[EdFNJ]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

OPsaid that he didn't save his photos and they're gone. Strange, because when you take a picture on a smart phone it goes into photo file where you have to delete it, and it goes into a trash file which you have to empty.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Chatbrat

I don't have smart phone, refuse to be a smart phone zombie- I use my phone for just calls

Originally Posted by Chatbrat

Forgot to hit the save button,

Convenient. What the heck is a "save button" anyway on any phone smart or otherwise? Never heard of that. This whole thread sounds fishy to begin with. It's just a rehashing with additional drama of 12 other similar threads.

[Velvet]

My camera has a ‘save’ option. I often take photos using an app call photomgrpro on my iphone. And it discards the picture if you do not save it. Why are people so skeptical about what someone posts?

[gatherer47]

hey Chatbrat-doesn't surprise me at all that you post here about the snoop and you are the one attacked-the snoop needs to get a life

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by CWGUY

This thread boiled down from 83 posts to 1...... THIS ONE! Thank you.

I disagree, so you’re vote is canceled

[Chi-Town]

Originally Posted by Velvet

My camera has a ‘save’ option. I often take photos using an app call photomgrpro on my iphone. And it discards the picture if you do not save it. Why are people so skeptical about what someone posts?

Could not find photomgrpro on Google Play Store. Assume it's an app for the Apple smart phone or Ipad. Apple does have the best software for artwork. Oh well.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[600th Photo Sq]

Originally Posted by Chatbrat

This person has made life miserable for people in other villages, recently a person had to remove a $600.00 piece of art work, which was barely visible, she is migrating south, after Tamarind Grove who will be next--again she hates American flags--every place she stopped at had an American flag-kinda shoots down her scavenger hunt story--by the way my cell phone pictures are gone, forgot to save them

Going to warn my neighbors to remove their stuff, for a few weeks , then when community watch comes buy their will be nothing for them to see

Please define what you would describe as " Barely Visible".

The bottom line is really simple Rules are Rules.

Some individuals learn the " Easy Way ".... while others choose to learn the " Hard Way ".

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Chatbrat

Sorry should have said-community standards--she was sighted in Buttonwood doing the same thing, a friend of mine mentioned her cart, on the unnamed news sight American flags have been mentioned as victims of anonymous complaints

Are the American Flags mentioned the flags folks put out for patriotic holidays or the flags on poles that are attached to the homes?

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by LI SNOWBIRD

Thanks for using the correct name for a gathering of flamingos. I am a word lover

RE: the term "pat of flamingos"

I learn something every day by reading this forum. Thanks to all of you for my continued education. I really mean that!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

Are the American Flags mentioned the flags folks put out for patriotic holidays or the flags on poles that are attached to the homes?

I saw a lot of the little American flags stuck in the ground all over the place during Memorial Day week. I wanted SOOOOO badly to complain to everyone who did it, because every single house that had more than one of those flags stuck in the ground had parts of at least one of them touching the ground. Which is - against federal law.

Y'all should be glad I didn't call the local constabulary (not community standards) on the bunch of you. It wouldn't have been multiple homes, it would've been multiple neighborhoods, in multiple villages throughout the entirety of The Villages.

As for the nosy golf cart driver - whoever she is, if she reads this forum she knows who she is. And she knows she is just stirring the hornet's nest. And so does everyone else.

Regarding anonymous complaints: I don't feel that the person who violates the deed restriction necessarily needs to know who submitted the complaint. But I DO feel that the Community Standards should require the name and address of the person complaining be recorded. Here's why:

Someone who has a beef against a neighbor, who continually reports violations that might or might not even exist, needs to be confronted by Community Standards, and told to knock it off. If all complaints are anonymous, they have no way of doing that.

Neighbors who have personal problems between them, need to not use "deed restrictions" as their weapon against their neighbor. You know that happens, it happens in ALL communities that have deed restrictions or condo rules. The only way to prevent this from happening is to require names and addresses of the complaining party to be recorded.

It doesn't mean the homeowner ever has to actually find out who made the complaint. But Community Standards should keep records of this.

[graciegirl]

If people use reporting deed restrictions as a personal "vendetta" the reported person first has to have a deed restriction.

You can't say Home 29 BayCayPlace has a bend over lady squatting and peeing in her front yard if they don't. Deed Compliance will do nothing.

