On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:58:26 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:33:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

It's no coincidence that in the last generation or so of "Dr.
Spock-like" liberal upbringing where a child's need to "express
themselves" is paramount, and that maintaining their self esteem at
all costs is more important than what they do to earn it, that we have
had more trouble than ever with youth violence and underachievers.

The people I know who ran roughshod over their children have, in the
vast majority of cases, turned out much more socially adjusted kids,
who respect the rules of society, and have much less neuroses, and
other social "issues". They are also more likely to pursue higher
education and more productive careers. Those kids who were raised with
"hands off" parents, ended up, if not in the criminal justice system,
they are now working in low pay jobs, with little self respect, and
are more likely to vote for a democrat.

Dave

1) Your last paragraph describes only the people you choose to focus on.
Other than that, you have absolutely no information that allows you to
generalize outside of that small sample.

There's no reason to believe that there would be much difference in
other samplings. As I get older and talk with more people, I am still
told similar stories, from other people in my generation. I have no
reason to believe that my informal survey is not reflective of
reality.

I also have the incidents of school shootings, and school violence in
general, which has been on an increase since I was in school. In my
old high school, when I went there, the worst we ever had to deal with
was an occasional fist fight after school. Now, my old high school has
metal detectors and armed security people in the school.

This can be directly attributed to lackluster parental influence in
the child's discipline. Two working parents and day care child rearing
is probably the root of the problem.

A lot of it also is a result of single parent homes............there is
plenty of evidence out there showing that the worst way to raise a child is
in a single mother headed household, something that the guvmint has
encouraged with its liberal divorce laws and draconian child support
mentality.

Anytime you have a home situation where the primary care giver has to
abandon their duties to their children in order to earn money, that
allows the child to run amok without the proper guidance from an early
age. If they don't learn boundaries early on, it will become
increasingly more difficult to apply them later.

Day-Care centers are not in business to teach discipline, they are
only there to make sure the child doesn't kill itself, and to see to
their basic care.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:58:26 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:33:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

It's no coincidence that in the last generation or so of "Dr.
Spock-like" liberal upbringing where a child's need to "express
themselves" is paramount, and that maintaining their self esteem at
all costs is more important than what they do to earn it, that we have
had more trouble than ever with youth violence and underachievers.

The people I know who ran roughshod over their children have, in the
vast majority of cases, turned out much more socially adjusted kids,
who respect the rules of society, and have much less neuroses, and
other social "issues". They are also more likely to pursue higher
education and more productive careers. Those kids who were raised with
"hands off" parents, ended up, if not in the criminal justice system,
they are now working in low pay jobs, with little self respect, and
are more likely to vote for a democrat.

Dave

1) Your last paragraph describes only the people you choose to focus on.
Other than that, you have absolutely no information that allows you to
generalize outside of that small sample.

There's no reason to believe that there would be much difference in
other samplings. As I get older and talk with more people, I am still
told similar stories, from other people in my generation. I have no
reason to believe that my informal survey is not reflective of
reality.

I also have the incidents of school shootings, and school violence in
general, which has been on an increase since I was in school. In my
old high school, when I went there, the worst we ever had to deal with
was an occasional fist fight after school. Now, my old high school has
metal detectors and armed security people in the school.

This can be directly attributed to lackluster parental influence in
the child's discipline. Two working parents and day care child rearing
is probably the root of the problem.

A lot of it also is a result of single parent homes............there is
plenty of evidence out there showing that the worst way to raise a child
is
in a single mother headed household, something that the guvmint has
encouraged with its liberal divorce laws and draconian child support
mentality.

Anytime you have a home situation where the primary care giver has to
abandon their duties to their children in order to earn money, that
allows the child to run amok without the proper guidance from an early
age. If they don't learn boundaries early on, it will become
increasingly more difficult to apply them later.

Day-Care centers are not in business to teach discipline, they are
only there to make sure the child doesn't kill itself, and to see to
their basic care.



Actually it goes beyond that.......there is a direct correlation between the
biological father being absent from the home and increases in anti social
behavior.....crime, dropping out of school, promiscuity, etc., even in the
mother is a stay at home type.


Dave

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:58:26 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:33:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

It's no coincidence that in the last generation or so of "Dr.
Spock-like" liberal upbringing where a child's need to "express
themselves" is paramount, and that maintaining their self esteem at
all costs is more important than what they do to earn it, that we
have
had more trouble than ever with youth violence and underachievers.

