Neighbor thinks he owns the sidewalk

Absolutely, the sidewalks are public. And yes, the following is also true: New York City law requires property owners to, at their own cost, install, construct, reconstruct, repave and repair the sidewalk adjacent to their properties, in accordance with DOT specifications and NYC Administrative Code. Property owners must keep their sidewalks clean, including 18" from curb into gutter in front of their properties-empty bottles, discarded candy wrappers and animal waste included.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 11:48 AM

"I DON'T want to fight with the guy -- which is why I'm looking for some other reasonable and responsible course of action. "

Sorry, it does not seem so "calm" to also write: "The police have been called on several occasions by sprayed dog walkers, but this man believes he is above the law. (He has a son on the job.) I have tried to explain, calmly and also not so calmly, that the sidewalk is PUBLIC and that spraying people is assault. Does anyone know of some kind of class action or neighborhood intervention that could work?"

Have you spoken with him alone, "calmly", without a sense of entitlement and without your dog in tow? Are calls to the police, and resort to class action suits really that reasonable and responsible? Do you think that spray bottles of bleach were his first choice, rather than his latest recourse? How "calm" is it to approach your interactions having already labeled him a bully?

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 12:13 PM

Let me see: there's an irate neighbor who screams and sprays bleach at dog-walking passersby, and day after day--rather than find another route, or curb your dog while passing his house--you return for a new "assault." And you're one of how many people who walk their dogs past his house each day? Makes me wonder whether there's something about conflict that goes well with your morning coffee. 8am? Must be time for another stand-off at the OK Cobblestone. Instead of seeking to rally a class action suit, how about posting signs up and down the block letting your neighbors and fellow dog-walkers know that they've upset one of the block's residents, and rallying them to be kind to their neighbors, to curb their dogs and to be sure to pick up after themselves?

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 1:02 PM

I don't think it matters about whose dog is doing what- it's a public sidewalk and he has no right to harass or spray anyone. If he actually sees someone not cleaning up after the dog, he can react, but nothing gives him the right to be a dog crap vigilante or attack people. Try getting an order of protection and file a police report about harassment. If he keeps harassing you, talk to a lawyer. Can you kjust clarify- is he only spraying you with water or is there bleach/cleaner in the spray as well?

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 1:06 PM

I agree with Steve and am always sympathetic to homeowners because of how many a-hole dog owners in NYC will let the dog crap on the sidewalk and just walk away from it. It's like half the dog owners have the maturity of a 2 year old. If you don't have time to clean up after a dog then you know what? Don't own one. There is a block in Park Slope near us that often has dog poop everywhere which used to be way worse. It's get this, on a stretch of sidewalk right outside a children's playground. The dog owners deliberately went to a stretch of sidewalk that wasn't outside a building but instead was city property, because they were making a conscious choice to have their dog poop where they wouldn't have to clean it up.

Real nice people huh? I love dogs but I'm proud to be a cat owner, seeing that kind of behavior in dog owners.

BUT there's a normal way to be upset about it and a freako way, and this guy threatening people and spraying them with bleach is stupid. What a nutjob. Why not videotape him and put it on YouTube. Get him on tape threatening someone and shouting his son is on the police force. Send the link to the local blogs and NYC papers and to the NYPD.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 1:07 PM

I agree - it is best to live your life avoiding the bullying types. They want you to engage with them - that's why they are acting inappropriately to begin with.

And, while I also hated having to clean up dog poop in front of my coop, or finding it smeared in our garbage cans, or worse, all the way up the stairs whenever someone inadvertantly tracked it in and onto the stair carpeting, I do think it it very inappropriate to spray people and dogs.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 2:19 PM

Gee,

Maybe I'm not as enlightened as everyone on this site. Maybe the Brownstoner demographic is full of pussies from the suburbs. All I know is that I was born and raised in NYC, and if someone sprayed me and my dog with bleach it would be Hatfield and McCoy time! By the way, I believe spraying someone is considered assault and you are entitled to defend yourself.

Sorry Pussies, see you in Yoga Class!

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 4:38 PM

"I don't know what is in the spray bottle but it has a very strong smell. The fluid is bright yellow and it is in a large, industrial size bottle."

Duh he's spraying you with human piss. Leave him alone and cross the street. You have no idea and obviously dont care to what drove him to this point. Respect his gangster!