It will all make better sense when you move here full time. But you tell us you own in the Historical area and there are few deed restrictions there.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

If people use reporting deed restrictions as a personal "vendetta" the reported person first has to have a deed restriction.

You can't say Home 29 BayCayPlace has a bend over lady squatting and peeing in her front yard if they don't. Deed Compliance will do nothing.

It will all make better sense when you move here full time. But you tell us you own in the Historical area and there are few deed restrictions there.

It's not hard to stick a pink flamingo in the lawn of a neighbor you don't like, when the neighbor is "up north" visiting relatives or if they're a snowbird.

It's VERY easy to do that, and pile up the fines against those people.

In addition, it is rude and a waste of Community Standards' time and efforts and an insult to their work, if you make them come out to investigate issues that don't exist, or issues you THINK are issues, but really aren't. Like - a bad lawn. Improperly cared for. But the truth of the matter, is that there was a bit of weed growth and your landscaper used appropriate weedkiller to get rid of the growth, and it's going to take a couple of weeks for that patch of lawn to look pretty again.

If you are the only one who nitpicks on a regular basis against the same neighbor, YOU should be called out on it, not the neighbor. ESPECIALLY if it's things that Community Standards ends up not doing anything about.

That is why Community Standards should know the names and addresses of each person who files a formal complaint. So that THEY can decide whether or not the person complaining is being a nuisance - and if they are, they can tell that complainer to cease and desist.

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

I saw a lot of the little American flags stuck in the ground all over the place during Memorial Day week. I wanted SOOOOO badly to complain to everyone who did it, because every single house that had more than one of those flags stuck in the ground had parts of at least one of them touching the ground. Which is - against federal law.
.

It is not against the (Federal?) law to have an American flag touch the ground. Anyone can do whatever they want to and with the Flag that they want. I certainly believe in American Flag etiquette, and it ****es me off what some do, and i will defend their right to do so, but nothing you do with or to it is against the law.
Steve

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

It is not against the (Federal?) law to have an American flag touch the ground. Anyone can do whatever they want to and with the Flag that they want. I certainly believe in American Flag etiquette, and it ****es me off what some do, and i will defend their right to do so, but nothing you do with or to it is against the law.
Steve

You would be incorrect. It is against the law to display a flag that is touching the ground. It's also against the law to burn a flag, UNLESS it is in disrepair. And then, burning the flag is the lawful way to dispose of it.

4 U.S. Code SS 8 - Respect for flag | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

that is the actual federal law. No, the penalties are not enforced, but it is still federal law.

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

You would be incorrect. It is against the law to display a flag that is touching the ground. It's also against the law to burn a flag, UNLESS it is in disrepair. And then, burning the flag is the lawful way to dispose of it.

4 U.S. Code SS 8 - Respect for flag | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

that is the actual federal law. No, the penalties are not enforced, but it is still federal law.

And I refer you to this:

In addition to the Flag Code, a separate provision contained in the Federal
Criminal Code established criminal penalties for certain treatment of the flag.6
Prior
to 1989, this provision provided criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to
the flag. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson7
(which held
that anti-desecration statutes are unconstitutional if aimed at suppressing one type of
expression), Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal
penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag.8
This law
imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing,
physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United
States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was
unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.9

https://www.senate.gov/reference/res...df/RL30243.pdf

Steve

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

And I refer you to this:

In addition to the Flag Code, a separate provision contained in the Federal
Criminal Code established criminal penalties for certain treatment of the flag.6
Prior
to 1989, this provision provided criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to
the flag. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson7
(which held
that anti-desecration statutes are unconstitutional if aimed at suppressing one type of
expression), Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal
penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag.8
This law
imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing,
physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United
States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was
unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.9

https://www.senate.gov/reference/res...df/RL30243.pdf

Steve

So then you are agreeing with me. The Flag Code is intact, and the Flag Code states that it is unlawful to display a flag that is touching the ground. The "separate provision" - known as the Flag Protection Act, which defines penalties for violating the law and which is in addition to the existing, intact Flag Code - is unconstitutional. Interesting case, especially reading the last part of the last sentence - as applied to the burning of the flag in a public protest.

It's unlawful to do it, but the penalty created by the 1989 law was determined to be unconstitutional - without changing the law that made the act illegal in the first place.