Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
I missed the part in the Constitution where it guaranteed my right to install lightning rods.
I haven't seen any consternation about others who may elect a LPS but I have seen much criticism of those who elect against installing a LPS.
If rain is in the forecast:
- Will it rain at all?
- Will it rain at my house?
- If it rains at my house, will there be a puddle?
- If there is a puddle, will it be in my path?
- If it is in my path, will I not see it and step in it?
- If I step in it, will it ruin my shoes?
If all those are "yes" then I will be sorry I didn't wear the boots. However, a very large percentage of the time one of those will be "no" and the boots will not be needed.
I don't recall anyone criticizing the choice to wear boots.
Those wearing boots have criticized pull-on shoe covers as not boot-like enough.
Those wearing boots have shown the same ruined pair of shoes over and over again.
This area has a lot of puddles
There is an increased chance that your shoes will get wet
All the shoes that get wet will need to be dried
A few of the shoes that get wet will be ruined
If your shoes get ruined you'll wish you wore boots
|
I feel for you, I can see you are struggling..
If one isn't aware that the Constitution allows one the freedom to choose and live one's life as one sees fit, as long as one doesn't intrude on the rights of others, one now knows. If one hasn't witnessed the railing against the installation of an LPS in this thread, one may want to reread all posts considering that subject. And if the simplicity of wearing boots throws one off, there is no way they can handle such a thought of installing a LPS. It appears to me that some people don't want a LPS, which is fine, but are jealous of those who decide to take that extra step. Gee, another lightning strike in The Villages this week. Isn't lightning roulette fun?