[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So how did Orlando "circumvent" Florida laws already on the books and implement the STR restrictions that I already posted????

I know I am going to get blasted by MM for commenting on Orlando, if she hasn't already blocked me, but...

AS STATED IN COPIOUS POSTS and one directly in response to you, Orlando previously PROHIBITED STRs and was grandfathered when the state law was passed. The rules put in by Orlando were actually lessening restricions on STRs and were therefore allowed under FL law.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

You are joking, right?

I mean you have to be kidding. You don't think those 2 posters are defending STR aggressively???? Get real.

And that is the full extent of what you got from the post. hmmm.
Clearly the last part of my post would not apply to you.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

I am not joking. I am not kidding.
If I am one of the 2, then I know that you are 100% wrong and that you have not bothered to read my posts with the intent to understand what I was saying.
If one of the 2 is Bill14xx, then I know that you are 100% wrong because I actually took the time to read his posts, not make up positions for him.
If one of the 2 is Brian..., then I don't know what his real feelings or motivations are because he hasn't expressed them, but I do know that you are 100% wrong on what his posts have actually stated and not what you and others keeping making up and attributing to posters.

So who is left?
I have asked, who do you think supports STRs. You (I think) responded that that violates the rules because we are not to address posters directly. I think that is an absolute copout. Well over half of the post direct their point directly to someone or about someone. Merely stating that I think these 2 posters have agressively defended STRs is not a violation, or not even close to other posts as far as violation. The problem with doing that though is that you know their is ZERO basis for the position, IF YOU READ WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WRITING.
I think this is the fourth time or fifth time I will ask.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE POST NUMBER OF THE POST IN THIS THREAD OR THE OTHER WHERE SOMEONE SAID THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF STRS OR DEFENDING THEM.
There are over 500 posts between the 2 threads and has been correctly stated, the vast majority of people posting are against STRs. Sure one of you can find one post that actually defends STRs or supports STRs.

First of all, you are not one of the two

Second, IF you read all the posts, there is no way on God's green Earth that you could possibly walk away with the take home message that those posts were anything other than supporting STRs. It is so incredibly obvious to not only me that others have suggested that these two are STR owners. What are you missing?????

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

I know I am going to get blasted by MM for commenting on Orlando, if she hasn't already blocked me, but...

AS STATED IN COPIOUS POSTS and one directly in response to you, Orlando previously PROHIBITED STRs and was grandfathered when the state law was passed. The rules put in by Orlando were actually lessening restricions on STRs and were therefore allowed under FL law.

Are you saying that THE ONLY REASON that Orlando's STR restrictions are permitted under Florida law is because their previous restrictions were more restrictive????? I'm pretty sure the law does not work that way. (The DA won't prosecute me for stealing $5,000 from a liquor store because the last time I stole $10,000?)

I have to believe that the Orlando restrictions on STRs stand on their own as legal, and therefore could be adopted elsewhere.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Are you saying that THE ONLY REASON that Orlando's STR restrictions are permitted under Florida law is because their previous restrictions were more restrictive????? I'm pretty sure the law does not work that way. (The DA won't prosecute me for stealing $5,000 from a liquor store because the last time I stole $10,000?)

I was saying that. but actually I was stealing from someone else's post. And i could be wrong. But that is one of the most ridulous comparisons I have ever read on TOTV.
The reasonable comparison for your example would be that there is a local law against stealing more than $5,000 from a liquor store.
The state then passes a law stating that no locality can make any new laws about stealing from a liquor store. But localities that already have restrictions are grandfathered.
Then the locality modifies their law to state that you can't steal more than $10,000 from liquor stores. That law is ok even though it is a new law because it is not as strict as the previous law that was grandfathered. That is EXACTLY how the law works, except your example is ludicrous.
I really, really don't know why that is such a hard concept to grasp for someone who wrote most of the medical procedures we undergo and most of the papers that we read about medicine on line.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I have to believe that the Orlando restrictions on STRs stand on their own as legal, and therefore could be adopted elsewhere.

That is completely different point. You may be 100% right.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

First of all, you are not one of the two

Second, IF you read all the posts, there is no way on God's green Earth that you could possibly walk away with the take home message that those posts were anything other than supporting STRs. It is so incredibly obvious to not only me that others have suggested that these two are STR owners. What are you missing?????