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 6:31 PM

Yes, agree completely 4:38. I was really surprised as I read each reply about "find another route", etc.

He has no right to come out and spray you and your dog with who knows what (maybe its a toxic chemical?).

I would call the police and sue him - if he survived the royal ass kicking I would give him first.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 7:40 PM

The reason I think YouTube is a good idea is his cop son.

If your video of this nut went viral in NYC and at the NYPD, his cop son would be humiliated. And likely the son is the only person who can do something about this freak.

Posted by: guest at July 5, 2008 10:32 AM

Hey OP and 4:38/9:53--long before new-age crunch, your mother probably told you it takes two to tango. Did you notice that while OP claims the police have been called repeatedly, there's not a single post by one of the other "assaulted" dog-walkers or disgruntled neighbors? Have you noticed that OP is seeking support from a bunch of strangers, rather than speaking to other block residents? OP claims she ALWAYS keeps a respectful distance--yet somehow she and dog were close enough to (allegedly) get sprayed. Some anonymous third party (allegedly) had her clothes ruined, but OP and hero-dog who bore the brunt are neither worse for wear, nor more bleached for wear, and still can't identify the contents of the spray bottle.

I'd say there's very little difference between the bullying of Irate Neighbor and the bullying of OP. Irate Neighbor--for whatever reasons--appears off-balance and doesn't want dog walkers on the sidewalk in front of his house. OP--for whatever reasons--likes to tangle with off-balance people, returns to play victim on a regular basis, and wants us to believe that she's not only healthier than Irate Neighbor, but is also fighting to preserve the sidewalk for the masses. OP--the good girl--is not sure it's legal or effective to post signs asking for courtesy, but gladly embraces public humiliation via YouTube as a "reasonable and responsible course of action." Just curious, OP: when you returned without dog and spoke "calmly" with your neighbor of nine years, did you happen to learn his first name? Or--as would have been the norm in the Brooklyn of my childhood--did you learn his last name, and showing the courtesy to call him Mister?

Posted by: guest at July 5, 2008 10:47 AM

So now it's the OP's fault? what kind of bs is that? this country is filled with people who crossed the street or turned away when it came time ti stand up for themselves or others and you people are sprouting the worst new age faux psychology I've ever read.

You're telling OP that being a homeowner and a responsible member of the community who pays taxes and has been attacked and sprayed with a chemical for no other reason than a nutjob neighbor feels like it, should change her life to accommodate him? And on top of that you're making it sound like OP's the problem? So OP's not entitled to walk down the street like any other person- and the horror!- and is wrong for even wanting to?

I'm with 4:38- what would you gutless wonders be saying if the OP or the dog were sprayed in the eyes and blinded? Or whatever chemical he was using caused a bad skin reaction? would that be the OP's fault too? what's to stop this guy from spraying a kid right in the face, or a woman with a baby? Nothing.

I'd call the police and then file an official order of protection against the guy. And have a lawyer put him on notice. Then mention to the police officer that he has a son on the job and that he should be doing something before his father really hurts someone.

Posted by: guest at July 5, 2008 2:47 PM

You need to press charges against the guy. He has assaulted you and your dog.

Posted by: guest at July 5, 2008 6:45 PM

If you are assaulted, call the police. Period.

Posted by: guest at July 5, 2008 9:29 PM

really, steve? I suppose its better to go after the guy yourself with a gun? It is a neighborhood crank who has serious problems and has no problem actually spraying people and animals with chemicals. where does that an "imagined fear"? You can deal with the situation your way but when you and vanburenproud get into your mealymouthed, badly done psychoanalysis that the OP who obviously is causing the real problem- well, gotta say you both sounded like pompous asses.

as for thinking "Frankly, I think it's gutless wonders who go crying to the police for every imagined fear and ego-bruising encounter." I sincerely doubt you really believe that. but if you feel it vindicates your position of no solution, have at it. Letting someone bully an entire neighborhood does nothing for anyone, including the crazy guy.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 1:54 AM

As a homeowner and a pet owner I simpathize with both you and the homeowner. I will say, there has been many a day when I felt like reacting like the homeowner. Dog pee can really reek in the summer. Once one dog pees others follow and soon you have the lovely smell of dog pee in front of your house. I have had to scrub caked on dog doo off my sidewalk and wash it with bleach. Crub your dog and just walk on the other side of the street.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 11:19 AM

Swellcity is also a homeowner who can't walk down the street. Sorry but that's her right to do so and not have a man attack her. She posted asking for advice and instead she gets 2 pompous jerks sounding off on their whole socio-psycho-new age crap, analyzing the OP. I have to say they're schmucks. It was fine until they decided to be armchair Freuds.

