Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

My beliefs on beach nourishment is well documented and my reasons were that the sand quality would not be the same and for the environment and I did not think it works. The plan played out by beachfront owners had everything to do with securing private beaches. I never imagined they would ever succeed. And stopping beach nourishment WAS indeed the first step in their plan to deny the use of our beaches. There I said it again and I will say it again if you wish. Happy to connect the dots all they way to the beginning.

Translation: “I can’t figure out if I’m glad or sad that beach nourishment failed.”

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

Beach Spreading: and the county changed tent size from 8 feet to 10 feet, plus 50% to vendors. Why?

It does not matter what the size of beach umbrella is in the Walton beach ordinance anyway.
The is no ordinance or enforcement against beach spreading as many umbrellas as the public want on beaches.

 

[Auburn Fan]

Replies:
511
Views:
19,667

When you compare the ratio of these figures you get 0.025 as a "toxicity index" (the amount of people that are curious compared to the amount of people that want to contribute).As a comparison, the next most toxic thread, "Welcome to Trump's America", has a "toxicity index" of .130. Don't ya just love a train wreck?

Lake View Too really got my attention, because I must admit, I do love math. But he's wrong about something. Sure the math is correct, but his deduction is dead wrong.

He introduced a bogus term of a "toxicity index", being the ratio of the number of replies divided by the number of views, as an indication of the number of people who are actually willing to contribute, compared to the total number of people who are curious.

But the definition is wrong. Nothing toxic about it at all. It's not a 'toxicity index' at all.

It is an INTIMIDATION INDEX.

This index is actually a very good indicator of the number of people reading this thread but who are too afraid to speak out openly due to the variety of intimidation tactics that we have seen displayed in the past few months by the instigators and agitators.

And note who liked this portrayal of a "trainwreck".
Dave Rauschkolb and Teresa

 

[L.C. Bane]

Lake View Too really got my attention, because I must admit, I do love math. But he's wrong about something. Sure the math is correct, but his deduction is dead wrong.

He introduced a bogus term of a "toxicity index", being the ratio of the number of replies divided by the number of views, as an indication of the number of people who are actually willing to contribute, compared to the total number of people who are curious.

But the definition is wrong. Nothing toxic about it at all. It's not a 'toxicity index' at all.

It is an INTIMIDATION INDEX.

This index is actually a very good indicator of the number of people reading this thread but who are too afraid to speak out openly due to the variety of intimidation tactics that we have seen displayed in the past few months by the instigators and agitators.

And note who liked this portrayal of a "trainwreck".
Dave Rauschkolb and Teresa

Both wrong. It's a "Voyeur Index". You should be able to extrapolate why without explanation.

 

[Auburn Fan]

Both wrong. It's a "Voyeur Index". You should be able to extrapolate why without explanation.

Actually the "voyeurism variable" is only explained by the denominator, not the entire ratio.

Now don't even get me started on explaining the bulls**t index.

Nice try. But thank you for playing.

 

[L.C. Bane]

Actually the "voyeurism variable" is only explained by the denominator, not the entire ratio.

Now don't even get me started on explaining the bulls**t index.

Nice try. But thank you for playing.

Reggie! Is this you?!

 

[Dave Rauschkolb]

Perhaps why all the secrecy about false identities. The Lawsuit. None want to be held accountable for what they say. Fear of being held accountable for your words. How courageous.

@FloridaBeachBum, your post #523 regarding Tona-Roma and all was VERY informative. Thank you for the time and effort to pull it together.

Personally, I think DR is laughing very nervously with his “Ha ha...” malarkey.

I believe CU will fail (there, I said it) and I think DR is starting to realize it as well.

The title of this thread will live on, one way or another, either because of all the animosity from the “public” toward private property owners if CU fails OR because we become a Destin or Panama City because of unleashed growth due to CU prevailing.

And I thought DR said he wasn’t responding to posters who don’t use their real name. What gives?

Regarding using real names....this from Teresa:
“In forums you don't have to use real names though many of us have changed our forum names to our real names over time. It's a personal choice. Lots of our original members are still called by their original forum names even in real life. All good peeps. Where's River Otter?”.

Apparently DR disagrees.

Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.

 

[FloridaBeachBum]

Perhaps why all the secrecy about false identities. The Lawsuit. None want to be held accountable for what they say. Fear of being held accountable for your words. How courageous.
Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.

The Lawsuit? Walton County as the Plaintiff has the burden of proof. In according to FS 163.035 (3)(b)2. “All proceedings under this paragraph shall be de novo.” De novo - means fresh. Anew. A court decides the issues without reference to any previous legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court, or local elected Government officials, to hear the case.

Private property owners are defendants and are not required to present any evidence should they choose. I predict there will be plenty of evidence to dispute Walton’s CU criteria “evidence”, public affidavits, and property rights evidence.

“None want to be held accountable for what they say. Fear of being held accountable for your words.” Why? Accountable and afraid for what? Nonsensical. Not a credible statement.

“Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.” Immaterial to the thread and not a worthy comment.
"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," Ronald Reagan from Mondale debate.

How about discourse about the Tona-Rama facts of the case? Or just more circular "false identities" distractions? Tona-Rama lost it’s public prescriptive easement case. Or can you offer alternative facts why the FSC did not interpret the ancient English common law doctrine of custom but in 1974 activist FSC judges made new law (that’s State legislators responsibility) from the bench and could be unConstitutional? Or pick any of the Tona-Rama post to discuss. You can get the FBFA attorney to help you if you need to too. CUnCourt.

 

[Auburn Fan]

Perhaps why all the secrecy about false identities. The Lawsuit. None want to be held accountable for what they say. Fear of being held accountable for your words. How courageous.



Ha Ha,..... "Malarkey"......you are showing your age. My grandfather used to say that.

Wow.
Never guessed you were the type to ridicule the elderly for your own amusement.
That's a new low.

Can we talk about a "reputation index"? Let me get my calculator. (I would call up Lake View Too, because he likes to calculate the ratios. But alas, he's been a "secret identity" on this forum over 10 years.)

And how interesting that you dare to say, "None want to be held accountable for what they say." Now reading that really made me smile in between my sips of coffee. Thank you for that delicious thought. You made my morning. Interesting words of yours, sir. Indeed.

 

[Auburn Fan]

Reggie! Is this you?!

Oh, but you flatter me. I'm not nearly as nice.