Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Privately owned restaurants on privately owned real estate are private property
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Buzz Forward
Nov 27, 2015, 4:23:46 PM11/27/15
to
This is settled; it is not in dispute.
The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
public property. The status of property as public or private depends
*only* on the ownership of it.
The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
public property. The status of property as public or private depends
*only* on the ownership of it.
Dechucka
Nov 27, 2015, 4:32:40 PM11/27/15
to
"Buzz Forward"
<kick.jerry.sauks.fat.p...@everywhere.now> wrote in
message news:n3ahgi$qib$1...@dont-email.me...
regulations come into play. Even for private property without public access
that applies, but differently of course
︰ones
Nov 27, 2015, 6:19:55 PM11/27/15
to
opens a retail business, it is now a public *place* and the business
owner has to conform to different local laws. For example, the owner
of a business usually has to maintain bathrooms; in your home, you do
as you please on that. The laws on whether or not these are public
bathrooms tend to vary; however, while the owner may say they're
reserved for customers only, in general they can't file trespass if
someone walks in and uses it.
In my younger days, I once owned a taxicab; the car was mine. One
evening, I was carrying a passenger who had committed a crime
(burglary) and we were pulled over and searched; the police found
evidence in the back seat. Later, the defense would argue that they
needed a search warrant to have searched the cab. It was found that
they could search the cab in the same manner as they could have
searched a city bus or commuter train... it was a public space.
After that, I always put my weed under the back seat when I wasn't
smoking it. If you want the property to be strictly private, you
cannot operate a retail business on the property.
Jones
Alex
Nov 27, 2015, 9:47:20 PM11/27/15
to
Usenet Support Personnel
Nov 28, 2015, 3:39:08 AM11/28/15
to
This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
its original proponent.
Just Wondering
Nov 28, 2015, 5:05:45 AM11/28/15
to
Jerry Sauk
Nov 29, 2015, 3:01:10 AM11/29/15
to
"Buzz Forward"
<kick.jerry.sauks.fat.p...@everywhere.now> wrote in
message news:n3ahgi$qib$1...@dont-email.me...
> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
WRONG. It has been in dispute for, YEARS.
> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it public
> property.
doesn't mean that, THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY ENTERS THE PROPERTY.
>The status of property as public or private depends *only* on the ownership
>of it.
that isn't owned by the public???!
I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation for that.............
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 29, 2015, 6:57:50 AM11/29/15
to
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 01:51:17 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Buzz Forward"
><kick.jerry.sauks.fat.p...@everywhere.now> wrote in
>message news:n3ahgi$qib$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>
>WRONG. It has been in dispute for, YEARS.
The only one disputing it is you. EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET knows
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Buzz Forward"
><kick.jerry.sauks.fat.p...@everywhere.now> wrote in
>message news:n3ahgi$qib$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>
>WRONG. It has been in dispute for, YEARS.
and agrees that restaurants are private property.
EVERYONE.
You had to make up a bullshit story and tell us about make believe
people that agreed with you.
Were they leprechauns, Jerry?
>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it public
>> property.
>
>OF Course that's right.
> Just becouse a property is "open to the public"
>doesn't mean that, THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY ENTERS THE PROPERTY.
>>The status of property as public or private depends *only* on the ownership
>>of it.
>
>Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on property
>that isn't owned by the public???!
>I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation for that.............
>
Jerry Sauk
Nov 29, 2015, 4:00:41 PM11/29/15
to
"Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
YEARS.
It is now fueled mostly by, Klous. Everybody else gave up trying to prove
thier point's. (becouse they couldn't). Klous is the only one right stupid
enough to continue.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 30, 2015, 7:02:45 AM11/30/15
to
engaged in trying to educate you on this matter.
You are the only person in the entire world stupid enough to think
restaurants are public property. The only one.
In the entire world.
That stupid.
Mel Schacher
Nov 30, 2015, 1:07:59 PM11/30/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
news:FvudnV5yrYPl-sbL...@supernews.com...
You forgot about yourself, who is the ONLY RETARD that still thinks that the
Government owns Taco Bell.
Groupkilla
Nov 30, 2015, 1:10:49 PM11/30/15
to
Mel Schacher wrote:
> the Government owns Taco Bell.
>
Which one?
> the Government owns Taco Bell.
>
WangoTango
Nov 30, 2015, 6:17:49 PM11/30/15
to
In article <n3ahgi$qib$1...@dont-email.me>,
kick.jerry.sauks.fat.p...@everywhere.now says...
Yeah, and?
kick.jerry.sauks.fat.p...@everywhere.now says...
Groupkilla
Nov 30, 2015, 6:52:21 PM11/30/15
to
Sqwertz wrote:
> But you said you killfiled him so
> how would you know anyway?
>
> -sw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swe...@cluemail.compost
<i6x4dy0h0232$.d...@sqwertz.com>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com
Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.
-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> But you said you killfiled him so
> how would you know anyway?
>
> -sw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swe...@cluemail.compost
<i6x4dy0h0232$.d...@sqwertz.com>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com
Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.
-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Schacher
Dec 1, 2015, 6:50:15 AM12/1/15
to
"WangoTango" wrote in message
news:MPG.30c6a3247...@news.east.earthlink.net...
Well, jerry did say (in his last drunken stupor) that ownership of property
has nothing to do with it.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 6, 2015, 3:16:31 PM12/6/15
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on property
>>that isn't owned by the public???!
>
> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Dave Taylor
Dec 6, 2015, 4:43:45 PM12/6/15
to
property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is private
property - not in rational dispute.
Zimmerman
Dec 6, 2015, 5:08:42 PM12/6/15
to
Just Wondering wrote :
I have legal authority to shoot trespassers on my private property, so if a
faggot called Buzz Forward walked into my restaurant, it will be my decision
to shoot him or not. If they're an outlaw biker or an Oath Keeper they could
die slowly and painfully. I decide their rights on my property.
faggot called Buzz Forward walked into my restaurant, it will be my decision
to shoot him or not. If they're an outlaw biker or an Oath Keeper they could
die slowly and painfully. I decide their rights on my property.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 6, 2015, 10:56:26 PM12/6/15
to
"Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
people into the store's???!!! That's COMPLETELY insane.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
Dec 6, 2015, 11:11:17 PM12/6/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:646dnQeQTNL0nvjL...@supernews.com:
> COMPLETELY insane.