What makes it so obvious??? Just because they refute your ideas does not make them STR owners. That is what I have been doing, and I have made it clear that I am not an STR owner nor do I support them. What different points did they make that makes it obvious. It is like saying someone has a fever and a fast heartbeat, it is obvious they are near death from septicemia. I would prefer to not have a physician that would make such a leap.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

You're 100% correct, except........

...

Now, I couldn't care less if someone (not you) wants to parse words about whether Orlando's STR restriction are more or less restrictive than whatever was in place prior, nor could I care less whether Clearwater's laws were "grandfathered" in. Bottom line, if we adopted Orlando's CURRENT STR restrictions, it would probably end the STR problem here. And no one should claim it CAN'T be done, since they already did it.

I find it extremely hilarious (sorry if I don't put multiple ROFL emojis to try to make sure you know that I am laughing at you]) that someone would post

[Originally Posted by golfing eagles]
So how did Orlando "circumvent" Florida laws already on the books and implement the STR restrictions that I already posted????

and also state, I couldn't care less if someone (not you) wants to parse words about whether Orlando's STR restriction are more or less restrictive than whatever was in place prior, nor could I care less whether Clearwater's laws were "grandfathered" in.

So someone wants to know how it can happen, but they don't want you to use words or precise words. I wonder if they would prefer pictures drawn with crayons. If so, I am honestly not sure how to do that on TOTV.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

I was saying that. but actually I was stealing from someone else's post. And i could be wrong. But that is one of the most ridulous comparisons I have ever read on TOTV.
The reasonable comparison for your example would be that there is a local law against stealing more than $5,000 from a liquor store.
The state then passes a law stating that no locality can make any new laws about stealing from a liquor store. But localities that already have restrictions are grandfathered.
Then the locality modifies their law to state that you can't steal more than $10,000 from liquor stores. That law is ok even though it is a new law because it is not as strict as the previous law that was grandfathered. That is EXACTLY how the law works, except your example is ludicrous.
I really, really don't know why that is such a hard concept to grasp for someone who wrote most of the medical procedures we undergo and most of the papers that we read about medicine on line.



That is completely different point. You may be 100% right.

Believe me, I get it. But MOST?????? Who stated that?????? And you're the one who criticizes other for making up statements from posts. MOST????? Maybe 1/10,000 of 1 percent, if that.

[KenLee100]

Originally Posted by DrMack

We are purchasing in Dabney and are very excited! There is a major concern though. I have read some threads here and we know we don’t want VRBOs or short term rentals near us. Are there any places that guarantee this in the villages? We would like to take care of our new home and don’t necessarily want to to step into that kind of a mess. Any help would be appreciated.

There have been isolated problems. Renting to college kids on spring break or large families can cause friction.
The developer sells new houses. That is their concern. We have been here for two years without a problem.
Owners should screen prospective tenants and let them know that this is a retirement community and that we roll up the sidewalks at 9 p.m.

You have the right by law to "Quiet and Peaceful Enjoyment" of your property.
That said, if there is a problem landlord, I would notify them in writing that they are maintaining a "Nuisance House" and if they continue to rent to tenants who do not comply, they will face legal action.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Believe me, I get it. But MOST?????? Who stated that?????? And you're the one who criticizes other for making up statements from posts. MOST????? Maybe 1/10,000 of 1 percent, if that.

Valid point. Those were NOT the word you used. Guilty. But I think (without finding the post) that you stated odds are if you are googling something, my research is what you will quote and if you go into the doctor, odds are the procedures they follow will be one I developed.
I am not sure how many you would have to have published or procedures developed that would make the odds such that those things occur. But my guess would be somewhere far higher than 1/10,000 of 1 percent. All my rambing aside, while I didn't actually attribute that statement to you, there was enough of a sarcastic insinuation to take that from what I said.
So. Good Catch. Valid Point. I am guilty. Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry for doing that.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

Valid point. Those were NOT the word you used. Guilty. But I think (without finding the post) that you stated odds are if you are googling something, my research is what you will quote and if you go into the doctor, odds are the procedures they follow will be one I developed.
I am not sure how many you would have to have published or procedures developed that would make the odds such that those things occur. But my guess would be somewhere far higher than 1/10,000 of 1 percent. All my rambing aside, while I didn't actually attribute that statement to you, there was enough of a sarcastic insinuation to take that from what I said.
So. Good Catch. Valid Point. I am guilty. Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry for doing that.

