Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tdehi wrote

Reply to comment by OldKingsHigh in Worcester Walmart violated MA law after homeless camp clearing by HRJafael

Because you referred to the person who made the assertion as ‘I’.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3te6r1 wrote

Crazy thought, ever considered that I was referring to myself as I?

As in, reminding you that I wasn’t the one who suggested they live in your house.

>I didn’t suggest they live inside your home.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tfvms wrote

You replied to me about my reply to your other account. The whole context was them living in my house.

That was what you challenged me on with your question about my security vs Walmarts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/108h6qb/worcester_walmart_violated_ma_law_after_homeless/j3stp30/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3tm125 wrote

No I didn’t.

I quoted part of your comment and asked you a follow up question related to that quoted piece. In my response I directly stated “on your property” not anything to do with in your house. See my original response to you,

> I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

>Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing a group to live on your property, but Walmart would not? Walmart is absolutely at risk if people are living on their property, and they continue to allow them to do so.

I have never suggested they live in your house, nor have I suggested that is equivalent. I simply asked why you cared about your liability while ignoring the liability on the Walmart property.

I still have no idea why you think the person you keep linking is me, is your tin foil hat too tight? Or is it just easier to blame that instead of addressing what I said?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tmlp0 wrote

My response, which you quoted, was in the context of them living in my house. That was clear from the exchange.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3toqs6 wrote

Yes, and? Are we not allowed to deviate from what you and the other commenters were discussing? The conversation can’t flow from that topic?

You were clearly not caring about anyone else’s security or liability other than your own, so I addressed that with a better example.

My response, which I quoted, was in the context of them living on your property. That was clear from the response.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tpokq wrote

The questions you asked me were within the established context. I never said that homeless people should not sleep in my yard.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3tqsng wrote

And that context can never change? u/LetMeSleepNoEleven declares the context parameters for all future comments? No one can post to a public forum under you if they don’t follow your rules? Of course not.

I know you never said they shouldn’t sleep in your yard, which is why I specifically mentioned “on your property” to make that abundantly clear, which you also had an issue with.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tspro wrote

It could change but it had not.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3tv4hf wrote

Too busy trying to convince me I’m actually two people to read my comment and see the change?

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tvdsf wrote

It did not change. I said what I said, which you quoted, and it had nothing to do with people being in my yard. If you missed that context, it’s on you.

If you wanted to change the topic, you should not have quoted me from the existing topic.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3ty6y1 wrote

It did change. I said what I said, and it had nothing to do with people being in my your house. I then clarified that no less than three times. If you missed that context, it’s on you.

0