Nah, you're just willfully st00pid.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Is it true you are some gay stalker freak like Pete said?" - Edmo
employs the Kook Info Nutworks to get the facts wrong again.
news:646dnQeQTNL0nvjL...@supernews.com:
> COMPLETELY insane.
Nah, you're just willfully st00pid.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Is it true you are some gay stalker freak like Pete said?" - Edmo
employs the Kook Info Nutworks to get the facts wrong again.
Mel Schacher
Dec 6, 2015, 11:29:27 PM12/6/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
That's how a private enterprise, on private property, conducts business!
They advertise TO the public, and allow them to, well, conduct business on
their private property.
The Government does NOT own it, or pay taxes on private property.
In fact, the Government does not pay ANY taxes on any property.
Only private property owner pay property taxes.
When you were born, HOW many times did the doctors and your custodians drop
you on the head?
Mel Schacher
Dec 6, 2015, 11:44:52 PM12/6/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
They invented the word "Obtuse"; just for you, as they saw you coming a mile
away!
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Obtuse
Mel Schacher
Dec 7, 2015, 12:03:33 AM12/7/15
to
"Zimmerman" wrote in message news:n42bla$q9f$1...@news.albasani.net...
Just Wondering wrote :
> On 11/28/2015 1:38 AM, Usenet Support Personnel wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>
>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>
>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>
>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>> its original proponent.
>>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U2zJOryHKQ
I have legal authority to shoot trespassers on my private property,
If you can legally own a firearm,(or have a concealed carry permit) you have
the the right to shoot Jerry Sauk in the face on ANY Property, public or
private, if he poses a threat.
Please! Find a legitimate excuse! :)
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 7, 2015, 7:39:00 AM12/7/15
to
when you have a garage sale, you give permission for the public to
come into your driveway to see all those books you obviously have
never read.
>BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Wrong. See below.
=====================================
*** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
=====================================
Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
=====================================
*** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
=====================================
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 7, 2015, 7:39:55 AM12/7/15
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 21:53:03 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is private
>> property - not in rational dispute.
>
>But if it was PRIVATE property, then how exaclty are trhe owner's letting
>people into the store's???!!! That's COMPLETELY insane.
>
Jerry says it's insane to let people into a store.
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is private
>> property - not in rational dispute.
>
>But if it was PRIVATE property, then how exaclty are trhe owner's letting
>people into the store's???!!! That's COMPLETELY insane.
>
ROFLMAO
No WONDER you keep getting fired, Jerry!
LOL
Mel Schacher
Dec 7, 2015, 10:28:23 AM12/7/15
to
"Dave Taylor" wrote in message news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
Jerry thinks that the bedroom in his mom's trailer,that sits on private
property, (Where she 'entertains' the public as a cum dumpster,) is an on
and off switch!
Only private property when she is asleep and/or not willing.
Government owned, "PUBLIC PROPERTY " when Jerry opens the door (and his
Mom's legs) to the public!
"That's gonna cost you a full 20 piece Bucket, Mr!" <--- Jerry
Dave Taylor
Dec 7, 2015, 11:45:09 AM12/7/15
to
On 12/6/2015 7:53 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>> property
>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>
>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>
>>>
>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>
>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>
>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is private
>> property - not in rational dispute.
>
> But if it was PRIVATE property,
Not "if". It *IS* private property. The business is privately owned,
> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>> property
>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>
>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>
>>>
>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>
>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>
>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is private
>> property - not in rational dispute.
>
> But if it was PRIVATE property,
and it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
> then how exaclty are trhe owner's letting
> people into the store's???!!!
private property.
Unknown
Dec 7, 2015, 12:29:56 PM12/7/15
to
Zimmerman <zimm...@zimmerman.net> wrote in
news:n42bla$q9f$1...@news.albasani.net:
Actually, no, you do not. You can decide wether or not they are
trespassers but that is not a capital crime.
--
Sleep well tonight.......
RD (The Sandman}
"It used to be you couldn't be gay. Now you can be
gay but you can't smoke! It's always something."
David Hockney in The Gaurdian (UK)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
news:n42bla$q9f$1...@news.albasani.net:
trespassers but that is not a capital crime.
--
Sleep well tonight.......
RD (The Sandman}
"It used to be you couldn't be gay. Now you can be
gay but you can't smoke! It's always something."
David Hockney in The Gaurdian (UK)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Unknown
Dec 7, 2015, 12:31:09 PM12/7/15
to
the way in.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
Dec 7, 2015, 12:43:39 PM12/7/15
to
"Mel Schacher" <Myste...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:GW79y.91$GV...@fx37.iad:
>
>
> "Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
> news:646dnQeQTNL0nvjL...@supernews.com...
<Snip>
> When you were born, HOW many times did the doctors and your custodians
> drop you on the head?
More than enough.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Right and wrong are subjective value judgments. Remove them from your
thinking." -Ed Wollmann, using the ethics of convenience.
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
news:GW79y.91$GV...@fx37.iad:
>
>
> "Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
> news:646dnQeQTNL0nvjL...@supernews.com...
> When you were born, HOW many times did the doctors and your custodians
> drop you on the head?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
thinking." -Ed Wollmann, using the ethics of convenience.
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
Dave Taylor
Dec 7, 2015, 1:39:22 PM12/7/15
to
On 12/7/2015 9:31 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> "Jerry Suck" wrote in
This clown Jerry Suck is an obvious troll.
> "Jerry Suck" wrote in
> news:646dnQeQTNL0nvjL...@supernews.com:
>
>>
>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>
>>
>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Suck wrote:
>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>> property
>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>
>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>
>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>> property, in order to transact business with them. But it is
>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>> property
>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>
>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>
>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>> private property - not in rational dispute.
>>
>> But if it was PRIVATE property, then how exaclty are trhe owner's
>> letting people into the store's???!!! That's COMPLETELY insane.
>
>
> They unlock the doors, open them and place a sign showing their hours on
> the way in.
Exactly.