The people I know who ran roughshod over their children have, in the
vast majority of cases, turned out much more socially adjusted kids,
who respect the rules of society, and have much less neuroses, and
other social "issues". They are also more likely to pursue higher
education and more productive careers. Those kids who were raised
with
"hands off" parents, ended up, if not in the criminal justice system,
they are now working in low pay jobs, with little self respect, and
are more likely to vote for a democrat.

Dave

1) Your last paragraph describes only the people you choose to focus
on.
Other than that, you have absolutely no information that allows you to
generalize outside of that small sample.

There's no reason to believe that there would be much difference in
other samplings. As I get older and talk with more people, I am still
told similar stories, from other people in my generation. I have no
reason to believe that my informal survey is not reflective of
reality.

I also have the incidents of school shootings, and school violence in
general, which has been on an increase since I was in school. In my
old high school, when I went there, the worst we ever had to deal with
was an occasional fist fight after school. Now, my old high school has
metal detectors and armed security people in the school.

This can be directly attributed to lackluster parental influence in
the child's discipline. Two working parents and day care child rearing
is probably the root of the problem.

A lot of it also is a result of single parent homes............there is
plenty of evidence out there showing that the worst way to raise a child
is
in a single mother headed household, something that the guvmint has
encouraged with its liberal divorce laws and draconian child support
mentality.

Anytime you have a home situation where the primary care giver has to
abandon their duties to their children in order to earn money, that
allows the child to run amok without the proper guidance from an early
age. If they don't learn boundaries early on, it will become
increasingly more difficult to apply them later.

Day-Care centers are not in business to teach discipline, they are
only there to make sure the child doesn't kill itself, and to see to
their basic care.



Actually it goes beyond that.......there is a direct correlation between
the biological father being absent from the home and increases in anti
social behavior.....crime, dropping out of school, promiscuity, etc., even
in the mother is a stay at home type.

You're absolutely right. This is a perfect reason for you to write to your
president and explain to him, in the simplest terms possible, that he should
stop sending (mostly) fathers to their death just to satisfy his
pathological need for war, and his video game view of life.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:20:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:36:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:48:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
As far as humanitarian horrors, last week's news reported that in
New
Jersey, kids charged with minor offenses are often placed in
maximum
security juvenile prisons while being "processed". Many end up so
traumatized that they're unable to function normally in society.
Onto
the
bombing list with New Jersey.


That's called "scared straight". It works.

Dave

It's called anal rape and sodomy.

"Scared straight" is when you take convicts into schoolhouses, etc,
and
have
them describe the horrors of prison life to the kids. It has nothing
to
do
with
throwing *accused* juvenile offenders in with convicted,
sex-starved,
deviant
felons.

I'm afraid rape and sodomy may be the way Dave maintains control at
home.

Doug.

You've crossed the line.


Dave

Well, in yesterday's message, you seem to be edging toward saying it's
OK
for a first time 13 year old shoplifter to be locked up with a violent
felon
who will have his way with the kid. If it's OK for someone else's kid,
then
logically, it must be OK for yours, too. That conclusion is supported by
what you said in yet another message, where you say it's OK to "run
roughshod" over your kids.

Make up your mind.

A simple apology for your uncalled for extreme allegation would be
what a real man would do.


Dave


Fine. I'm sorry.

My respect for you has just moved up several points.

But, that won't help you out of the corner into which
you've painted yourself.

I've done no such thing.

If you think being raped in prison is OK for a kid
who made his first tiny mistake, then I'd like to hear what sorts of
punishment you'd approve of if YOUR kid was in the same situation.

I never said that rape is OK for anyone. I only stated that putting
kids in a "real" prison setting is a real eye-opening experience, and
often scares those same kids into reforming their ways, much more so
than just listening to a former prisoner talk about it. After all,
would you rather go fishing, or listen to someone else talk about it?

But the setting has to be supervised so that the really
psychologically damaging stuff is not allowed to happen.

Dave

See what happens when you assume things? The news story I heard said kids
were being tossed into medium & high security cell blocks with 35 year hold
hard core criminals. There IS no supervision in places like that, unless
someone gets a homemade knife stuck into them in the shower.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:03:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

You mean she? I found that insult to be crass, unprofessional and all
so endemic with the bitterness that has become the democratic party.


