|
|
| Re: Significant part of former LIRR Wading River Branch to become rail trail (769461) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Significant part of former LIRR Wading River Branch to become rail trail |
|
|
Posted by SilverFox on Sun Apr 12 17:34:50 2009, in response to Re: Significant part of former LIRR Wading River Branch to become rail trail, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Apr 12 12:05:59 2009. They could come within inches of your property line, the same way I pass close to people's property line every time I walk down the street That's prepared for: Locked doors, better-secured design, and a social code that tells people not to traipse on other peoples' property on the way to or from somewhere although it does happen every now and then. Right, so the only people on the ROW now are vagrants, drug addicts and the mentally ill. Everyone else feels restricted Not everyone of course, but why should I have to suffer the presence or potential presence of even one more vagrant, drug addict, or social miscreant than once was? If you build it, they will come. I like how you paint everybody's thinking as absolute and then label them as mentally defective by the words you put into their mouth. Maybe, but the current configuration leaves no reason to attract the element that would warrant a call from 911 from the better-adjusted amongst the trail's users. And even if they WERE attracted, it's a jungle back there -- one they may not be willing to escape from as quickly as they entered because of the natural dangers and obstacles there. That's why the land should be left undisturbed . . . as a buffer for the residents around it. So now you imagine their building it in your backyard, not next to your backyard? That's called paranoia. Your lack of social skills is your own problem. Oh please. Semantic games no better than Weinberg. Of course I don't think it will be IN my backyard. NEXT to it is encroachment enough. And my social skills dictate peace, quiet, and solitude. That's why I [figuratively] moved out to the Island. That's why I "suffer" the long commute on the clean, quiet, and efficient LIRR instead of the piss-soaked, filthy, loud, and slow subway . . . why should all "changes" mean a dilution of the quality of life, and why should anybody have to put up with it? Better yet, why should holding yourself to conservative quality-of-life standards translate into poor social skills or racism? Only in the mind of those who want me "equal" to thee. Rest of Ron's passage . . . As I mentioned elsewhere, the issue as it stands does not affect me. It affects others who, presumably, could and do have similar opinions. If they can adapt, I'll resolve the trail is good. If they can't adapt, I'll resolve I was right and the trail is unneeded and unwanted and should not have happened. Who knows? If I lived in Juneau, AK, I would like a trail behind my house. Maybe even in Reno or KC. But in good ole NYC and its catchment area, I would like to maintain a bit more control over how I see the people I do. That's not a sickness; it's a lifestyle choice. A legitimate one. |
|
|
|