>>
>> But if it was PRIVATE property, then how exaclty are trhe owner's
>> letting people into the store's???!!! That's COMPLETELY insane.
>
>
> They unlock the doors, open them and place a sign showing their hours on
> the way in.
This clown Jerry Suck is an obvious troll.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 7, 2015, 2:51:19 PM12/7/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:37:08 -0600, Swertz <sqw...@cluemail.compost>
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>> =====================================
>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>> =====================================
>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>> entity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>> =====================================
>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>> =====================================
>
>Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
>property and has refused to acknowledge them.
But are you sure Jerry can read? Or at least read better than he can
write? :)
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>> =====================================
>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>> =====================================
>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>> entity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>> =====================================
>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>> =====================================
>
>property and has refused to acknowledge them.
But are you sure Jerry can read? Or at least read better than he can
write? :)
Jerry Sauk
Dec 7, 2015, 4:09:07 PM12/7/15
to
"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
news:ykbirgf6cuty$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:00:10 -0600, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>
>> "Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
>> news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>>
>>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>>> its original proponent.
>>
>> Wrong. The original proponent was, Albert worschley. He hasn't posted
>> in
>> YEARS.
>
> Jerry the Vocabularist strikes again.
>
>> "Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
>> news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>>
>>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>>> its original proponent.
>>
>> Wrong. The original proponent was, Albert worschley. He hasn't posted
>> in
>> YEARS.
>
>
> The only proponent of this argument is you, Jerry.
WRONG!
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
As is PROVEN by the fact that MILLION'S of people are entering the store's
every day!!!!!
How many more time'sa around the merry-go-round are you going to take us,
Steve?
Jerry Sauk
Dec 7, 2015, 4:09:07 PM12/7/15
to
news:sjeo5b1r9kl4lp42b...@4ax.com...
The why haven't all store's one out of business due to the fact that no
customer's are able to trespass the property?
customer's are able to trespass the property?
Dave Taylor
Dec 7, 2015, 4:30:19 PM12/7/15
to
come onto the property - the *private* property, of course - to transact
business.
Everyone knows this.
Dave Taylor
Dec 7, 2015, 4:32:12 PM12/7/15
to
On 12/7/2015 12:55 PM, Jerry Suck wrote:
> "Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:ykbirgf6cuty$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
> "Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:ykbirgf6cuty$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:00:10 -0600, Jerry Suck wrote:
>>
>>> "Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
>>> news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>>>
>>>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>>>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>>>> its original proponent.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The original proponent was, Albert worschley. He hasn't posted
>>> in
>>> YEARS.
>>
>> Jerry the Vocabularist strikes again.
>>
>> The only proponent of this argument is you, Jerry.
>
> WRONG!
>
> WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
Nope. It's right. You are the only idiot in the world claiming that
>>
>>> "Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
>>> news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>>>
>>>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>>>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>>>> its original proponent.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The original proponent was, Albert worschley. He hasn't posted
>>> in
>>> YEARS.
>>
>> Jerry the Vocabularist strikes again.
>>
>> The only proponent of this argument is you, Jerry.
>
> WRONG!
>
> WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
because the public goes onto the privately owned land to transact
business with the privately owned firm, that it somehow is "public
property." It isn't public property. This has been proved to you
beyond all rational dispute. You are wrong, and the rest of the world
is right.
Sqwertz
Dec 7, 2015, 5:47:18 PM12/7/15
to
Swertz wrote:
> She learned a
> long time ago that her stupidity was her only asset. You all are
> being had by the most dimwitted troll to ever exist.
> She learned a
> long time ago that her stupidity was her only asset. You all are
> being had by the most dimwitted troll to ever exist.
Sqwertz
Dec 7, 2015, 5:48:05 PM12/7/15
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 7, 2015, 9:10:19 PM12/7/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 14:52:40 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
because you're too fucking stupid to understand what the word
"trespass" means?
That's my guess.
"trespass" means?
That's my guess.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 7, 2015, 9:10:47 PM12/7/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 14:55:56 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
>news:ykbirgf6cuty$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:00:10 -0600, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>
>>> "Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
>>> news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>>>
>>>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>>>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>>>> its original proponent.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The original proponent was, Albert worschley. He hasn't posted
>>> in
>>> YEARS.
>>
>> Jerry the Vocabularist strikes again.
>>
>> The only proponent of this argument is you, Jerry.
>
>WRONG!
>
>WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
Then show us someone else.
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
>news:ykbirgf6cuty$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:00:10 -0600, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>
>>> "Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
>>> news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>>>
>>>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>>>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>>>> its original proponent.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The original proponent was, Albert worschley. He hasn't posted
>>> in
>>> YEARS.
>>
>> Jerry the Vocabularist strikes again.
>>
>> The only proponent of this argument is you, Jerry.
>
>WRONG!
>
>WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
>As is PROVEN by the fact that MILLION'S of people are entering the store's
>every day!!!!!
Sqwertz
Dec 8, 2015, 12:56:42 PM12/8/15
to
Sqwertz wrote:
> Does
> that your sphincter public property?
> Does
> that your sphincter public property?
Jerry Sauk
Dec 12, 2015, 8:39:42 PM12/12/15
to
"Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
> On 12/6/2015 7:53 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>> property
>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>
>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>
>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is private
>>> property - not in rational dispute.
>>
>> But if it was PRIVATE property,
>
> Not "if". It *IS* private property. The business is privately owned, and
> it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
Oh? Are you really so insecure in your position that you can't handle it
>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>> property
>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>
>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>
>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is private
>>> property - not in rational dispute.
>>
>> But if it was PRIVATE property,
>
> Not "if". It *IS* private property. The business is privately owned, and
> it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
being reffered to as a "if"?
IF.... IF........... it was private property, then WHY is the owner's
allowing the public on teh property.
JUST ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION INSTEAD OF JUST SAY " NO IT'S PRIVATE
PROPERTY".
Jerry Sauk
Dec 12, 2015, 8:39:43 PM12/12/15
to
"Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
wrong as your admission that you were wrong.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 12, 2015, 8:39:43 PM12/12/15
to
"Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>
>> =====================================
>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>> =====================================
>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>> entity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>> =====================================
>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>> =====================================
>
>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>> =====================================
>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>> entity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>> =====================================
>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>> =====================================
>
> Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T APPLY
> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
TO TACO BELL BECOUSE TACO BELL ISN'T PRIVATE FUCKING
PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Jerry knows that restaurants are private property.