If you say "I never said
that", but there is video footage showing you saying those things MANY
TIMES, that's not explained away by a memory lapse, or because you're a
really busy person.

I didn't see any video during the hearings. Of course I had to get
work done, so I could 've missed that.

Einstein, I'm not talking about video of the hearings. I'm talking about the
fact that Rice and other players deny they've made bold (and, in retrospect,
criminal) claims about reasons for the war, but they were recorded by video
cameras saying those things.

Once again, you have to be careful of context. Two very similar
statements can mean different things. Boxer was playing semantics and
context games with Condi, driven by seething bitter partisanship.

I see the democrats are still playing the part of obstructionist.
They're going to slow down the inevitable nomination of Rice as S.O.S.
just because they can.

Actually, I'm glad they're acting like the spoiled bitter children
that they are. The more they show off these sour grapes in public, the
more the voters will turn against them at the polls. Tom Daschle
learned that lesson.

Dave

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:09:26 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:42:50 -0500, DSK wrote:


OK, so we have *not* caught him then... and President Bush has failed to
catch the biggest threat to the United States since WW2.

Dave Hall wrote:

Correction: SO FAR he has failed to catch OBL. Tomorrow is another
day.

Yep, I reckon ol' Bush is gonna catch that Osama Bin Laden guy ay day
ow... the fact that we have no real effort underway, and that President
Bush announces glibly that he doesn't care... yep, any day now...


Did it ever occur to you that by down playing the hunt for Osama, and
getting the ever nosy eyes of the press turned away, that maybe OBL
will drop his guard enough that he'll surface just long enough for one
of our special ops groups to snag him?


Is there any bulldork coming out of the Bush mis-administration that you
will not accept? Or any rationalization about the Bush
mis-administration's failures that you will not promote?

Absolutely. Bush should never have signed or even promoted that
prescription drug plan. That's an albatross around the necks of the
taxpayers...

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:09:26 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:42:50 -0500, DSK wrote:


OK, so we have *not* caught him then... and President Bush has failed
to
catch the biggest threat to the United States since WW2.

Dave Hall wrote:

Correction: SO FAR he has failed to catch OBL. Tomorrow is another
day.

Yep, I reckon ol' Bush is gonna catch that Osama Bin Laden guy ay day
ow... the fact that we have no real effort underway, and that President
Bush announces glibly that he doesn't care... yep, any day now...


Did it ever occur to you that by down playing the hunt for Osama, and
getting the ever nosy eyes of the press turned away, that maybe OBL
will drop his guard enough that he'll surface just long enough for one
of our special ops groups to snag him?


Is there any bulldork coming out of the Bush mis-administration that you
will not accept? Or any rationalization about the Bush
mis-administration's failures that you will not promote?

Absolutely. Bush should never have signed or even promoted that
prescription drug plan. That's an albatross around the necks of the
taxpayers...

I would add all his education bills........if anything, he should have
eliminated the education cabinet position and gotten the feds out of the
education business, where they have no consitutional authority to be in the
first place.



Dave

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:43:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


My views on dogs and their owners is MY business, not derived from reading
what someone else said.

But it is reflective of your ability to rationally judge other
situations.


And, my definition of common sense includes respect
for my neighbors and following the golden rule. I don't leave garbage on
their property, and I expect the exact same behavior from them.

Yes, but your stated preferences for how to deal with the problem is,
at best, a bit extreme. There's nothing "common sense" about it.

Not extreme at all. Most of the time, when people call animal control, they
find out that after 3 violations, their neighbor loses their pet
permanently. The plaintiff usually lets the situation drag out for months.
If possible, I'll arrange for the scum to be caught 3 times in a week or
two, thereby hastening the removal of the dog. There's nothing wrong with
that. I'm using the existing laws, but faster than some people. If the dog
owner ****es me off, why shouldn't I **** them off, too?


Nice back peddle. That last statement would be perfectly acceptable
and an example of what you probably SHOULD do. But, you are on record
as positing that it's perfectly within your right to kill the
offending animals yourself, if you feel the circumstances warrant it,
which, according to your statements, includes stepping in a "pile".

THAT is excessive.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:43:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


My views on dogs and their owners is MY business, not derived from
reading
what someone else said.

But it is reflective of your ability to rationally judge other
situations.


And, my definition of common sense includes respect
for my neighbors and following the golden rule. I don't leave garbage on
their property, and I expect the exact same behavior from them.

