In the News

Flanders-Like Behaviour + Anti-Social Neighbour = Disaster [Updated]

You’ve probably heard this already, but let me state for the record: Wanita Renea Young is the worst neighbour on Earth.

Update: The original site to which I linked has a random image that isn’t always work-safe. Here’s its link.

In case you can’t go there, here’s the most important part of the entry:

According to the Jewish philosopher and Rabbi, Moses Maimonides, there are eight levels of tzedaka.

(Tzedaka is the Jewish legal requirement to do right by your fellow

man… a moral imperitive to charity if you like.) The levels of giving

(from least admirable, to most) are:

  1. Giving begrudgingly
  2. Giving less than you should, but giving it cheerfully.
  3. Giving after being asked
  4. Giving before being asked
  5. Giving when you do not know the recipient’s identity, but the recipient knows your identity
  6. Giving when you know the recipient’s identity, but the recipient does not know your identity
  7. Giving when neither party knows the other’s identity
  8. Giving that enables the recipient to become self-reliant

Yesterday, I read an article at Reuters

about two teenage girls baking cookies for the neighbours in some hick

town in Colorado. They stayed home from some party or other and made

sweet things for people, decorated them with little hearts, wrapped

them in ribbon and left a note saying ‘have a great night.’ Then they

ran around, full of neighbourly love, and dropped the boxes off on

porches, knocking on the door and hiding before the recipient of the

gift got to the door. To me, that sounds like the 6th level of giving: giving when you know the recipient’s identity, but the recipient does not know your identity.

I hope the bitch neighbour (Wanita Renea Young) that filed the lawsuit

against the two teenagers for this random act of kindness, lies awake

in bed at night wondering whatever happened to the ‘youth of today.’ I

hope it plagues her.

Hear, hear.

7 replies on “Flanders-Like Behaviour + Anti-Social Neighbour = Disaster [Updated]”

It wasn’t NSFW (Not Safe For Work) when I checked it, but it turns out that the page has a random image for its header. I got a relatively work-safe one; you must’ve gotten one less so.

I’ll change the link to the Reuters story.

Jeez, Joey, the lady and her husband are getting piles of hate mail and death threats. This story is getting a very one-sided telling around the blogosphere–and two teenage girls baking cookies are a lot more sympathetic than a nervous old lady who got scared by a doorbell rung way past her bedtime. Yes, it was just kids with cookies but she didn’t know that. And apparently some judge or the jury who heard the whole story from both sides agreed that the girls ought to pay her $900. So Wanita Young is a grouchy neighbor–she doesn’t deserve the high-tech lynching she’s getting.

Any sympathy I had for Ms. Young evaporated with:

a) Her refusal to accept the apology from the girls. She claims their apologies “rang false”. Dammit, I knew someone had stolen my mirror that can look into people souls!

b) Ms. Young’s husband: “I don�t believe the girls meant for this to happen. But they could have prevented it from happening if they had just shut their mouths when they came out of (small claims) court.” Last I checked, small claims court was a public place, and the girls have every right to talk about their getting sued.

c) The girls say they offered to pay Ms. Young’s hospital expenses; they refused and sued instead. These people aren’t after justice; they’re after vengeance.

d) The Youngs called one of the girls’ fathers and basically said “no more mister nice guy, we’re suing.” That’s intimidation.

e) The Youngs say the got the help of some local clergy before deciding to sue. Who’d they go to, the Church of Satan?

Yes, the girls were extremely naive (and forgoing a dance? Let me add “extremely square”) in their misguided attempt to do a good deed. But they made it very clear — as does their odd lack of guile — that all they were trying to do was a good deed.

While I understand your position and in no way condone the sending of death threats, the Youngs’ subsequent behaviour is bullying, pure and simple.

Does anyone else think I’m being too harsh? I’m willing to change my position, given sufficient and compelling reasoning.

Some may think she should have had a heart attack 🙂

The real question is… did she *eat* the cookies?

No good deed goes unpunished.

I have to wonder: Do these people sue the folks that leave flyers in their mailbox, out of fear that they might be death threats instead?

Me, I wouldn’t eat random cookies, but I wouldn’t stress myself about it to the point of believing I’d had a heart attack, either. I might keep the box and the note, though.

I also agree with Joey on this one. How litigious can you be? I thought she was anxious because she was a single woman at home with a knock at the door at night… but if your husband’s around…

She’s got other problems if her anxiety is that bad, and should seek treatment for it, instead of suing well-meaning teenagers as a band-aid “quick gratification” – sound familiar as a label for the youth of these days? Ironic, no? Anyway, she sounds like Pat from Achewood.

Leave a Reply