New posts

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
I know you are but what am I? On and on....

It’s bad enough but expected and somewhat tolerated that BFOs are labeled as mean, greedy, arrogant, aholes, self-righteous, egocentric, old rich people, Scrooge, gaslighters, bloviators, etc., etc., etc.

But

James Brentwood, you definitely crossed the line in my book, and in a very bad way. I believe you genuinely owe @FloridaBeachBum and the rest of us for that matter, an apology.

Calling yourself a property rights activist sets a false tone. The title of this thread sets a negative and false tone. Invading this forum aggressively en masse sets a bad tone.

Right or wrong you're a bad neighbor and bad for our community.

And you have just proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that we have already lost our 30A Legacy among other things.
 

Lake View Too

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2008
7,193
3,737
Eastern Lake
I know you are but what am I? On and on....

It’s bad enough but expected and somewhat tolerated that BFOs are labeled as mean, greedy, arrogant, aholes, self-righteous, egocentric, old rich people, Scrooge, gaslighters, bloviators, etc., etc., etc.

But

James Brentwood, you definitely crossed the line in my book, and in a very bad way. I believe you genuinely owe @FloridaBeachBum and the rest of us for that matter, an apology.



And you have just proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that we have already lost our 30A Legacy among other things.
You continue to blame others for your mistakes. That is precisely why this thread has generated so much animosity.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Since we are getting nostalgic and going back through early posts, you started out in post #10 calling everybody that disagreed with you “ignorant”. Remember? And since I had not posted yet, I doubt I can be accused of setting the tone. Facts are a b**ch.
Is that the best you have? Me making a general statement about CU facts will not persuade "the" ignorant?
Do you think that use of ignorant is synonymous with rude or is rude?
Definition. lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified or not polite or showing respect.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-older-people-think-ignorant-means-rude
I'm fifty four years old. I have never considered the words "Ignorant" and "Rude" to be synonymous. Ignorant is a lack of education or knowledge. Rude is the breaking of social customs in a way that would be considered offensive.
For example: In the US we are taught to finish our plate when eating. In some households it is considered rude not to finish your plate as it would signify you didn't like what was served to you. In Russia, China and the Philippines it is considered rude to finish your plate off. Your host will interpret that as meaning that you are still hungry and they failed to provide you with enough food. If you did this while visiting Russia it would likely stem from being ignorant of the custom. If you did this while being aware of the custom as an insult to your host this would be rude. Therein lies is a difference.


How about before #10? #5 bob bob '"30A" people are greedy, entitled, spoiled... A different breed.' #9 Jenksy "you are part of the problem and should leave." That's rude and disrespectful "tone".

What did you do at any point of the thread to change "the tone"? You are responsible for your own words and your "worst reflexes". No one else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
2,194
574
LVT I do agree with you on this subject. What I don't agree with is disrespect in any form. I believe that wealthy people are so good at justifying their privileges that they miss the point of humanity. Unfortunately the reason I have changed my mind is because I have tired of the insults coming from the CU side. It escalates conflict and destroys compromising negotiations. The democratic party loses hundreds of thousands of votes because of the use of foul language, shaming and insulting that comes from that side. When they lose elections they spend their entire time insulting, shaming and vilifying instead of preparing for the next election. I vote democrat 90% of the time because of the environment and social programs but I am certain they will keep losing unless they start spending more time connecting to rural people and less time shaming. I only bring up the politics because I believe that politics is the reason for our break down in communication by creating an agenda instead of creating an atmosphere of compromise. The only agenda these days are to win. We are not interested in compromise so I blame politics. Both sides have agenda and uncompromising principles which destroys democracy. I do NOT want our beach resource being controlled by wealthy people but we could not find a way to compromise and now this will be determined by a court based on facts. Is CU doctrine legal? I say that it should be but it is no longer up to us and we can argue this until there is nothing but destructive behavior left. IMO CU has established precedent in our court system and the court will decide in favor of CU but who knows. One side will win and the other side will lose and the hate from the losing side will grow. We no longer live in a debate with facts and accept compromise society. We only care about principle. I hope CU wins in court but I will accept the courts decision regardless just as I do all political elections. The beginning of the end of what made 30A special is rooted in this discussion and IMO both sides are responsible.
 

Auburn Fan

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
82
67
Auburn
You, BeachSandpiper, have made 20 posts, new member only on this thread, Reggie, 52, Florida Beach Bum wins the prize with well over 100 (140) all by him/herself. Virtually all of his/her posts are related to this issue as a new, Feb 19, 2018 member. I think MMB Vagrant, a SoWal veteran, is a semi close second at 107. Auburn Fan 41, He/she has only made one other post on a different thread. This one thread seems to be holding his/her interest the most as a new member. I'm at 31 if I counted right. Fishing Fool, 13 posts, new member, only posting on this thread.