Yes, but your stated preferences for how to deal with the problem is,
at best, a bit extreme. There's nothing "common sense" about it.

Not extreme at all. Most of the time, when people call animal control,
they
find out that after 3 violations, their neighbor loses their pet
permanently. The plaintiff usually lets the situation drag out for months.
If possible, I'll arrange for the scum to be caught 3 times in a week or
two, thereby hastening the removal of the dog. There's nothing wrong with
that. I'm using the existing laws, but faster than some people. If the dog
owner ****es me off, why shouldn't I **** them off, too?


Nice back peddle. That last statement would be perfectly acceptable
and an example of what you probably SHOULD do. But, you are on record
as positing that it's perfectly within your right to kill the
offending animals yourself, if you feel the circumstances warrant it,
which, according to your statements, includes stepping in a "pile".

THAT is excessive.

Dave

Not a back peddle at all. I've explained to you in the past that it would be
unsafe and impractical to terminate someone's dog, at least in my
neighborhood, unless I was lucky enough to get my hands around its neck. As
far as stepping in a pile as a reason, I'm chalking that up to differences
between you and I. I don't like sweet pickles or liver. Maybe you do. I
don't like stepping in dog ****, or the consequences and wasted time
connected with it. You apparently do, and I can accept that, although I
think it's very strange. And, you don't believe dogs can (and do) damage
gardens, but we're not going to debate that, or get into fence discussions
for the hundredth time.

You see a difference between a wild animal and a "pet". I don't, under
certain circumstances. If someone's stray dog ends up dead, or is removed
permanently by the animal control dept, and the kiddies are in tears for a
month, that's not MY problem. The adult owners are responsible. They can
explain their mistake to the kiddies.

Poke around rec.gardening for a few weeks and you might learn something.
Some animals are accepted because they do very little damage, like
squirrels. Others are on almost everyone's hit list. Mention the idea of
offing a woodchuck, mole or dog to most gardeners, and they'll say
"Well...of course. What's your question?" We love our gardens as much as
most people love their dogs. The difference is that because of the seasons,
we don't get unlimited chances to make things happen. When those chances are
lessened or completely eliminated by a stray dog who thinks your vegetable
garden is his litter box, there's only one option: Eliminate the dog one way
or the other. We already have to put up with the insane variables thrown at
us by nature. We don't need to deal with a variable that is intentional and
easily eliminated.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

I believe Hillary recently asked Democrats, including the extremists, to
move on already, accept GWB as their President and support him in any way
possible.

Folks like Krause, Gould, jps, Kanter, Basskisser et al will continue to
Monday morning quarterback and grieve over their stunning defeat in the
2004 POTUS election.

If they keep it up the Democratic party is doomed to extinction.

I see the liberals, everyone left of the Republican party today, will become
just fringe wackos. The Republican party will be taken over by moderates.
And, the rise of a conservative party. I will be a member of the new
conservative party. This will be interesting ot watch as all of the
"moderate" and "conservative' Democrats transform themselves into
Republicans.

harry is a total waste of cyber space

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:21:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:43:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


My views on dogs and their owners is MY business, not derived from
reading
what someone else said.

But it is reflective of your ability to rationally judge other
situations.


And, my definition of common sense includes respect
for my neighbors and following the golden rule. I don't leave garbage on
their property, and I expect the exact same behavior from them.

Yes, but your stated preferences for how to deal with the problem is,
at best, a bit extreme. There's nothing "common sense" about it.

Not extreme at all. Most of the time, when people call animal control,
they
find out that after 3 violations, their neighbor loses their pet
permanently. The plaintiff usually lets the situation drag out for months.
If possible, I'll arrange for the scum to be caught 3 times in a week or
two, thereby hastening the removal of the dog. There's nothing wrong with
that. I'm using the existing laws, but faster than some people. If the dog
owner ****es me off, why shouldn't I **** them off, too?


Nice back peddle. That last statement would be perfectly acceptable
and an example of what you probably SHOULD do. But, you are on record
as positing that it's perfectly within your right to kill the
offending animals yourself, if you feel the circumstances warrant it,
which, according to your statements, includes stepping in a "pile".

THAT is excessive.

Dave

Not a back peddle at all. I've explained to you in the past that it would be
unsafe and impractical to terminate someone's dog, at least in my
neighborhood, unless I was lucky enough to get my hands around its neck.