Nope, you're still doing it----ODDS ARE??????? Didn't post that either.

Here is the excerpt from the post you are bastardizing: (post #31 from the Epley maneuver thread if you want to fact check):

....As far as "having a degree and being retired" goes, I think my career is a bit more than that. For all anyone knows, when they play Dr. Google they may be quoting me from the content that I myself have written. When they need inpatient medical care, they may be receiving treatment under protocols that I have written.

In the English language I learned, there are light years in distance between "odds are" and "may be" Please don't try to make me look like something I'm not.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Nope, you're still doing it----ODDS ARE??????? Didn't post that either.

Here is the excerpt from the post you are bastardizing: (post #31 from the Epley maneuver thread if you want to fact check):

....As far as "having a degree and being retired" goes, I think my career is a bit more than that. For all anyone knows, when they play Dr. Google they may be quoting me from the content that I myself have written. When they need inpatient medical care, they may be receiving treatment under protocols that I have written.

In the English language I learned, there are light years in distance between "odds are" and "may be" Please don't try to make me look like something I'm not.

Nope. Wasn't still doing it. I admitted I didn't look up your post, and stated what I thought you had said. You are correct in that I got it wrong.
Apologies again for getting it wrong.

I will search through your posts though and see if I can find where you admit that you attributed to someone a position or statement they didn't make. I might be looking for a long LONG time. Because when you are called on it, you say people are parsing words or they may not have said it but it is obvious that's what they meant.

I get it. Many are tired of reading my posts and don't like me (virtually). But I hope that there are good people out there who can see the differences in peoples' post. But, as I said in another post elsewhere, unmet expectations do not lead to positive emotions (so you need to manage your expectations and hopes).

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Nope, you're still doing it----ODDS ARE??????? Didn't post that either.

Here is the excerpt from the post you are bastardizing: (post #31 from the Epley maneuver thread if you want to fact check):

....As far as "having a degree and being retired" goes, I think my career is a bit more than that. For all anyone knows, when they play Dr. Google they may be quoting me from the content that I myself have written. When they need inpatient medical care, they may be receiving treatment under protocols that I have written.

In the English language I learned, there are light years in distance between "odds are" and "may be" Please don't try to make me look like something I'm not.

If what you think I was trying to make you look like was arrogant, then fair statement. I should use what you actually say if I want to make that point. I was actually saying, for someone as smart and accomplished as you, the very simple point that was made over and over should have been easier to understand. If you are not smart and accomplished, my apologies for trying to make you look like that.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

Nope. Wasn't still doing it. I admitted I didn't look up your post, and stated what I thought you had said. You are correct in that I got it wrong.
Apologies again for getting it wrong.

I will search through your posts though and see if I can find where you admit that you attributed to someone a position or statement they didn't make. I might be looking for a long LONG time. Because when you are called on it, you say people are parsing words or they may not have said it but it is obvious that's what they meant.

I get it. Many are tired of reading my posts and don't like me (virtually). But I hope that there are good people out there who can see the differences in peoples' post. But, as I said in another post elsewhere, unmet expectations do not lead to positive emotions (so you need to manage your expectations and hopes).

Psychic as well????

Look, I get it, and nobody's perfect. The problem is that you kind of set yourself up as the self appointed guardian of ensuring factual posts. That's a tough role to fulfill and when you screw up everyone is going to point it out, especially on TOTV--America's friendliest social medium

Best not to be so literal and give a little latitude.
Look, I do the same thing when somebody posts some medical nonsense---and I justify it by knowing I'm preventing the dissemination of erroneous information. At least I get the benefit of a good laugh when someone wants to argue the point because they "googled it"

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

If what you think I was trying to make you look like was arrogant, then fair statement. I should use what you actually say if I want to make that point. I was actually saying, for someone as smart and accomplished as you, the very simple point that was made over and over should have been easier to understand. If you are not smart and accomplished, my apologies for trying to make you look like that.

Good one---love it