My name is Meggie. I am a writer and I have contributed to various blogs. I wanted to talk to you about contributing an article on your blog.
I’ve been working on a couple different articles that I think your audience would find enlightening. I’m curious to know which one you think might be a better fit:
Neighbor Lawsuits For Nuisance And The Fear Of Future Injury
California Real Estate Law: The Perpetual Lease
Whichever one you pick, I can have completed and ready to go in a timely fashion. Feel free to shoot me an email about either of these (or another topic altogether) and we can get the ball rolling.
Thanks for your time,
Gtalk : meggie.haneckow
This is a friendly follow up message in regards to my last email.
I have some good article's those will be best for your blog.
Let me know if i can send you for review.
My dear Ms. Haneckow,
I apologize for not responding to your previous email. I was fully engaged fortifying the southern portion of my property against certain threats raised by an eight-year-old neighbor's "birthday party."
Your inquiry intrigues me, and comes at an ideal time. Land use — and the limitations thereon imposed by civilized and prudent Americans — is a topic of increasing interest to our readers. The one about nuisance lawsuits particularly appeals — though the issues that concern me are, I fear, not adequately captured by such a gentle term.
Would it be possible to discuss a slight modification of focus — a sharpening, if you will — of the proposed article?
Very truly yours,
Thanks for the email.
I am happy that you have suggest your own topic.
I will get an article written on Land use — and the limitations thereon imposed by civilized and prudent Americans.. and I will share it with you once I complete it.
Please allow me 2-3 days for the same. Hope you don;t mind. :)
Wait! Stop! We haven't yet discussed the specifics!
I spoke only in the general, Meggie, to see if you might be open to exploring specifics — to see if you dared trod softly where rank peril capers.
Meggie, can you write about how land use jurisprudence can be employed to stand against the Pony Menace?
To date our feeble, milky courts have failed me, Meggie. When I come to them asking that they issue writs prohibiting the presence of ponies in our community, they scoff and demand that I produce "evidence." When I produce it — in heaps, in great drifts of paper, in reams, Meggie — the judges step closer to their bailiffs and say that I have not produced evidence of the nuisance caused by the specific pony I am complaining about.
This suicidal punctiliousness will spell our doom, Meggie. Specific evidence? Ludicrous! If I proposed to place a loaded handgun into the hands of a sweet young child, would you hem and haw and say "well, that particular handgun has not been proven to be dangerous." NO! You would snatch the handgun away and hustle the child off to some safe linen closet or attic space. Read Marcus Aurelius, Meggie. "This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature? And what is it doing in the world?" Ponies are in this world to rend, Meggie. They are in themselves death, and with them comes the substance and material of misery, and suffering, and hoofprints on the carpet.
So: your guest post, should you wish to write it, must address how we can establish binding precedent that ponies are an inherent nuisance, a self-evident dangerous condition that should not be permitted in any locale zoned for residential or light commercial use. Let them have the bleak high places and the grim deserts and the remote fastnesses. I suppose that a measure of patriotism would permit our brave military forces to continue their attempts to weaponize ponies, but let such efforts continue in forsaken bases like Area 51 and Baltimore.
Moreover, I must insist that your article address how just and proper prohibition on ponies may be expanded to cover what I term pony program related activities. Would we tolerate a television program that taught our children that it is a "hoot" or a "gas" to turn on the stove and press their pink little hands firmly upon the burner? No we would not. Not even on basic cable. So — with the menace of ponies a given, an acknowledged prime mover of woe — how do we permit their continued glorification? There are shows that celebrate ponies and portray them as trustworthy, entertaining, and sympathetic, Meggie. No, I was shocked as well. And there are pony toys. Toys, Meggie. Now, I could see the utility of a pony toy that abruptly snaps tiny jagged teeth onto the fingers of unwary children. Toys should teach a lesson, like that Operation game and lawn darts. But the only lesson these toys teach is to warmly embrace the utter destruction of our culture. What kind of toy is that? Would we allow the manufacture of a whimsical silky-haired Mr. My-The-Fluids-In-Jugs-Under-The-Sink-Taste-Delicious? Would we employ a notorious rapist to soothe our children with sweets? No. Ridiculous. Land use law must change, Meggie. It must change to acknowledge not just the menace of ponies, but the menace of the Pony Fifth Columnists and all of their accoutrements.
So. This is grim, I know. It is not the happy, carefree piece on land use regulation that you hoped to pen. Are you equal to it, Meggie? Are you the one to write the Anti-Pony Land-Use Modification Court-Instructions Despite Various Restraining Orders manifesto?
God go with you.