That's a far more restricted tone than what you've portrayed in the
past.

As
far as stepping in a pile as a reason, I'm chalking that up to differences
between you and I. I don't like sweet pickles or liver. Maybe you do. I
don't like stepping in dog ****, or the consequences and wasted time
connected with it. You apparently do, and I can accept that, although I
think it's very strange.

No, I don't LIKE stepping in piles of dog crap. But, when I do, I
don't put on my Rambo costume and go looking for all the stray dogs in
the neighborhood to eliminate. I consider it a MINOR annoyance, one
that is easily eliminated by simply wiping off my shoes. I don't like
stepping in sticky discarded bubble gum either, but I'm not going on a
crusade against every bubble-gum chewer as a result.



And, you don't believe dogs can (and do) damage
gardens, but we're not going to debate that, or get into fence discussions
for the hundredth time.


You see a difference between a wild animal and a "pet".

Because there is.

Interesting comments though. In the first statement, you bring up the
"fence" issue. Once you claimed that you shouldn't have to put up a
fence to keep out a dog, yet you have also recently claimed that you
were considering putting up a fence due to deer or other "wild"
animals. Now, that's interesting considering your claim that you see
no difference between a dog and a wild animal. So if you consider a
dog on the same level as feral animals, then why differentiate when it
comes to putting up a fence to protect your garden?


I don't, under
certain circumstances. If someone's stray dog ends up dead, or is removed
permanently by the animal control dept, and the kiddies are in tears for a
month, that's not MY problem.

It is if you killed the dog.

The adult owners are responsible. They can
explain their mistake to the kiddies.

Yes, they bare some of the responsibility. But I still say that it's
excessive (and illegal in most places) to kill your neighbor's dog
simply for leaving a small pile on your yard.



Poke around rec.gardening for a few weeks and you might learn something.
Some animals are accepted because they do very little damage, like
squirrels. Others are on almost everyone's hit list. Mention the idea of
offing a woodchuck, mole or dog to most gardeners, and they'll say
"Well...of course. What's your question?" We love our gardens as much as
most people love their dogs. The difference is that because of the seasons,
we don't get unlimited chances to make things happen. When those chances are
lessened or completely eliminated by a stray dog who thinks your vegetable
garden is his litter box, there's only one option: Eliminate the dog one way
or the other. We already have to put up with the insane variables thrown at
us by nature. We don't need to deal with a variable that is intentional and
easily eliminated.

So that gives you the "right" to take the law into your own hands? I
think not. And for the record, dogs don't use litter boxes. That would
be cats.

Dave

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:30:10 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Yes it has. But you guys ignored all of the evidence (and had Berger steal
from the archives what couldn't be ignored). Read up on all of the evidence
presented by people like Laurie Mylroie and James Woolsey, and then tell me
which of their claims are inaccurate.


As I stated previously, there is nothing you will not post here in order
to try to justify your failed POTUS.

And there is nothing too shaky, no op-ed piece too incredible, no
opinion or smear tactic too crass that you wouldn't hesitate to post
it if it trashes Bush. Facts need not apply.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:21:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:43:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


My views on dogs and their owners is MY business, not derived from
reading
what someone else said.

But it is reflective of your ability to rationally judge other
situations.


And, my definition of common sense includes respect
for my neighbors and following the golden rule. I don't leave garbage
on
their property, and I expect the exact same behavior from them.

Yes, but your stated preferences for how to deal with the problem is,
at best, a bit extreme. There's nothing "common sense" about it.

Not extreme at all. Most of the time, when people call animal control,
they
find out that after 3 violations, their neighbor loses their pet
permanently. The plaintiff usually lets the situation drag out for
months.
If possible, I'll arrange for the scum to be caught 3 times in a week or
two, thereby hastening the removal of the dog. There's nothing wrong
with
that. I'm using the existing laws, but faster than some people. If the
dog
owner ****es me off, why shouldn't I **** them off, too?


Nice back peddle. That last statement would be perfectly acceptable
and an example of what you probably SHOULD do. But, you are on record
as positing that it's perfectly within your right to kill the
offending animals yourself, if you feel the circumstances warrant it,
which, according to your statements, includes stepping in a "pile".

THAT is excessive.

