re owned by people who may or may not use them for nefarious purposes, shouldn’t penalize those of us who know these breeds, love them, and have taken the responsibility to train our dogs correctly, and taken care to select them carefully from a breeder who breeds for NON agressive dogs of those breeds.
Just because a Rottweiler/pit bull/Doberman CAN attack main and kill, does not an entire breed of killers make, was the point I was trying to make. It also doesn’t mean that other breeds of dogs can’t inflict great injury upon someone else, as in the above case of a 4 lb. Pom killing an infant.
See, instead of not writing people policies for certain breeds of dogs as a blanket policy, they should agree to underwrite owners of these dogs who have displayed and can produce proof of responsible ownership via documentation of proper socialization (Canine Good Citizenship program), training, breeding, etc.
(sorry about the lateness of my reply, I completely forgot about this post till this monr)
main= maim (sigh , it’s very early here, and we have the kids this weekend =p)
Time for an update:
My heart skipped a beat yesterday when I saw a partially loaded U-Haul truck in front of the widow’s house. I hoped against hope that it was merely her son moving in for the summer. I trotted over to their home and found her son watching the ball game on television. I engaged him in conversation and found out, to my great relief, that the truck was indeed his and he was moving in, just as I suspected.
I talked with him for a while and got exactly the same story from him that I received from the widow. While that might not seem like a big surprise, it really stunned me to find out a bit more. I asked him rather pointedly about just how much water made it in to the hag’s house. I offered up that it might have been a few cups of water and no more than that. He finally made it really clear that it wasn’t even a few cups but only several drops. This pissed me off so much I continued to chat with him for a while.
He mentioned how the harpy has always had it our for his mother and never had a kind word to say. I was finally obliged to apologize beforehand for any offense I might give and speculated in front of him. I said how it really seemed that the one thing this harridan hated most of all was the fact that his mother was getting some (from her husband) while this dour old maid wasn’t getting any at all. He emphatically confirmed this suspicion of mine and reassured me that he was not offended in the least.
However much this might have seemed to settle the matter, I was still concerned about any possibility of eviction. You can imagine my relief when I finally saw the widow pulling out of her driveway today for the first time in a week.
I ran over to her car and asked her about the entire situation. She explained that her landlord had backed off of his demand for her to make a personal apology to the hag and instead only asked that the widow write a note to this old maid instead. I asked her if she had and she replied that she had written how the entire incident was completely unintentional. I neglected to inquire if the hag finally came over to express her condolences to the widow, but I’m sure I would have known about it because she would have had a heart attack if that had happened.
So, for now, we have a happy ending to this story. The widow won’t be thrown out and there has been some resolution. I still will make some sort of attempt to get the hag’s side of this story. I’d rather believe that she really didn’t mean to evict the widow but, most sadly of all, such a concept does not contradict this harpy’s character (or lack thereof) in the least.
PS: Cerri, thank you so much for making sure people know that there are really no specific breeds which are guaranteed to be dangerous to adults or children. Zen is a ridiculously sweet animal and everyone in my neighborhood is at constant risk of being licked to death by him.
Good God, Zenster.
You’re really sure that the neighbour you dislike so was that mean and nasty because she’s not getting sex? I’m trying to imagine a conversation between neighbours where this could be made totally clear. Two women chatting – and you seriously believe that Celibate Woman would say that she hates Married Woman and will do mean things because Married Woman is getting a leg over?
Grow up.