I understand where the homeowner is coming from too - we all have to keep our sidewalks clean-but this is a fact of life in NYC so he needs to get a grip. If every homeowner was able to get away with bullying every dog owner, where the hell would they walk? And if you allow people to attack others just because they feel like it, well fire all the cops and go home. He didn't just threaten or scream. He actively attacked her and her dog. What would you be saying if the dog had gone after the guy and ripped his arm up? That may be in the realm of "What-ifs" but there is a much greater chance of those what-ifs happening with a guy like this.

I understand the whole avoid the issue problem- and if this were a one time thing I'd agree. But like too many folks, steve and vanburenproud are fine when they're theoretical but if it were their reality, neither one of them would rearrange their lives for this nutjob. but then its so easy to tell others what to do, isn't it guys?

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 11:36 AM

I disagree, 11:36. I would absolutely re-arrange my life for the nutjob. It's the only way to solve the problem! It's just about what's possible. You can't control other people's behavior, but you can control your own.

By controlling yourself, you make other solutions possible. You make working with your neighbors to calmly settle the problem possible. You take away the reason for the spraying in the first place. This could result in a conversation with the Sprayer that gets to the actual problem.

Nothing is possible until the conflict is over. The cops won't listen to the OP until she's not talking from a place of conflict. The neighbors won't engage the actual problem until it stops being a conflict. The Sprayer cannot be counted upon to stop the conflict. The only way the OP can stop the conflict is to rearrange her life (ever so slightly, frankly) for the nutjob.

There's nothing what-if about it. It's four freaking steps into the street, or just choosing to walk down the other sidewalk. Or going the other way.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 12:34 PM

First and Foremost, welcome to Brooklyn. I remember growing up on east 29th street there was a nasty old man on my block who used "water his lawn" at 3 PM daily, the exact time all the kids were walking home from school. He would scream at us to keep off the grass and then spray us with the hose--even though we made sure that we were NOT stepping on his grass. He was crazy Mr. Rocco and we learned very quickly to CROSS THE STREET. Nobody called the cops on Rocco,nobody cursed him out or threw rocks at him, we simply crossed the street and watched as the newbs got soaked with the hose until they learned to cross as well. Sigh...the memories...

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 1:08 PM

Sigh...the common sense...

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 1:28 PM

OP has already written that she's never called the cops. What she's done instead is written to Brownstoner, where there's a willing armchair posse. According to her, anonymous OTHERS have called the police, the police have come, and the police have left. Now, that could mean several things. Among them: 1) the cops don't care; 2) the cops care but can't do anything about it; 3) the cops care and *have* done something about it; 4) there's nothing to do about it because maybe it's not the problem that OP claims; 5) maybe it's a problem because OP has a constant itch.

Could it be that he's an old guy who's not quite right in his mind and needs some help? We don't know. Could it be that he has a family member who's been hurt by a dog or a combative dog-walker? We don't know. Could it be that he has way too much time and way too much venom? We don't know. What we know is that OP is determined not to cross the street and see if things change. Finding a better way is not pop psychology, while repeatedly returning IS real-life psychopathy on OP's part.

Curiously, OP not only hasn't called the cops, she hasn't done what would be most reasonable and responsible (other than crossing the street, that is). She hasn't gone to the precinct to find out why the situation persists. Why not? Because it's so much more satisfying to have Brownstoner vigilantes ride to her rescue. For the posters who think this should be settled the old fashioned way, how's about you put your feet where your mouths are and take a walk on Douglass and 4th. According to OP, it shouldn't be hard to find the man with the hose engraved with your name. After all, he's out there screaming and scrubbing all the time, and he's a menace to the animal kingdom and to your unborn children! And when you're done cleaning up Douglass St., there's a man in a yellow cab waiting to have a drink with you.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 1:38 PM

Well put, 1:38.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 2:11 PM

"Have you spoken with him alone, "calmly", without a sense of entitlement and without your dog in tow? Are calls to the police, and resort to class action suits really that reasonable and responsible?"

