How do you deal with these nutters?

[Above&Beyond]

No, not opinion, fact. We're not talking about someone shouting in your face which would indeed be rude.

Shouting does not equal anger, which is what you are assuming yet again.

when all of a sudden some nutter was shouting out of a window not to take photos of the house

How clearer can it be that the person was shouting in anger? I don't see how it relates to your story about the vicar asking you not to disrupt a wedding either? If he was shouting at you from the window of the church not to photo the church then it would be relevant.

 

[D.P.]

No, not opinion, fact. We're not talking about someone shouting in your face which would indeed be rude.

Shouting does not equal anger, which is what you are assuming yet again.

So now you get to call your opinions fact?
Shouting out a window is rude, vs walking outside and having a calm chat with the photographer.

 

[Rojin]

So now you get to call your opinions fact?
Shouting out a window is rude, vs walking outside and having a calm chat with the photographer.

Really, shouting is rude is it? I'm sorry that you can't communicate by shouting without being rude, but I can.

 

[Rojin]

How clearer can it be that the person was shouting in anger? I don't see how it relates to your story about the vicar asking you not to disrupt a wedding either? If he was shouting at you from the window of the church not to photo the church then it would be relevant.

How much clearer, by actually saying he's angry? I don't associate shouting with anger, having used it myself countless times to communicate over distance with bring angry, irrational or even the slightest bit nutty.

It's not about the vicar for goodness sake, it's about the OP's outlook on life.

 

[D.P.]

Really, shouting is rude is it? I'm sorry that you can't communicate by shouting without being rude, but I can.

I'm sorry you can't communicate clearly without shouting.

 

[Rojin]

I'm sorry you can't communicate clearly without shouting.

Yes, not having a voice that can be heard at 50m away at conversation level is a real drawback to communicating over distance

 

[Above&Beyond]

How much clearer, by actually saying he's angry? I don't associate shouting with anger, having used it myself countless times to communicate over distance with bring angry, irrational or even the slightest bit nutty.

It's not about the vicar for goodness sake, it's about the OP's outlook on life.

It is basic reading comprehension to understand that if someone said 'a nutter was shouting out of their window' not wanting you to doing something legal then they would be by definition of acting 'nuts' be angry. I don't know how it can be made any clearer?

 

[Rojin]

It is basic reading comprehension to understand that if someone said 'a nutter was shouting out of their window' wanting you to doing something legal then they would be by definition of acting 'nuts' be angry. I don't know how it can be made any clearer?

You make a lot of assumptions that are not in the statement that is made, and you are failing to comprehend that.

 

[Above&Beyond]

You make a lot of assumptions that are not in the statement that is made, and you are failing to comprehend that.

The words are right there from the OP, it is you that is choosing to ignore them and their context and inventing your own scenario for reasons unknown.

 

[D.P.]

The words are right there from the OP, it is you that is choosing to ignore them and their context and inventing your own scenario for reasons unknown.

I agree entirely.

What I don't get is what Rojin's agenda is here. Even if we take his view of the events against the OP's word and assume the guy was very civil and polite, that has nothing to do with the topic of the conversation which is about irrational paranoid nutters trying curtail one's basic rights and freedoms.

Discrediting the OP and trying to twist the OP's words into his own proffered meaning doesn't matter one iota to the debate at hand.

 

[Rojin]

The words are right there from the OP, it is you that is choosing to ignore them and their context and inventing your own scenario for reasons unknown.

Nope, I'm just not happy to make the assumptions that you are.

 

[Rojin]

I agree entirely.

What I don't get is what Rojin's agenda is here. Even if we take his view of the events against the OP's word and assume the guy was very civil and polite, that has nothing to do with the topic of the conversation which is about irrational paranoid nutters trying curtail one's basic rights and freedoms.

Discrediting the OP and trying to twist the OP's words into his own proffered meaning doesn't matter one iota to the debate at hand.

Where have I once said that the chap was civil and polite? That isn't in the OP either and I have not made that assumption at all. You feel that shouting automatically equals being rude, when it plainly does not. Simples.

I'm not the who turned "some nutter was shouting" into "verbal abuse from an irate paranoid nutjob". You do see that these are different statements don't you?

 

[D.P.]

Where have I once said that the chap was civil and polite? That isn't in the OP either and I have not made that assumption at all. You feel that shouting automatically equals being rude, when it plainly does not. Simples.

I'm not the who turned "some nutter was shouting" into "verbal abuse from an irate paranoid nutjob". You do see that these are different statements don't you?

Way to quote something completely out of context!

I never stated the homeowner referred to by the OP as issuing verbal abuse.


This is what I actually said:

That is all fair enough but again it takes someone with a some level of rationality to begin that approach.

I don't think anyone is saying to be confrontational, but equally no one should have to take verbal abuse from an irate paranoid nutjob.

Not once did I mentioned the homeowner in the OP. I made a general statement agreeing with Raymond that if someone is polite and civil then you can talk with them politely, potentially delete photos and walk away. On the contrary if someone is verbally abusive then there is no reason for you to put up with that and no need to let them curtail your rights.


Whether the person described in the OP was being verbally abusive, rude, impolite, polite, civil, delightful, awful, violent etc, really doesn't mater to the point in contention.

 

[Rojin]

Way to quote something completely out of context!

I never stated the homeowner referred to by the OP as issuing verbal abuse.


This is what I actually said:



Not once did I mentioned the homeowner in the OP. I made a general statement agreeing with Raymond that if someone is polite and civil then you can talk with them politely, potentially delete photos and walk away. On the contrary if someone is verbally abusive then there is no reason for you to put up with that and no need to let them curtail your rights.


Whether the person described in the OP was being verbally abusive, rude, impolite, polite, civil, delightful, awful, violent etc, really doesn't mater to the point in contention.

You sensationalised the topic, which I had already responded to your full post that you quoted above. Your reply back then didn't say I had taken it out of context? Although if you had stopped to say back then that categorically your post had nothing to do with the OP, we would never have found out about your talent of making your voice carry over 50m without raising it

 

[An Exception]

 

[Tysonator]

The angry house owner telling a photographer to clear off from taking photos of his may seem a tad strong.
The law may seem a little gray on this subject in fact it really isn’t

As a one off shot from a public area is find and this extends if the a person is in the shot. Now one really needs to gain consent from an individual to use the photo containing them to use on a public media platform.
The grey area is shooting in the high street if are some 100 plus people milling around. There is no practical way to ask every one on the shot.
However one person from a house even if the camera is sited in a public area.

\if the photographer takes another photo once being told not to and if this situation occurs on another day again. There is now a case for harassment against the photographer.

This is the condensed version in a nut shell as they say

 

[ethan]

Ignor.