Steve, what your not able to understand is, certain area's of the restourant
are PRIVATE. such as, teh office, Kitchen, storage area's, etc anywear the
customer's aren't allowed to enter is PRIVATE property. But the PUBLIC
area's of the restrourant, are BY DEFINITION, PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 12, 2015, 8:42:02 PM12/12/15
to
"Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
all be on teh side-walks, SCRWEAMING thier order's into the window
But of course that doesn't happen... they actually ENTER the property. Why?
BECOUSE THEY KNOW IT'S PUBLIC.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 12, 2015, 8:43:15 PM12/12/15
to
Are you TRYING to get kill-filed, Steve??!?!
Dechucka
Dec 12, 2015, 8:49:23 PM12/12/15
to
> But of course that doesn't happen... they actually ENTER the property.
> Why?
> BECOUSE THEY KNOW IT'S PUBLIC.
Dechucka
Dec 12, 2015, 8:50:03 PM12/12/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WvSdnQWXl8TAUfHL...@supernews.com...
Dechucka
Dec 12, 2015, 8:50:29 PM12/12/15
to
news:WvSdnQGXl8TDUfHL...@supernews.com...
oh no it's not
Mel Schacher
Dec 13, 2015, 7:22:58 AM12/13/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
Are you TRYING to get kill-filed, Steve??!?!
Who cares who YOU want to ignore, you retard?
Mel Schacher
Dec 13, 2015, 7:26:45 AM12/13/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
Who owns public property, jerry?
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Av0YQQSXeDZDzdCeEOFjcPObvZx4?fr=yfp-t-901-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=will%20it%20go%20in%20circles
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 13, 2015, 7:44:44 AM12/13/15
to
>But of course that doesn't happen... they actually ENTER the property. Why?
>BECOUSE THEY KNOW IT'S PUBLIC.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 13, 2015, 7:46:19 AM12/13/15
to
fired from your fast food job.
>JUST ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION INSTEAD OF JUST SAY " NO IT'S PRIVATE
>PROPERTY".
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 13, 2015, 7:47:09 AM12/13/15
to
incredibly ignorant. That would be you, Jerry.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 13, 2015, 7:49:01 AM12/13/15
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:05 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
>news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>>> entity.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>
>> Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
>> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
>
>WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T APPLY
>TO TACO BELL BECOUSE TACO BELL ISN'T PRIVATE FUCKING
>PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course it is. IT is not owned by the public.
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
>news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>>> entity.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>
>> Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
>> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
>
>WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T APPLY
>TO TACO BELL BECOUSE TACO BELL ISN'T PRIVATE FUCKING
>PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Jerry knows that restaurants are private property.
>
>Steve, what your not able to understand is, certain area's of the restourant
>are PRIVATE.
property are private as well.
>such as, teh office, Kitchen, storage area's, etc anywear the
>customer's aren't allowed to enter is PRIVATE property.
> But the PUBLIC
>area's of the restrourant, are BY DEFINITION, PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Unknown
Dec 13, 2015, 1:22:06 PM12/13/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:WvSdnQWXl8TAUfHL...@supernews.com:
or a pair of shoes.
--
Sleep well tonight.......
RD (The Sandman}
"Inside every old person is a young person
wondering what the hell happened!"
Terry Pratchett in The Times/UK
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Unknown
Dec 13, 2015, 1:23:12 PM12/13/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:WvSdnQCXl8TDUfHL...@supernews.com:
proven that you are.
Sqwertz
Dec 13, 2015, 2:00:55 PM12/13/15
to
Sqwertz wrote:
> I suppose you're gonna
> tell me there's something called Altavista, too?
>
> -sw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swe...@cluemail.compost
<1qauy6zyozuo9$.d...@sqwertz.com>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
ab...@blocknews.net
She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.
-sw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And before that the subhuman virus stalked poor Omelet right of the net!
> The facebook group is much more pleasant.
Only because you cower there in mortal fear of being booted by the admins.
You're _done_ here virus, I mean really done.
> I suppose you're gonna
> tell me there's something called Altavista, too?
>
> -sw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swe...@cluemail.compost
<1qauy6zyozuo9$.d...@sqwertz.com>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
ab...@blocknews.net
She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.
-sw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And before that the subhuman virus stalked poor Omelet right of the net!
Only because you cower there in mortal fear of being booted by the admins.
You're _done_ here virus, I mean really done.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 13, 2015, 2:29:27 PM12/13/15
to
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA56F73D51...@216.166.97.131...
> I think it is that you won't admit being wrong. Several in here have
> proven that you are.
was post irrelevent law's, bogus "fact's" and name calling.
Also, every legitimate possible argument posted, I have proven to be wrong.
There is no question about it... even after 7 year's, nobody has come CLOSE
to proving it's private property.
Time now to move on to another topic.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 13, 2015, 2:30:53 PM12/13/15
to
"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:43:07 -0600, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>
>> Are you TRYING to get kill-filed, Steve??!?!
>
> That's my pet bitch poodle, Casa Boner, that you're responding to.
>
>> Are you TRYING to get kill-filed, Steve??!?!
>
I dunno Steve, the person who posted that had the same email that you have,
swe...@cluemail.compost!!
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 13, 2015, 4:14:16 PM12/13/15
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 13, 2015, 4:15:53 PM12/13/15
to
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 13:29:24 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:XnsA56F73D51...@216.166.97.131...
>
>
>> I think it is that you won't admit being wrong. Several in here have
>> proven that you are.
>
>
>Wrong. Multiple people THINK they have proven me wrong, but all they did
>was post irrelevent law's, bogus "fact's" and name calling.
The laws quoted were totally relevant. The facts posted have been
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:XnsA56F73D51...@216.166.97.131...
>
>
>> I think it is that you won't admit being wrong. Several in here have
>> proven that you are.
>
>
>Wrong. Multiple people THINK they have proven me wrong, but all they did
>was post irrelevent law's, bogus "fact's" and name calling.
unchallenged by you.
And yes. You are an idiot.