"OP--for whatever reasons--likes to tangle with off-balance people, returns to play victim on a regular basis, and wants us to believe that she's not only healthier than Irate Neighbor, but is also fighting to preserve the sidewalk for the masses."

"But I do agree with 10:47 that it does take two to tango, and that the behavior of the OP is as just as wrong and bullying as the behavior of the Sprayer."

"What we know is that OP is determined not to cross the street and see if things change. Finding a better way is not pop psychology, while repeatedly returning IS real-life psychopathy on OP's part."

First of all you DON'T know that, nor do you know that OP has repeatedly returned. Maybe some of you godawful pop psychologists should take a reading comprehension test. she was asking for suggestions and instead she is getting pilloried by a bunch of jerks exuding pseudo-professorial wisdom that not only didn't offer much, but insulted her.

As for "Brownstoner vigilantes" - try rereading the posts. the majority of people suggested legal recourses, youtube (even steve liked that one), or talking to the police. One person suggested an ass-kicking but 98% of the posters certainly didn't advocate that or taking matters into their own hands. I certainly don't.

What she asked was: "Does anyone know of some kind of class action or neighborhood intervention that could work?" The woman asked for ADVICE. Instead she pretty much got verbally raped by a bunch of self-styled personality experts who imagined motives and actions on her part that had nothing to do with anything she actually said.

Her biggest offense seems to be she wants to find a solution that works for everyone and that she had the audacity (how dare she!?) of actually thinking she should be able to walk down a public street without being assaulted. For that she's being raked over the coals.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 3:30 PM

Verbally raped?

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 3:42 PM

Yeah, you know, like intellectual intercourse.
OP got advice: cross the street.
Only problem is, that's not the advice she wants. She wants a BIG solution...a class action suit, a neighborhood intervention, a royal dust-up on Brownstoner!

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 3:57 PM

You know, I wasn't going to post anything, but I have to say that the exact dynamic of this thread is playing out with my daughter.

She's gets bullied a lot at school, and it's because she has a really hard time letting anything go--she's got the "constant itch." She is a great, beautiful caring kid who would never instigate anything with anyone, but she latches on to the bad behavior kids (and adults) test one another with and can't stop bringing it out of certain kids. I have seen her aggressively goad kids into behavior that is just as aggressive and crazy-seeming as the Old Man of the original post.

The problem is that I can tell her until I am blue in the face that she's causing her own problems and being just as much an aggressor as the bully. But as long as her teachers and her father keep reinforcing her by telling her that she's the "good victim" and the bully du jour is the "bad bully" then she's going to keep bringing all this crazy conflict into her life.

Do I know that this is what's happening to the OP? No. But I do have to say that I have been glued to this thread because it's so close to my own battle to make my own child strong enough to resist the temptation to fight with bullies all the time.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 4:06 PM

My objection hasn't been the actual advice- when real advice has been given. It hasn't even been bad advice- but the fantasy scenarios that seem to have been playing out about the OP are offensive and condescending.Even steve at one point says "Swell City: I haven't been sprayed with a hose though. That would provoke a very different reaction from me.

Posted by: Steve at July 4, 2008 12:27 PM
" and then goes on to happily join in the pseudo-doctor of victimology.

She sounds pretty reasonable and in fact doesn't even sound like the type to go out of her way to provoke the old s.o.b. But to read some of these posts you'd think she was the ravening maniac, not the guy screaming and spraying people. Reread her posts. Since when is it a crime to ask about a working solution? Does anyone think the old guy is having fun raging at perfect strangers?

There hasn't been a single solitary comment that she has made that indicates she is actively going out of her way to further provoke the situation. If anything she sounds afraid of him and angry at feeling that way. But thanks to all you men who instead of simply offering advice, had to tear her down and turn the situation inside out. If you really want to understand victimology I suggest you actually learn about it.

3:57 says: "OP got advice: cross the street.
Only problem is, that's not the advice she wants. She wants a BIG solution...a class action suit, a neighborhood intervention, a royal dust-up on Brownstoner!"

How can he possibly know that? Vulcan mind meld? Psychic dog owner expert? but that's the typical tone of the posts here. No wonder she hasn't thanked everyone for their advice and support.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 4:26 PM

Not you steve. Don't be an idiot. I'm talking about people who would rather take things into their own hands instead of trying to use legal recourses (not necessarily lawyers) but who have been defined by you as gutless wonders if they go to the police.

