Jcpaddy wrote:
"If there was graffiti on my building and some idiot came by and decided to paint over it himself, I would have them arrested." - S. Wilson

WFT?
Are you serious?
That is the most idiotic statement I've read on here in a long time.
If someone is willing to take the initiative and be proactive in the removal or painting over of the graffiti, why would you be against it?

Waiting for the Incinerator Authority to paint over anything could take weeks.
I live it the Heights and paint over ever bit of tagging I can.
I do everything in my power to make my neighborhood nicer to live in and that means painting over this constant tagging.
It's people like you who complain and do nothing that are the scourge of our city.
Have them arrested? What an idiot.
Try to stop me from not painting over it and you'll get punched in the face.
Get a life...jeez.

TheBigGuy wrote:

I agree with your nanny state view, but there are building codes for residential towers and my concern are about pedestrians or accidents with kids. There are lot of jumpers in Newport and if I was a landlord, I would be concerned about liability.

Yes, because in a fight you did not initiate while walking down the street minding your own business, the first thing you are thinking of is "let me just secure my own safety" and make sure I don't go beyond that. Give me a break. I bet you have never EVER had to defend yourself. Your first instinct is HOW DO I SURVIVE AT ALL COSTS.

jmiz wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Well, there's nothing like a tragedy to make others feel the need to fill up voids in their own self-esteem.

If a drunk driver plows down a group on a sidewalk, it's a tragedy for the pedestrians and we're out calling for the driver's head on a stake.

dtjcview wrote:

The problem with the map is that it doesn't distinguish between areas that suffered real damage, and those that didn't.

jcgurl wrote:
The only way to contest it is to go to court and I'm not going to waste my time contesting a $10 penalty.

1stStGuy wrote:
Quote:

Roslyn wrote:
If everytime someone writes a post they need to reread it over for grammar and spelling the blogoshpere would be half the size it is now.

That would really be a good thing.

Instead of spell check letting you know that you have misspelled a word, they should scan for proper grammer and spelling. If YOUR post has a certain amount or percentage of errors, it gets deleted.

This way the adults can have a conversation.

COPS, who--more often than not--IGNORE us, and whiz by, usually talking on the phone, and then tear around a corner without...wait for it...signaling.

Kitty_Galore wrote:
Quote:

Mamarama wrote:
But the "facts" about the dog you mention are not publicly known and there was a reason (that the owner did not disclose) why the dog had to be put down. THAT didn't make its way into the press, so unfortunately LHS gets a bad rap.

Wow, so all of our local press is so biased that they wouldn't tell the entire story about this dog? I find that hard to believe. If this is the case, though, I'd think that LHS would do its best to clear its name by telling its side of the story. In this age of Web 2.0, it's incredibly easy and affordable for anyone to do so, even an under-funded shelter. But LHS hasn't spoken out and given any details about Sniper. Interesting.

JCbiscuit wrote:


and to think, this could have all been avoided had the Gavinas brothers taught their kids not to throw firecrackers at toddlers.

Terri wrote:


Oh my Gosh, lady where are you from? I'd really like to know. Why did you move here? Not only are you coming across as being ingnorant and racist, but really, drug dealers? What do you think this is 1985? This makes me laugh like the people who see sneakers on telephone wires and think that is some sort of a drug dealer sign. I assure you I could walk right down your street and show you the houses, corners and places where there are legitimate illegal activities going on right under your noise and you probably don't even realize it. Yet, you pick on and frown upon older men who are really just "hanging out" watching the world pass by. Yes, maybe some have substance abuse problems, and or other problems, so I guess since you have moved in we should get rid of them? Who the hell are you?

Terri wrote:
And for the one who chooses to walk their baby on the opposite side of the street, c'mon, are you serious? You're probably the same selfish person who takes their damn baby stroller which is the size of an SUV into a small bodega or store so none of the other stroller-less customers can move around. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

(why parents need these bohemoth strollers is beyond me! But I guess this could be another topic)

with love
an observer

ICidiots wrote:
It may be for the best the food there was horrible. It was only a matter of time befor it went under anyway.

Dwtnguys wrote:
The extent of the punishment by law should be in relation to the extent that each has the responsibility for the activity they are involved in. It is obvious that a moving vehicle can cause a great deal more damage hitting something than a person on foot can cause.

aldencal wrote:
The new law is for motorist and pedestrians alike...

"Motorists who violate the law face a $200 fine, plus court costs, and 2 points on their license. They can also be subject to 15 days of community service and insurance surcharges.

Pedestrians may also be cited under state law for failing to use due care when crossing. The law requires them to obey pedestrian signals and use crosswalks at signalized intersections as well as yield the right of way to traffic if they are not crossing within a crosswalk or at an intersection. Failure to comply with the law carries a $54 fine, plus court costs."