>Also, every legitimate possible argument posted, I have proven to be wrong.
>There is no question about it... even after 7 year's, nobody has come CLOSE
>to proving it's private property.
otherwise.
>Time now to move on to another topic.
Mel Schacher
Dec 13, 2015, 5:49:24 PM12/13/15
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:j0qq6bd5004hu1qtp...@4ax.com...
Just imagine Lil Jerry trying to use the Bathroom at "Pat's Streak House"!
LET ALONE get inside!
http://www.patskingofsteaks.com/
Mel Schacher
Dec 13, 2015, 5:58:22 PM12/13/15
to
"Sqwertz" wrote in message news:5zxuyowwfnnd$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:26:46 -0500, Mel Schacher wrote:
> Who owns public property, jerry?
>
> https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Av0YQQSXeDZDzdCeEOFjcPObvZx4?fr=yfp-t-901-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=will%20it%20go%20in%20circles
tell me there's something called Altavista, too?
####
Possibly.
I did a search on that, and it DID exist at one time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltaVista
You, however, still can't find your real Father, even with the best DNA
research.
From what I heard, you are the son of Jerry Sauk.
Robert
Dec 13, 2015, 8:25:36 PM12/13/15
to
"Sqwertz" wrote in message news:5zxuyowwfnnd$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:26:46 -0500, Mel Schacher wrote:
>
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:26:46 -0500, Mel Schacher wrote:
>
>> Who owns public property, jerry?
>>
>> https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Av0YQQSXeDZDzdCeEOFjcPObvZx4?fr=yfp-t-901-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=will%>20it%20go%20in%20circles
>
>>
>> https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Av0YQQSXeDZDzdCeEOFjcPObvZx4?fr=yfp-t-901-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=will%>20it%20go%20in%20circles
>
>Yahoo has a search engine? Huh. Who knew. I suppose you're gonna
>tell me there's something called Altavista, too?
>
BING o
>tell me there's something called Altavista, too?
>
Robert
Sqwertz
Dec 14, 2015, 12:08:18 PM12/14/15
to
Sqwertz wrote:
> Kinda reminds me of all these Usenet rubes standing on the sidewalk.
>
> -sw
> Kinda reminds me of all these Usenet rubes standing on the sidewalk.
>
> -sw
Sqwertz
Dec 14, 2015, 12:08:46 PM12/14/15
to
Sqwertz wrote:
> I suppose you're gonna
> tell me there's something called Altavista, too?
>
> I suppose you're gonna
> tell me there's something called Altavista, too?
>
Sqwertz
Dec 14, 2015, 12:09:06 PM12/14/15
to
Sqwertz wrote:
> That's my pet bitch poodle,
> That's my pet bitch poodle,
Sqwertz
Dec 14, 2015, 12:09:50 PM12/14/15
to
Sqwertz wrote:
> TFM and I gang-banged your mother and made Jessie and
> Jacob.
>
> -sw
BURN IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!
> TFM and I gang-banged your mother and made Jessie and
> Jacob.
>
> -sw
BURN IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sqwertz
Dec 14, 2015, 12:10:18 PM12/14/15
to
Sqwertz wrote:
> Kinda reminds me of all these Usenet rubes standing on the sidewalk.
>
> -sw
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
> Kinda reminds me of all these Usenet rubes standing on the sidewalk.
>
> -sw
Charlie Simmer
Dec 15, 2015, 1:44:20 AM12/15/15
to
On 12/12/2015 5:26 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
> news:n44cu0$ckh$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>> On 12/6/2015 7:53 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>>
>>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>>
>>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is private
>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>>
>>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>>
>>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>>> property - not in rational dispute.
>>>
>>> But if it was PRIVATE property,
>>
>>>
>>> But if it was PRIVATE property,
>>
>> Not "if". It *IS* private property. The business is privately owned, and
>> it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
>
>
> Oh? Are you really so insecure in your position that you can't handle it
> being reffered to as a "if"?
>
> IF.... IF........... it was private property,
No, Jerry Suck. Not "if" - it *IS* private property, proved beyond
>> it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
>
>
> Oh? Are you really so insecure in your position that you can't handle it
> being reffered to as a "if"?
>
> IF.... IF........... it was private property,
rational dispute.
> then WHY is the owner's allowing the public on teh property.
You really suck at this, Jerry Suck.
Charlie Simmer
Dec 15, 2015, 1:49:33 AM12/15/15
to
On 12/12/2015 5:34 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> "Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>>> entity.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>
>> Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
>> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
>
> WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T APPLY
> TO TACO BELL BECOUSE
It's spelled "because", Jerry Suck.
> "Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>>> entity.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>
>> Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
>> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
>
> WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T APPLY
> TO TACO BELL BECOUSE
They *DO* apply to Taco Bell, Jerry Suck, you stupid HIV+ troll. Taco
Bell is private property, Jerry Suck, because it's privately owned.
How many people have you infected with HIV, Jerry Suck?
Charlie Simmer
Dec 15, 2015, 1:50:16 AM12/15/15
to
On 12/12/2015 5:35 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
> news:n44jk6$9lq$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 12/7/2015 9:31 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> "Jerry Suck" wrote in
>>> news:646dnQeQTNL0nvjL...@supernews.com:
>>>
>>>>
>> On 12/7/2015 9:31 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> "Jerry Suck" wrote in
>>> news:646dnQeQTNL0nvjL...@supernews.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Suck wrote:
>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>>>> property, in order to transact business with them. But it is
>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>>>> private property - not in rational dispute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if it was PRIVATE property, then how exaclty are trhe owner's
>>>> letting people into the store's???!!! That's COMPLETELY insane.
>>>
>>>
>>> They unlock the doors, open them and place a sign showing their hours on
>>> the way in.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> This clown Jerry Suck is an obvious troll.
>
> I'll take that expression of your frustration
No frustration, Jerry Suck. You're wrong and we're right. You're the
>>>> letting people into the store's???!!! That's COMPLETELY insane.
>>>
>>>
>>> They unlock the doors, open them and place a sign showing their hours on
>>> the way in.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> This clown Jerry Suck is an obvious troll.
>
> I'll take that expression of your frustration
one who's frustrated, Jerry Suck. You've admitted it, dozens of times.
