- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BASS Makes Louisiana "Off Limits"
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:15 pm to Cowboyfan89
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:15 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:Isn't that what debate is about?
Just because you don't think it's relevant, doesn't mean it isn't.
quote:I can't hep it if you continue to post about things not relevant to the discussion. I also can't stop you from posting shite like:
What I do know is that when you can't debate someone, you just say they are off-topic and call them "twits".
quote:and acting like a twit.
I thought you knew this topic?
If you want me to leave and have this board be an echo chamber of like minded ideas all of which are counter to current law, fine.
3
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:27 pm to AlxTgr
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:34 pm to PolyPusher86
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:42 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
I can't hep it if you continue to post about things not relevant to the discussion
And there it is again. Why don't you explain to the entire board why what I've said is irrelevant to the topic? And not because of some dumbass excuse that "it is hypothetical", or "it hasn't been used in our courts".
You know what, nevermind. You have no interest in actually discussing this. You've made that apparent since I began posting on this subject. All you want to do is name call, and downplay any opinion that doesn't match yours. You haven't added anything of relevance to this topic, yet continue to call out anything I post as irrelevant.
You would seriously be more at home on the OT.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:42 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
you continue to post about things not relevant to the discussion.
What would this board be without tangents/discussions, especially a topic like this with so many moving parts. You do the same at times, although briefly.
quote:
you want me to leave and have this board be an echo chamber of like minded ideas
Heck no! You are entraining at times and informative at times.
quote:
all of which are counter to current law, fine.
There in lies the rub with some, you try your hardest to frame the discussion about the current law and the current law only. See previous comments about tangets. Have you offered up a single compromise/solution in any of your comments? Not meant to be a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested to know if you have thoughts on it.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:44 pm to Dock Holiday
quote:
you try your hardest to frame the discussion about the current law and the current law only. See previous comments about tangets. Have you offered up a single compromise/solution in any of your comments? Not meant to be a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested to know if you have thoughts on it.
Which is why everything I have said is "irrelevant".
He is in favor of the law, and anything else is "irrelevant".
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:54 pm to Dock Holiday
quote:Those in this thread have been particularly useless.
What would this board be without tangents/discussions, especially a topic like this with so many moving parts. You do the same at times, although briefly.
quote:Cowboy twit could learn a lot from you.
Heck no! You are entraining at times and informative at times.
quote:Sorta, but not really. I have in fact offered some partial solutions. The problem is, you cannot discuss those without also discussing the ramifications. That brings us back to that which you do not want to touch.
There in lies the rub with some, you try your hardest to frame the discussion about the current law and the current law only. See previous comments about tangets. Have you offered up a single compromise/solution in any of your comments?
My thoughts are that coastal areas cannot be treated the same as non-coastal. The lands/waters are just too different. I think that is land becomes the Gulf, then it's the Gulf. At the very least, there should be a reduction in tax liability for the former owner.
Man-made canals? I don't see a reason to change existing law.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 1:57 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:You are deranged
You know what, nevermind. You have no interest in actually discussing this. You've made that apparent since I began posting on this subject. All you want to do is name call, and downplay any opinion that doesn't match yours. You haven't added anything of relevance to this topic, yet continue to call out anything I post as irrelevant.
You would seriously be more at home on the OT.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:12 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Sorta, but not really. I have in fact offered some partial solutions
Oh, I'd be curious to see where that was, because it sure as hell wasn't in this thread.
This post was edited on 8/15/17 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:16 pm to Cowboyfan89
Here's a solution: stop wanting to trespass!
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:21 pm to AlxTgr
That's about what I expected.
And I don't want to trespass. Not sure what it is you don't understand about that.
And I don't want to trespass. Not sure what it is you don't understand about that.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:23 pm to Cowboyfan89
I've given up trying to have a serious discussion with you. You refuse to do it. Good day sir.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:25 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
stop wanting to trespass!
I assume you know, but for clarity, the desire is the exact opposite. To fish as I have in other states without wondering if I am trespassing.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:30 pm to Dock Holiday
Meh, I was just messing with that douchesnozzle.
I've mentioned in every thread on this that the change in the law re: signage is a terrible thing.
I've mentioned in every thread on this that the change in the law re: signage is a terrible thing.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:30 pm to AlxTgr
Dude, stfu. You've been avoiding any conversation with me this entire time. Always posting "it doesn't apply here" or "hasn't been used in our courts", or "has nothing to do with this".
I'm sick of it. You just don't want to address a single damn thing said, because it's all about someone wanting to "take land" away from a landowner.
Nothing but a useless troll.
I'm sick of it. You just don't want to address a single damn thing said, because it's all about someone wanting to "take land" away from a landowner.
Nothing but a useless troll.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:32 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:Because it's true
Always posting "it doesn't apply here" or "hasn't been used in our courts", or "has nothing to do with this".
quote:Pretty much. Again, I can't help that.
You just don't want to address a single damn thing said, because it's all about someone wanting to "take land" away from a landowner.
quote:Yet another topic you know nothing about.
Nothing but a useless troll.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:35 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Because it's true
I posted about 2 court cases where navigable was used to argue the status of a water.
Quit being an idiot and ignoring facts.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:37 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:I replied. You don't understand the legal concepst. Again, not my fault. If something is not navigable, is anyone here wanting to fish it? No.
I posted about 2 court cases where navigable was used to argue the status of a water.
Posted on 8/15/17 at 2:42 pm to AlxTgr
It's the navigable waters people want on. No one argued that someone wants access to waters that are not navigable.
You said the concept of "navigable" has no context in public vs private water. That case, that court, ruled otherwise. They specifically used the fact that it was not navigable to say it was private. Just like the othet case used the fact that the waterway was navigable to say it was public and that the defendant could not just build a bridge over it without going through proper channels.
Seems you, AGAIN, are the one that doesn't understand.
You said the concept of "navigable" has no context in public vs private water. That case, that court, ruled otherwise. They specifically used the fact that it was not navigable to say it was private. Just like the othet case used the fact that the waterway was navigable to say it was public and that the defendant could not just build a bridge over it without going through proper channels.
Seems you, AGAIN, are the one that doesn't understand.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News