From: Bruce on
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:36:10 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote:

>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:16fdo596he7faadvrlpdj98d6ma9lbn216(a)4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:38:16 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>And who is the landowner of this zoo? It's "the people" who pay for it
>>>with
>>>their taxes and the admission fee.
>>
>>
>> If the people owned the zoo, there would be no admission fee.
>>
>> You do not own the zoo.
>
>Ridiculous. So then tell us, who owns the zoo?


Not you. ;-)

From: Bruce on
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:33:11 -0600, Charles Chase
<spammenot(a)ipt.aol.com> wrote:
>The same is true of that idiocy in France with their obnoxious Eiffel
>Tower. Either take it down or don't complain about people taking
>photographs of it for their own gain. You silly-assed french twits.
>
>Quite frankly, I think all zoos should be made illegal


Maybe making *you* illegal would solve a few problems. ;-)

I love it when people assert rights that they don't have.

From: Twibil on
On Feb 25, 1:33 am, Charles Chase <spamme...(a)ipt.aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> You either get to take photos there for any purpose at all, or none at all.

Well, no, we have various laws that cover these situations. And those
laws all say that you're wrong.

> They have ZERO right to limit or control your actions beyond the borders of
> their own property. It's called freedom, ever hear of it?

Silly person, there's no such thing as unlimited freedom in a society.
Never has been. Never will be.

Because the name for that social structure is "anarchy", and it
doesn't work.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on

"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2jhdo5tu3k9q2a5g2rkqcrlv5298mcghop(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:36:10 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:16fdo596he7faadvrlpdj98d6ma9lbn216(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:38:16 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>And who is the landowner of this zoo? It's "the people" who pay for it
>>>>with
>>>>their taxes and the admission fee.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the people owned the zoo, there would be no admission fee.
>>>
>>> You do not own the zoo.
>>
>>Ridiculous. So then tell us, who owns the zoo?
>
>
> Not you. ;-)

That's right, but if I lived in LA then I would.


From: Twibil on
On Feb 25, 10:36 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...(a)optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> > You do not own the zoo.
>
> Ridiculous.  So then tell us, who owns the zoo?

Who owns the L.A. Zoo? Easy! The legal entity known as the City of Los
Angeles owns the Zoo, and is entitled to make rules for it's use
exactly as it can -and does- make rules for the use of it's streets or
any other property that's owned by the City. (As the Supreme Court
recently affirmed in their ruling on political advertising,
corporations are accorded legal status as individuals, and under law
that same concept applies to governmental bodies such as Cities and
States as well.)

That means that while "the people" in theory own all City property,
the City is in fact able to make its own rules for how it's to be run -
even though the guy who just got the parking ticket thinks he should
have unlimited rights to use the streets as he will because he "owns"
them.

Fact is, he doesn't "own" the streets any more than he "owns" the cops
that patrol them, "owns" the politicians that make the laws said cop
enforces, or "owns" the City Hall where the politicians work. (Try
moving into City Hall on the theory that you "own" it. See what
happens?)

So what's your recourse to this towering injustice? Easy again! You
have elected officials whose job it is to run the City according to
their electorate's wishes; and if enough voters get behind someone who
runs on a platform that states he's going to change things to allow
unlimited use of photographs taken on all City properties he will
presumably do exactly that -if and when he's elected and can stir up a
majority of the City Councl to vote along with him.

Alas, he's not likely to *stay* elected for very long, because someone
else who wants his office will promptly point out that idiot child
just passed a law that lost the City a measurable bite of it's income,
and will require raising taxes to make up the difference... Because,
ya see, the city has these rules in effect for only one reason: so
that it can *make money* from selling licensed photos of the City
Zoo.

So here are the choices: do you want to (A) Raise taxes yet again, (B)
Close the L.A. Zoo for lack of funding, or (C) Leave the rules the way
they are so that you don't have to do either (A) or (B)?

Your call. (Well, yours and several million other voters' choice as
well.)