Charlie Simmer
Dec 15, 2015, 1:54:38 AM12/15/15
to
On 12/12/2015 5:41 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
> the NOBODY
*YOU* are "the nobody", Jerry Suck.
> would be entering the restourant's.
shit-4-braincell HIV+ fuckwit.
Members of the public - who are private persons, of course - do enter
the restaurants, Jerry Suck, because the owners - that is, the owners of
the private property - let them in in order to do business with them.
You're stupid, Jerry Suck.
Charlie Simmer
Dec 15, 2015, 1:55:19 AM12/15/15
to
On 12/12/2015 5:43 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> Are you TRYING to get kill-filed, Steve??!?!
No one cares if you kill-file anyone, Jerry Suck.
> Are you TRYING to get kill-filed, Steve??!?!
Charlie Simmer
Dec 15, 2015, 1:56:54 AM12/15/15
to
On 12/13/2015 11:29 AM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA56F73D51...@216.166.97.131...
>
>
>> I think it is that you won't admit being wrong. Several in here have
>> proven that you are.
>
>
> Wrong.
No, *RIGHT*, Jerry Suck. You're wrong, and it has been proved beyond
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA56F73D51...@216.166.97.131...
>
>
>> I think it is that you won't admit being wrong. Several in here have
>> proven that you are.
>
>
> Wrong.
rational dispute.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 19, 2015, 7:17:13 PM12/19/15
to
news:d0fc6b92n8vugc1bq...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>As is PROVEN by the fact that MILLION'S of people are entering the store's
>>every day!!!!!
>
> That's not proof.
Oh yes it is, klous. Anybody who is fucking BLIND can see the people
entering the stores!!!!!!!
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 14:55:56 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
>>news:ykbirgf6cuty$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
> <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
>>news:ykbirgf6cuty$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:00:10 -0600, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>>>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>>>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>>>>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>>>>> its original proponent.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The original proponent was, Albert worschley. He hasn't posted
>>>> in
>>>> YEARS.
>>>
>>> Jerry the Vocabularist strikes again.
>>>
>>> The only proponent of this argument is you, Jerry.
>>
>>WRONG!
>>
>>WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
>
> Then show us someone else.
>>>
>>>> "Usenet Support Personnel" <u...@gov.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:LKd6y.199664$eE.1...@fx07.iad...
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:23:45 -0800, Buzz Forward wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is settled; it is not in dispute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that the business is "open to the public" does not make it
>>>>>> public property. The status of property as public or private depends
>>>>>> *only* on the ownership of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has to be the longest running troll in the history of Usenet.
>>>>> This 'discussion' started in 2008 and is still effectively fueled by
>>>>> its original proponent.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The original proponent was, Albert worschley. He hasn't posted
>>>> in
>>>> YEARS.
>>>
>>> Jerry the Vocabularist strikes again.
>>>
>>> The only proponent of this argument is you, Jerry.
>>
>>WRONG!
>>
>>WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
>
>
>
>>As is PROVEN by the fact that MILLION'S of people are entering the store's
>>every day!!!!!
>
> That's not proof.
Oh yes it is, klous. Anybody who is fucking BLIND can see the people
entering the stores!!!!!!!
Jerry Sauk
Dec 19, 2015, 7:17:14 PM12/19/15
to
news:7vec6bp0vs8fmfb5d...@4ax.com...
\
>>The why haven't all store's one out of business due to the fact that no
>>customer's are able to trespass the property?
>
> because you're too fucking stupid to understand what the word
> "trespass" means?
>
> That's my guess.
I already posted the definition of Tresspass, Moron.
\
>>The why haven't all store's one out of business due to the fact that no
>>customer's are able to trespass the property?
>
> because you're too fucking stupid to understand what the word
> "trespass" means?
>
> That's my guess.
I already posted the definition of Tresspass, Moron.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 19, 2015, 7:17:15 PM12/19/15
to
"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eNidncWhXptXU_HL...@westnet.com.au...
>
> "Jerry Sauk" <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:WvSdnQWXl8TAUfHL...@supernews.com...
>>
>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>> news:n44cu0$ckh$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>> On 12/6/2015 7:53 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>>>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>>>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>>>> private
>>>>> property - not in rational dispute.
>>>>
>>>> But if it was PRIVATE property,
>>>
>>>>> property - not in rational dispute.
>>>>
>>>> But if it was PRIVATE property,
>>>
>>> Not "if". It *IS* private property. The business is privately owned,
>>> and it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
>>
>>
>> Oh? Are you really so insecure in your position that you can't handle it
>> being reffered to as a "if"?
>>
>> IF.... IF........... it was private property, then WHY is the owner's
>>> and it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
>>
>>
>> Oh? Are you really so insecure in your position that you can't handle it
>> being reffered to as a "if"?
>>
>> allowing the public on teh property.
>
> to sell stuff to them?
>
Wrong. If the property was PRIVATE, then they wouldn't be allowing public
on teh property to sell them stuff.
Jerry Sauk
Dec 19, 2015, 7:17:15 PM12/19/15
to
news:aa-dnd8LXp55U_HL...@westnet.com.au...
Yes it does. "public area", notice the use of the word PUBLIC, Therefore,
BY DEFINITION OSF "PUBLIC AREA", IS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>> Steve, what your not able to understand is, certain area's of the
>> restourant are PRIVATE. such as, teh office, Kitchen, storage area's,
>> etc anywear the customer's aren't allowed to enter is PRIVATE property.
>> But the PUBLIC area's of the restrourant, are BY DEFINITION, PUBLIC
>> PROPERTY.
>
> oh no it's not
>> PROPERTY.
>
Yes it does. "public area", notice the use of the word PUBLIC, Therefore,
BY DEFINITION OSF "PUBLIC AREA", IS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 19, 2015, 8:23:41 PM12/19/15
to
You posted a fabricated lie.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 19, 2015, 8:24:06 PM12/19/15
to
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 21:29:56 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
No. It's not.
> Anybody who is fucking BLIND can see the people
>entering the stores!!!!!!!
What's odd about that?
> Anybody who is fucking BLIND can see the people
>entering the stores!!!!!!!