Dave

Not a back peddle at all. I've explained to you in the past that it would
be
unsafe and impractical to terminate someone's dog, at least in my
neighborhood, unless I was lucky enough to get my hands around its neck.

That's a far more restricted tone than what you've portrayed in the
past.


No. YOU imagined that I would actually use a firearm in a neighborhood where
the homes are 150 feet apart. You then kept repeating it as a debate tactic
until you believed it. I suspect this began at the point when I explained to
you that the law in NY allows you to end any animal which destroys food
crops, assuming it can be done safely with regard to neighbors. Hey! No
kneejerk nonsense - I posted a link to the law for you in the past. If you
didn't read it, that's your problem.



As
far as stepping in a pile as a reason, I'm chalking that up to differences
between you and I. I don't like sweet pickles or liver. Maybe you do. I
don't like stepping in dog ****, or the consequences and wasted time
connected with it. You apparently do, and I can accept that, although I
think it's very strange.

No, I don't LIKE stepping in piles of dog crap. But, when I do, I
don't put on my Rambo costume and go looking for all the stray dogs in
the neighborhood to eliminate. I consider it a MINOR annoyance, one
that is easily eliminated by simply wiping off my shoes. I don't like
stepping in sticky discarded bubble gum either, but I'm not going on a
crusade against every bubble-gum chewer as a result.

I consider it a major problem because it proves there's someone in the area
who cares nothing about his neighbors. If someone lets their dog out the
front door, unsupervised, there are only two possible conclusions: They
*intend* to annoy their neighbors, or they're oblivious to the consequences
and should be living in a group home for the retarded, and be more closely
supervised.



And, you don't believe dogs can (and do) damage
gardens, but we're not going to debate that, or get into fence discussions
for the hundredth time.


You see a difference between a wild animal and a "pet".

Because there is.

Not when the "pet" is unsupervised, and repeatedly. Maybe a dog gets loose
once by mistake. Twice is not a mistake. It's intentional. A pet is an
animal which is loved and cared for 100%, not just when convenient.


Interesting comments though. In the first statement, you bring up the
"fence" issue. Once you claimed that you shouldn't have to put up a
fence to keep out a dog, yet you have also recently claimed that you
were considering putting up a fence due to deer or other "wild"
animals. Now, that's interesting considering your claim that you see
no difference between a dog and a wild animal. So if you consider a
dog on the same level as feral animals, then why differentiate when it
comes to putting up a fence to protect your garden?

A stray dog is, in effect, sent out on an assignment by a bad neighbor who
thinks the animal is not their problem to deal with. That's entirely
different from deer which are eating for survival.


I don't, under
certain circumstances. If someone's stray dog ends up dead, or is removed
permanently by the animal control dept, and the kiddies are in tears for a
month, that's not MY problem.

It is if you killed the dog.


And if the dog is hit by a car? In that case, I assume you understand it's
daddy & mommy's fault. But, the educational experience is the same for the
kiddies. They learn that their parents are unsocialized, lazy, irresponsible
pigs.


The adult owners are responsible. They can
explain their mistake to the kiddies.

Yes, they bare some of the responsibility. But I still say that it's
excessive (and illegal in most places) to kill your neighbor's dog
simply for leaving a small pile on your yard.

Thank you for calling the show. We'll take more callers after this quick
break for a word from Acme mental floss.



Poke around rec.gardening for a few weeks and you might learn something.
Some animals are accepted because they do very little damage, like
squirrels. Others are on almost everyone's hit list. Mention the idea of
offing a woodchuck, mole or dog to most gardeners, and they'll say
"Well...of course. What's your question?" We love our gardens as much as
most people love their dogs. The difference is that because of the
seasons,
we don't get unlimited chances to make things happen. When those chances
are
lessened or completely eliminated by a stray dog who thinks your vegetable
garden is his litter box, there's only one option: Eliminate the dog one
way
or the other. We already have to put up with the insane variables thrown
at
us by nature. We don't need to deal with a variable that is intentional
and
easily eliminated.

So that gives you the "right" to take the law into your own hands? I
think not. And for the record, dogs don't use litter boxes. That would
be cats.

Thanks. I never knew that about litter boxes.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:57:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Folks like Krause, Gould, jps, Kanter, Basskisser et al will continue to
Monday morning quarterback and grieve over their stunning defeat in the
2004 POTUS election.

If they keep it up the Democratic party is doomed to extinction.