The fact that you study these metrics so closely is quite revealing. The fact that you try to use the metrics to discount the facts is also revealing.

As if you are desperately afraid who might actually be reading the true facts that have been presented in this thread.

(If any of it is not true, go ahead and point it out, instead of presenting meaningless statistics as an obvious attempt to distract the intelligent, rational reader.)
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
The fact that you study these metrics so closely is quite revealing. The fact that you try to use the metrics to discount the facts is also revealing.

As if you are desperately afraid who might actually be reading the true facts that have been presented in this thread.

(If any of it is not true, go ahead and point it out, instead of presenting meaningless statistics as an obvious attempt to distract the intelligent, rational reader.)


In context, I was inspired by a private beach activist's interest in the number of posts made by a CU proponent earlier in this thread. You folks seem to think this is a ground breaking "epic" thread. I was merely pointing out most of the posts are coming from the same 8 to 10 Private beachfront advocates talking to yourselves; congratulating yourselves, whoever you are with an intermittent interjection from CU advocates. It would be "epic" if you could convince the 600 give or take other beachfront owners to chime in. Nope. Perhaps you can convince them at some point but really, as I have been saying "a handful" of you are active and vocal and I will give you credit, effective up to this point using your power, influence and money to tip the scales, legislatively speaking to your side but I promise that will change. We aim to stop that train and restore the balance of shared beaches for all. I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see. Thanks for all the info. Meanwhile intelligent, rational readers will focus on the "Shifting Sands."
 

EZ4144

Beach Lover
Aug 6, 2005
194
107
In context, I was inspired by a private beach activist's interest in the number of posts made by a CU proponent earlier in this thread. You folks seem to think this is a ground breaking "epic" thread. I was merely pointing out most of the posts are coming from the same 8 to 10 Private beachfront advocates talking to yourselves; congratulating yourselves, whoever you are with an intermittent interjection from CU advocates. It would be "epic" if you could convince the 600 give or take other beachfront owners to chime in. Nope. Perhaps you can convince them at some point but really, as I have been saying "a handful" of you are active and vocal and I will give you credit, effective up to this point using your power, influence and money to tip the scales, legislatively speaking to your side but I promise that will change. We aim to stop that train and restore the balance of shared beaches for all. I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see. Thanks for all the info. Meanwhile intelligent, rational readers will focus on the "Shifting Sands."
Might be one lawyer/owner and a few sock puppets.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
......and another thing. ; )
Cute. The meaningless metrics distraction was fun (not) so lets get back to facts.
"... denying the public's right [Where is that public right? In the Constitution? Please provide credible facts to that public "right" to private property or the statement is legally false or wrong. Or do you mean, public privilege, like driving an automobile on Government property?] to use and enjoy our beach [Intentionally wrong again legally. Do you mean beach that private property owners' paid for the legal title to, pay annual property taxes on, that fund Walton schools?] as we have since time immemorial [is time the only CU criterion or can anyone name and define any other CU criteria?] are determined to paint this as a private property rights issue." [The legal paint brush is black and white. Because the Commissioners' CU litigation is ONLY about private property rights!]

I hear over and over CU emphasis "time immemorial", personal beach use for decades, and used for hundreds of years. The ancient English criteria describe by English aristocrat, jurist, judge Sir William Blackstone legal "Commentaries"... "that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary". In the ancient land of England, that "memory" went back as for as 1192 when the King William the Conqueror ruled England by force. The USA is only 243 years old.

Florida courts have used the term "ancient" and FS163.035 uses "ancient". Can you educate us on what ancient means? What does time immemorial mean? As long as any Walton Commissioner has been alive as more than one Commissioner has claimed?

2007 Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. Trepanier v. Volusia commented on the CU criteria of time; "If the only source of a right claimed as "custom," is that a certain thing has been done in a certain way in a certain place for so long that no one can remember when it wasn't done that way, the inability to offer evidence of the custom suggests the weakness of the claim."

"They [BFOs] can't build on the sand and there is no tax assessments directly attached to that sand." Patently, false, wrong, and untrue.
Or if you can not show any CREDIBLE facts for this false untrue CU belief why should anyone believe your in-credible statement?

"How can they [BFOs] claim ownership and exclusion on shifting sand they can't contain?" Ownership is in the title DEED to the MHWL, 0.74 foot elevation in Walton shown on a legal survey, survey monuments, and physical property boundary markers (like the TDC vendor zone markers on Walton owned beaches?) required by the Walton County Sheriff 2015 trespass Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). How can BFOs claim ownership? Property RIGHT of private use and enjoyment protected by the Constitution. Where is that public RIGHT to use private property again?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New posts