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 19, 2015, 8:24:28 PM12/19/15
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 19, 2015, 8:24:54 PM12/19/15
to
Mel Schacher
Dec 20, 2015, 9:32:19 AM12/20/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
news:2Mydne-32dMUbujL...@supernews.com...
If your mother wanted privacy, why did she constantly allow the public to
enter her vagina repeatedly for the price of a soft shell taco and a gram of
meth?
And your father's name is what?
Mel Schacher
Dec 20, 2015, 9:38:19 AM12/20/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
Blind people can see people doing stuff?
Only according to Jerry! :)
Hence the joke...
Jerry walks into a bar.
Boink!
Jerry Sauk
Dec 22, 2015, 6:09:58 PM12/22/15
to
news:j0qq6bd5004hu1qtp...@4ax.com...
>>If that was true, the NOBODY would be entering the restourant's. They
>>would
>>all be on teh side-walks, SCRWEAMING thier order's into the window
>
> That's why restaurants allow the public onto their private property.
Well then as soon as they decide to allow the public on the property, then
we're not talking about PRIVATE property any longer!!!
>>If that was true, the NOBODY would be entering the restourant's. They
>>would
>>all be on teh side-walks, SCRWEAMING thier order's into the window
>
> That's why restaurants allow the public onto their private property.
we're not talking about PRIVATE property any longer!!!
Jerry Sauk
Dec 22, 2015, 6:13:32 PM12/22/15
to
news:ctnr6b1hf0ku297l3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Wrong. Multiple people THINK they have proven me wrong, but all they did
>>was post irrelevent law's, bogus "fact's" and name calling.
>
> The laws quoted were totally relevant.
NO they weren't. They refferd to PRIVATE property, which has nothing to
do witht eh topic of FAST-FOOD store's, which is public property.
>The facts posted have been unchallenged by you.
Of Course tehy haven't been challenged, THEY'VEW BEEN DISMISSED SINCE THEIR
SO MORONIC AND OFF THE TOPIC.
WHHHEEEEEEE!! I sure like going around in all these fun circles, Klous
<NOT>
>>
>>Wrong. Multiple people THINK they have proven me wrong, but all they did
>>was post irrelevent law's, bogus "fact's" and name calling.
>
> The laws quoted were totally relevant.
NO they weren't. They refferd to PRIVATE property, which has nothing to
do witht eh topic of FAST-FOOD store's, which is public property.
>The facts posted have been unchallenged by you.
Of Course tehy haven't been challenged, THEY'VEW BEEN DISMISSED SINCE THEIR
SO MORONIC AND OFF THE TOPIC.
WHHHEEEEEEE!! I sure like going around in all these fun circles, Klous
<NOT>
Jerry Sauk
Dec 22, 2015, 6:13:32 PM12/22/15
to
news:p2qq6btvca83psumm...@4ax.com...
> fired from your fast food job.
WRONG, if it was PRIVATE property, then the owenr's wouldn't be allowing
people to enter. AND THERFORE THEY WOULDN'T BE CONUCTING ANY BUSINESS AT
ALL!!!
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:26:14 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>news:n44cu0$ckh$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 12/6/2015 7:53 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>news:n44cu0$ckh$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 12/6/2015 7:53 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>> "Dave Taylor" <triple....@lakings.con> wrote in message
>>>> news:n42a1t$d7n$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 12/6/2015 12:12 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cspl5b5qvck4e6lna...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>>>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is
>>>>> private
>>>>> property - not in rational dispute.
>>>>
>>>> But if it was PRIVATE property,
>>>
>>> Not "if". It *IS* private property. The business is privately owned,
>>> and
>>> it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
>>
>>
>>Oh? Are you really so insecure in your position that you can't handle it
>>being reffered to as a "if"?
>>
>>IF.... IF........... it was private property, then WHY is the owner's
>>allowing the public on teh property.
>
> Because that's how business is conducted. It's no surprise you were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then perhaps you'd care to explain why teh public ALWAYS goes on
>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>> that isn't owned by the public???!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they have permission. See how easy that is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And WHY do they have permission Klous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BECOUSE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Because the private property owners *LET* the public onto the
>>>>> property, in order to do transact business with them. But it is
>>>>> private
>>>>> property - not in rational dispute.
>>>>
>>>> But if it was PRIVATE property,
>>>
>>> Not "if". It *IS* private property. The business is privately owned,
>>> and
>>> it operates on privately owned real estate. It is private property.
>>
>>
>>Oh? Are you really so insecure in your position that you can't handle it
>>being reffered to as a "if"?
>>
>>IF.... IF........... it was private property, then WHY is the owner's
>>allowing the public on teh property.
>
> fired from your fast food job.
WRONG, if it was PRIVATE property, then the owenr's wouldn't be allowing
people to enter. AND THERFORE THEY WOULDN'T BE CONUCTING ANY BUSINESS AT
ALL!!!
Jerry Sauk
Dec 22, 2015, 6:13:32 PM12/22/15
to
news:j6qq6bpv17ep3jj2o...@4ax.com...
>>PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Of course it is. IT is not owned by the public.
>
>
>>> Jerry knows that restaurants are private property.
> property are private as well.
I just did. and I repeat:
PUBLIC area's of the restourant!!!
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 19:34:05 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
> <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
>>news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
> <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
>>news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>> =====================================
>>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>>> =====================================
>>>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>>>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>>>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>>>> entity.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>>>> =====================================
>>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>>> =====================================
>>>
>>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>>> =====================================
>>>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>>>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>>>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>>>> entity.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>>>> =====================================
>>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>>> =====================================
>>>
>>> Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
>>> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
>>
>>WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T
>>APPLY
>>TO TACO BELL BECOUSE TACO BELL ISN'T PRIVATE FUCKING
>>> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
>>
>>WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T
>>APPLY
>>PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Of course it is. IT is not owned by the public.
>
>
>>> Jerry knows that restaurants are private property.
>>
>>Steve, what your not able to understand is, certain area's of the
>>restourant
>>are PRIVATE.
>
> That has nothing to do with who owns them. Certain areas of public
>>Steve, what your not able to understand is, certain area's of the
>>restourant
>>are PRIVATE.
>
> property are private as well.