OK...I'm gonna ask you something. Try and separate it from everything you've
said above. Ready? Here's the question:

Do you (and since definitions are difficult, I mean YOU PERSONALLY) believe
that Bush is intellectually as good a president as you could've had?

That question is irrelevant. He was the best that we had of the
options available. He was head and shoulders better in most ways that
Algore, and Kerry? There are still way too many unanswered questions
about his involvement in the anti-war effort in Vietnam, and how much
of it may have crossed the line into treason. Add in his liberal
voting record in the senate, and Bush looks like a shining knight by
comparison.


To help you with this, here's an analogy, or a "strawman", as little Dave
likes to call it: You're on your way home from work. Your wife calls and
reminds you that you're supposed to stop at the supermarket and buy steaks
because you have people coming to dinner in an hour. You forgot, so you're
not on the best route to the store. You correct your course, haul ass into
the store, avoid the worst steaks, can't find the best steaks, so you buy
some you know are safe. Are those the best steaks you could've had?

Yes.

You really need a course in offering analogies as this one makes
little sense.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Dave

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:17:03 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

I believe Hillary recently asked Democrats, including the extremists, to
move on already, accept GWB as their President and support him in any way
possible.

Folks like Krause, Gould, jps, Kanter, Basskisser et al will continue to
Monday morning quarterback and grieve over their stunning defeat in the
2004 POTUS election.

If they keep it up the Democratic party is doomed to extinction.

I see the liberals, everyone left of the Republican party today, will become
just fringe wackos. The Republican party will be taken over by moderates.
And, the rise of a conservative party. I will be a member of the new
conservative party. This will be interesting ot watch as all of the
"moderate" and "conservative' Democrats transform themselves into
Republicans.


Zell Miller isn't the only democrat with a little pride and common
sense left.

Dave

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:24:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


That's a far more restricted tone than what you've portrayed in the
past.


No. YOU imagined that I would actually use a firearm in a neighborhood where
the homes are 150 feet apart.

You made the claim at one point.


You then kept repeating it as a debate tactic
until you believed it.

Considering that you made the claim and then failed to deny it plays a
bit a part in this....


I suspect this began at the point when I explained to
you that the law in NY allows you to end any animal which destroys food
crops, assuming it can be done safely with regard to neighbors. Hey! No
kneejerk nonsense - I posted a link to the law for you in the past. If you
didn't read it, that's your problem.

I also posted SEVERAL links to actual court cases where neighbors were
convicted of crimes for killing other neighbor's dogs. Guess what? Not
all of them were done with firearms. Poisonings were also common and
just as illegal.

The bottom line is that the manner of killing is irrelevant. Making
this about a gun is a red herring, a deflection tactic. The point of
fact is still that you do not have the right to take the law into your
own hands. Now, if you want to go back to your recent regressive
attitude where you stated that you would solve the problem by
utilizing the services of animal control, then I have no further
issue. Once you step over the line of killing the dog yourself, you
are outside of your legal purview.


As
far as stepping in a pile as a reason, I'm chalking that up to differences
between you and I. I don't like sweet pickles or liver. Maybe you do. I
don't like stepping in dog ****, or the consequences and wasted time
connected with it. You apparently do, and I can accept that, although I
think it's very strange.

No, I don't LIKE stepping in piles of dog crap. But, when I do, I
don't put on my Rambo costume and go looking for all the stray dogs in
the neighborhood to eliminate. I consider it a MINOR annoyance, one
that is easily eliminated by simply wiping off my shoes. I don't like
stepping in sticky discarded bubble gum either, but I'm not going on a
crusade against every bubble-gum chewer as a result.

I consider it a major problem because it proves there's someone in the area
who cares nothing about his neighbors.

But you are not anointed to make that judgement call.

If someone lets their dog out the
front door, unsupervised, there are only two possible conclusions: They
*intend* to annoy their neighbors, or they're oblivious to the consequences
and should be living in a group home for the retarded, and be more closely
supervised.

Or three, they believe that animals need to run free on occasion. Some
view constant restraint as cruel.

That is another point of view. Just as equal and valid as yours.


And, you don't believe dogs can (and do) damage
gardens, but we're not going to debate that, or get into fence discussions
for the hundredth time.


You see a difference between a wild animal and a "pet".

Because there is.

Not when the "pet" is unsupervised, and repeatedly. Maybe a dog gets loose
once by mistake. Twice is not a mistake. It's intentional. A pet is an
animal which is loved and cared for 100%, not just when convenient.