You don't leave them a lot of options- they shouldn't complain, they shouldn't try to find a good solution for all concerned, they should allow themselves to be forced off a public sidewalk and sprayed with some unknown chemical and they should take a beating from posters for being "overly aggressive " enough to ask for intelligent advice on a brownstoner forum. Bet she doesn't make that mistake again.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 4:53 PM

not a ninja hero- and if you have the brains you claim to be born with you would understand what I am saying- but obviously I have to repeat myself so that it penetrates your thick skull: "My objection hasn't been the actual advice- when real advice has been given. It hasn't even been bad advice- but the fantasy scenarios that seem to have been playing out about the OP are offensive and condescending." Read this several times so you get it.

And though you objected to my saying this guy could blind someone (he is spraying chemicals)if he doesn't stop, or spray a kid- you blew that off as the realm of "what ifs"- unimportant. Yet you just listed a whole bunch of them and instead of even thinking about the many ways a situation like this might be able to be resolved, including maybe, not making the guy feel so isolated, you would rather blame the OP. and no- I don't think the cops would cuff him or anything else but on the other hand I'm not a proponent of feeding into his bad behavior. You don't let your kids run wild- you teach them good behavior. Yet you think it's ok for adults to get away with it?

I'm no victim- I know you tossed that out because you think it makes you sound witty- but if anyone was promoting victimization its you and the others who - not for telling her to cross the street, but for treating her like crap.

"Bring it on" - Gosh- I thought you'd simply stop posting and go read a book instead of engaging me again. Guess you can't take your own advice.

And finally for a guy who claims to be so mature about this, and so

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 5:27 PM

What's really interesting to me is the level of hostility brought against the posters like Steve and Van Buren who are basically saying what your mothers should have told all of you:

*That it's a waste of time to fight with a crazy person.

*That you should pick your battles.

*That you can actively take care of yourself instead of fretting about what other people do to you.

*That being right doesn't matter very much.

What's so yogi-freud-new agey about this? It sounds like basic common sense to me.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 5:34 PM

Interesting thread- from where I sit I think it has nothing to do with good advice and everything to do with how you give it. Steve and vanburenproud, and quite a few other posters seemed pretty hostile to the original poster- some of them not in a nasty way, but in a condescending, I know better than you way.

It's great to offer common sense and at no time did OP reject it or say anything against it yet those posters seemed to have made some wild assumptions about OP's personality with absolutely no evidence- She's as much a problem as the bully, she's taunting him, she's this, she's that. The piss poor attempts at psychoanalyzing her, her self-perceptions as a victim- It's a little hard to find the good advice in all the psycho-garbage. And when you're put on the defensive, it's even harder.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 5:52 PM

Guess what, 4:26? I'm 1:38 and 3:57, and I'm a WOMAN! (I guess YOUR skills at Vulcan mind-meld need some polishing, too.) OP was clear as day when she wrote: "...This guy is a bully who's way less likely to go after my husband (or another man) than he is me. I find it infuriating."

OP won't cross the street because she's "infuriated"...infuriated enough to post on Brownstoner, but not quite infuriated enough to call the police herself. OP portrays this as about public access and reasonable solutions; about neighbors who go after defenseless women but not their husbands. But more than one reader recognizes that it's about people who are addicted to conflict and who claim that only one party--the other party, of course--are the source of all conflict. Once they've painted the other party as the ogre, they're able to rationalize and justify all their actions and reactions, and minimize the influence of their own limited "generous spirit." The other guy made me do it, rather than this is what happened, and this is how I *chose* to respond. Wow! What power you've just given the other person--he controls the sidewalks and now he controls your responses too. High road? No way! Not when it's possible to collect more miles via endless conflict, to pretend that YOUR choices are the sole responsibility of the offending party, and to pretend that your motivation is defense of the interests of others.

OP is tangled up in a conflict she could easily walk away from...but then she'd actually have to thank others for their sound advice (which is what she came for, isn't it?), and actually have to find something else to be infuriated about (some loud-mouthed kids, some blasting music, someone who didn't park their car close enough to the curb?). OP is neither the "victim" of the neighbor, nor the "victim" of the posts. If she can easily walk away, yet chooses to feud with her neighbor, she is as much a common denominator to the equation as he is.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 5:57 PM

I didn't know decking was legal like but I agree with you assessment :-). But I'm sure you can also understand how afraid a woman can be made to feel by a bully. And how frustrating it is to feel powerless to do anything about it. frankly the fact that she didn't set her dog on him and even went back to try to reason with him, without the dog, says quite a lot about her- good things. so I just don't see where all this stuff about the imagined shortcomings of her personality came into this.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 6:05 PM

But she can take care of herself, 6:05. Any human can be made to feel bad because of a bully, but every single human has a choice to make about how to respond. She's frustrated, yes. Lots of things are frustrating. In this city, I am frustrated maybe even once a day. We all are.

She does not have to keep this conflict alive. I don't think anyone's imagining shortcomings of her personality. I think there are people who are simply following this thread and wondering why she doesn't just cross the street for awhile.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 6:28 PM

Sorry, I meant to include in that post that Steve is getting kind of close to imagining that this poster is a bad person... he's getting frustrated himself and should maybe step away from the keyboard!

But I don't think that anyone else is doing more than asserting that this person has a choice to make about walking in front of this man's house in the first place.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 6:31 PM

5"57- and just because she says she's infuriated, where does she say she refuses to walk in the street? Some people- probably not you- can be angry and still not provoke a confrontation. You're claiming she won't cross the street- "This guy is a bully who's way less likely to go after my husband (or another man) than he is me. I find it infuriating."- where did you read her saying I refuse to cross the street and I am going to no matter what? No where. You're doing exactly what they did- you're projecting. she certainly has a right to be infuriated. what she does about it is entirely another thing and your assumption is exactly the problem. You don't know anything about this woman and you're taking sentences and rewriting them in your own mind. Good luck with that- if you really thought she was crystal clear, you certainly didn't get her point.

Have a seat with the armchair psychologists, ma'am. My vulcan mind meld skills were not the issue- your reading comprehension is.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 6:32 PM

When someone is calling you an armchair psychologist *and* accusing you of projecting at the same time, look for the nearest exit.

--Therapist's Kid

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 6:39 PM

Honestly my basic point is not that she shouldn't cross the street- it's the assumption that she won't- and she herself has said nothing to indicate she is trying to keep anything alive or do anything than ASK for advice on ways to handle the situation.

No one even bothered to find out if she would simply take their advice or not- it is just assumed she won't and that she is actively provoking the guy and quite a few posters piled on to add to it. steve was not the one who started it. 12:13 started it off with accusing her of being the one who set the guy off and not being understanding or respectful enough.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 6:47 PM

some people can actually do 2 things at once
-multitasker

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 6:49 PM

Honestly, the original post is a sideways escalation. You're not exactly asking for advice. You're making a case for escalation, and asking for specific advice about how to escalate the situation directly.

While 12:13's post was a little agro, it wasn't too far off the mark given what was actually written in the original post. And if you're concerned that some anonymous poster on Brownstoner wasn't respectful or understanding enough, well...

...I can't even make a joke about that. That's just an amazing thing to say.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 7:06 PM

whoa- first of all, again, armchair psychology. You're assuming you know the mind of the OP. You can't even deal with the problem she asks about- you're too busy making her the bad guy. And what's wrong with asking if there is a solution? She simply asked for advice on what "COULD" work. Read her post - why is this so hard for you to get? She doesn't sound like the type to throw bricks through his window or sic a thousand lawyers on him. She would have done that already if she were so inclined. But you and a bunch of other posters seem determined to make her the bad guy. You're ascribing motives to her that you have no way of knowing- you don't know this woman. How can you even accuse her of anything other than making a mistake by asking for advice on brownstoner?

And my point wasn't about anonymous posters not being respectful of understanding enough (that's an exercise in futility on this blog)- re 12:13- It was his point to blame her for the problem, implying she wasn't respectful or understanding enough. Take a little more time to read what people write.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 7:43 PM

7:43, have you figured out what happened?
The virtual community has crossed the street.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 10:32 PM

molatav cocktail

Posted by: guest at July 7, 2008 11:40 AM

oh yeah, like Safe Horizons would have come and shut that party down...what are you thinking?

Posted by: guest at July 8, 2008 2:13 PM