>
>>such as, teh office, Kitchen, storage area's, etc anywear the
>>customer's aren't allowed to enter is PRIVATE property.
>
> Wrong.
>>such as, teh office, Kitchen, storage area's, etc anywear the
>>customer's aren't allowed to enter is PRIVATE property.
>
>
>> But the PUBLIC
>>area's of the restrourant, are BY DEFINITION, PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>
> Then go ahead and cite the definition. You won't. Because you can't.
>> But the PUBLIC
>>area's of the restrourant, are BY DEFINITION, PUBLIC PROPERTY.
>
I just did. and I repeat:
PUBLIC area's of the restourant!!!
Rudy Canoza
Dec 22, 2015, 8:10:16 PM12/22/15
to
On 12/12/2015 5:34 PM, Jerry Sauk wrote:
> "Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>>> entity.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>
>> Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
>> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
>
> WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T APPLY
> TO TACO BELL BECOUSE TACO BELL ISN'T PRIVATE FUCKING
> PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> "Swertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:6yxotdna...@sqwertz.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:38:54 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>> Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
>>> by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
>>> distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
>>> entity.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
>>> =====================================
>>> *** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
>>> =====================================
>>
>> Jerry has seen all the legal definitions of private vs. public
>> property and has refused to acknowledge them.
>
> WRONG steve, I acknowledge them COMPLETELY, the propblem is THEY DON'T APPLY
> TO TACO BELL BECOUSE TACO BELL ISN'T PRIVATE FUCKING
> PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>> Jerry knows that restaurants are private property.
>
> Steve, what your not able to understand is, certain area's of the restourant
> are PRIVATE. such as, teh office, Kitchen, storage area's, etc anywear the
>
> Steve, what your not able to understand is, certain area's of the restourant
> customer's aren't allowed to enter is PRIVATE property. But the PUBLIC
> area's of the restrourant, are BY DEFINITION, PUBLIC PROPERTY.
False. You can't cite a source for this <chortle> "definition", Jerry
Suck. You made it up. It's wrong.
Private ownership ==> private property. It's that simple, Jerry Suck.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 22, 2015, 8:23:54 PM12/22/15
to
across this Great Land of Ours.
Restaurants, for example.
BEHOLD!
=====================================
*** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
=====================================
Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
=====================================
*** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
=====================================
to be incorrect?
Of COURSE you haven't.
Perhaps if you visited your PUBLIC library?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 22, 2015, 8:25:11 PM12/22/15
to
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:05:32 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
I thought you spent so much time in retail? Were you lying?
Because if owners didn't allow people to come into their private
property, they would go out of business.
Is this part of why you got fired?
>AND THERFORE THEY WOULDN'T BE CONUCTING ANY BUSINESS AT
>ALL!!!
Which is why they allow people onto private property. Simple, really.
Because if owners didn't allow people to come into their private
property, they would go out of business.
Is this part of why you got fired?
>AND THERFORE THEY WOULDN'T BE CONUCTING ANY BUSINESS AT
>ALL!!!
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 22, 2015, 8:27:06 PM12/22/15
to
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:09:17 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>news:ctnr6b1hf0ku297l3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>
>>>Wrong. Multiple people THINK they have proven me wrong, but all they did
>>>was post irrelevent law's, bogus "fact's" and name calling.
>>
>> The laws quoted were totally relevant.
>
> NO they weren't.
Yes. They were.
<jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>news:ctnr6b1hf0ku297l3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>
>>>Wrong. Multiple people THINK they have proven me wrong, but all they did
>>>was post irrelevent law's, bogus "fact's" and name calling.
>>
>> The laws quoted were totally relevant.
>
> NO they weren't.
>They refferd to PRIVATE property, which has nothing to
>do witht eh topic of FAST-FOOD store's, which is public property.
=====================================
*** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
=====================================
Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property
by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is
distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state
entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
=====================================
*** IRREFUTABLE FACT ***
=====================================
>>The facts posted have been unchallenged by you.
>
>Of Course tehy haven't been challenged,
That's because you cannot challenge them. You are in the wrong.
>
>Of Course tehy haven't been challenged,
>THEY'VEW BEEN DISMISSED SINCE THEIR
>SO MORONIC AND OFF THE TOPIC.
>WHHHEEEEEEE!! I sure like going around in all these fun circles, Klous
><NOT>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Dec 22, 2015, 8:27:32 PM12/22/15
to
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:06:21 -0600, "Jerry Sauk"
That is just you babbling. That is not a citation.
Try again.
Try again.
Mel Schacher
Dec 22, 2015, 10:09:48 PM12/22/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
Explains you being so dizzy.
Mel Schacher
Dec 22, 2015, 10:11:44 PM12/22/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
The public can be allowed on Private Property, if allowed, you retard.
Mel Schacher
Dec 22, 2015, 10:14:54 PM12/22/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
Private property owners can allow the public on their land all the time, you
retard.
Just ask anybody that owns it.. TacoBell for instance
Mel Schacher
Dec 22, 2015, 10:17:34 PM12/22/15
to
"Jerry Sauk" wrote in message
The private home owner can allow the public to view a home that is for sale,
OR have a garage/yard sale.
You retard!
Sauk-rates
Dec 23, 2015, 2:16:17 AM12/23/15
to
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:23:50 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
If you Gun Owners are so gullible to believe that somebody doesn't
know the difference between private vs. public property then you have
no sense owning arms in the first place. You are a disgrace. You
should be scooping gruel into your mouths using your feet.
I bet 85% you senseless motherfuckers here don't even own guns.
You're just here to wiggle the pus drip off your little yeast-infected
dicks along with he the rest of the gun nuts.
Stop being taken for fools and littering the USseNET groups.
You're the reason sensible people wonder wether we need guns.
If you Gun Owners are so gullible to believe that somebody doesn't
know the difference between private vs. public property then you have
no sense owning arms in the first place. You are a disgrace. You
should be scooping gruel into your mouths using your feet.
I bet 85% you senseless motherfuckers here don't even own guns.
You're just here to wiggle the pus drip off your little yeast-infected
dicks along with he the rest of the gun nuts.
Stop being taken for fools and littering the USseNET groups.
You're the reason sensible people wonder wether we need guns.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages