Joel Polowin wrote:
> On Nov 12, 6:32 pm, Johnny Rebel wrote:
>> Joel Polowin wrote:
>>> On Nov 12, 2:51 pm, Johnny Rebel wrote:
>>>> Joel Polowin wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 11, 9:25 pm, Johnny Rebel wrote:
>>>>>> Joel Polowin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 11, 6:20 pm, Johnny Rebel wrote:
>>>>>>>> So you must know 100%% then that they do not have any permits
>>>>>>>> for those signs right?
>>>>>>> The city doesn't sell permits for signs such as they've posted,
>>>>>>> so yes,
>>>>>>> I know that 100%%.
>>>>>> That is funny, because the ottawa.ca website disagrees with you.
>>>>> Funny, yes, because I've spoken with city officials who say
>>>>> otherwise. Where exactly on the website? Note that the signs
>>>>> don't have any of the information required for things like event
>>>>> notices, such as a posting date or contact information.
>>>> There is a search function, use it. It is easy to find.... I
>>>> don't care what the signs had on them - if they had permits, there
>>>> is nothing you can say.
>>
>>> Oh, I'm familiar with the relevant page:
>>>
http://ottawa.ca/city_services/bylaws/a_z/signs/index_en.html.
>>> Except... funny, it's all about *prohibiting* those signs, rather
>>> than permissing or licensing them. And since that page *does*
>>> describe licensing other kinds of signage, it sure looks like
>>> the place where licensing for the business advertising would
>>> be mentioned. So -- especially since you "don't care what
>>> the signs had on them", which is relevant in some cases -- I'm
>>> saying that you appear to be either trying to bluff past your
>>> ignorance or lying outright about such signs being permitted
>>> according to some page. I'm calling your bluff. Put up or
>>> shut up.
>>
>> Not it is not, read it man. You are of course familiar with the
>> 'permit' page as well I would
>>
imagine..http://ottawa.ca/residents/building_code/15_1_1_en.html
>> incidental sings are exempt from a permit. It is all about
>> interpretation of by-law wording. Not trying to bluff anything,
>> don't
>> have to with how you understand things.
>
> That's all about signs on *private property*. Not about putting
> up signs on *public property*. Can you read?
>
>>> I know for a fact that there are a number of businesses around
>>> here that *do* keep violating the sign bylaws, and the enforcement
>>> officers keep dealing with them; this comes from the officers
>>> themselves. The officers issue warnings several times and then
>>> they start charging fines. Presumably the business owners
>>> think that maybe nobody will complain *this time*, or that the
>>> advertising is worth the chance of a fine, or maybe they don't
>>> think at all. Why are you asking *me*? You're the one with
>>> the street-spammer point of view.
>>
>> Sure, maybe from your point of view, but maybe not the from the City
>> viewpoint. Obviously the city doesn't agree with you, so why should
>> I?
>
> Since the enforcement officers keep taking down the signs I
> report, and in some cases fining the people who put them up,
> the city rather obviously *does* agree with me.
>
>> Who said I have a 'street-spammer' point of view? I am only
>> debating
>> your logic. Your argument apparently has to put down my point of
>> view
>> for any validity, so who is the one bluffing? If you believe your
>> view(s) to be so valid, why resort to personal attacks.
>
> Because you started with the personal attacks..? And because
> you're ignoring the facts and the logic..?
>
>> Why not present
>> a valid well thought out presentation instead of "I think they are
>> street spammers"... no wonder the city isn't doing anything. You
>> have
>> not even quoted any sections you believe them to be violating - why
>> should the city take you seriously - you have a slack-jawed basis of
>> complaint.
>
> I pointed you at the web page. Read it. And note that the city
> *does* take action. What part of that do you fail to grasp?
>
>> You want action, present it in a professional and well
>> thought out manner. That is why I am asking you.... get it?
>
> Well, that's how I started...
>
>>>>> Or something. Not a lawyer of any kind, just someone sick and
>>>>> tired of the street spam in my neighborhood, and the jerks
>>>>> who defend it.
>>>> Obviously you are not even close to a lawyer - a lawyer would not
>>>> have opened themselves up to a libel suit like that.
>>
>>> And you've been accusing *me* of being an "internet lawyer"?
>>
>> You obviously did not read what I wrote, I did not accuse you of
>> that, I
>> said 'or something', as a comparison.
>
> Sure, sure.
>
>>>> So, just because you
>>>> disagree with their advertising, everyone who questions you is a
>>>> jerk? Wow, is that linear thinking.
>>
>>> Nope. Everyone who supports street spammers is a jerk.
>>
>>> So. Exactly what is your reason for supporting the street
>>> spammers?
>>
>> Who says I am supporting them? Are you trying to put words into my
>> posts?
>
> Because you keep supporting them, accusing me of libel, etc. ..?
Reading comprehension is obviously not your forte.