Part of that "love and care" is the granting of occasional freedom.
Dogs need to run to get proper exercise.

Interesting comments though. In the first statement, you bring up the
"fence" issue. Once you claimed that you shouldn't have to put up a
fence to keep out a dog, yet you have also recently claimed that you
were considering putting up a fence due to deer or other "wild"
animals. Now, that's interesting considering your claim that you see
no difference between a dog and a wild animal. So if you consider a
dog on the same level as feral animals, then why differentiate when it
comes to putting up a fence to protect your garden?

A stray dog is, in effect, sent out on an assignment by a bad neighbor who
thinks the animal is not their problem to deal with. That's entirely
different from deer which are eating for survival.

There is no difference when it comes to protecting your "investment".
In typical left wing fashion, you look to deflect responsibility for
the protection of your property to anyone other than yourself. Since
you can't practically deflect that responsibility when it comes to
feral animals, you reluctantly accept your responsibility. But you do
not extend that responsibility to domestic pets which you, on one
hand, feel are "no different" than wild animals, but on the other
hand, seem to feel that you bare no responsibility in protecting your
garden from.


I don't, under
certain circumstances. If someone's stray dog ends up dead, or is removed
permanently by the animal control dept, and the kiddies are in tears for a
month, that's not MY problem.

It is if you killed the dog.


And if the dog is hit by a car? In that case, I assume you understand it's
daddy & mommy's fault.

Not necessarily. Mommy and daddy might be still at work, and the kids
let the dog out.


But, the educational experience is the same for the
kiddies. They learn that their parents are unsocialized, lazy, irresponsible
pigs.

That's a bit harsh. Sometimes kids are hit by cars too. Should parents
confine their kids to the house until they're adults too? Would you
not think that this level of confinement is cruel? Why then do you not
feel the same way for a dog?


Poke around rec.gardening for a few weeks and you might learn something.
Some animals are accepted because they do very little damage, like
squirrels. Others are on almost everyone's hit list. Mention the idea of
offing a woodchuck, mole or dog to most gardeners, and they'll say
"Well...of course. What's your question?" We love our gardens as much as
most people love their dogs. The difference is that because of the
seasons,
we don't get unlimited chances to make things happen. When those chances
are
lessened or completely eliminated by a stray dog who thinks your vegetable
garden is his litter box, there's only one option: Eliminate the dog one
way
or the other. We already have to put up with the insane variables thrown
at
us by nature. We don't need to deal with a variable that is intentional
and
easily eliminated.

So that gives you the "right" to take the law into your own hands? I
think not. And for the record, dogs don't use litter boxes. That would
be cats.

Thanks. I never knew that about litter boxes.

So it would seem.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I suspect this began at the point when I explained to
you that the law in NY allows you to end any animal which destroys food
crops, assuming it can be done safely with regard to neighbors. Hey! No
kneejerk nonsense - I posted a link to the law for you in the past. If you
didn't read it, that's your problem.

I also posted SEVERAL links to actual court cases where neighbors were
convicted of crimes for killing other neighbor's dogs. Guess what? Not
all of them were done with firearms. Poisonings were also common and
just as illegal.

If someone does a lousy job, who's to blame, Dave? The people you mention
must've been stupid. Unless you live in a cave, you know (sort of) how Jimmy
Hoffa was dealt with, right? Do you need this implication explained?



The bottom line is that the manner of killing is irrelevant. Making
this about a gun is a red herring, a deflection tactic. The point of
fact is still that you do not have the right to take the law into your
own hands. Now, if you want to go back to your recent regressive
attitude where you stated that you would solve the problem by
utilizing the services of animal control, then I have no further
issue. Once you step over the line of killing the dog yourself, you
are outside of your legal purview.


As
far as stepping in a pile as a reason, I'm chalking that up to
differences
between you and I. I don't like sweet pickles or liver. Maybe you do. I
don't like stepping in dog ****, or the consequences and wasted time
connected with it. You apparently do, and I can accept that, although I
think it's very strange.

No, I don't LIKE stepping in piles of dog crap. But, when I do, I
don't put on my Rambo costume and go looking for all the stray dogs in
the neighborhood to eliminate. I consider it a MINOR annoyance, one
that is easily eliminated by simply wiping off my shoes. I don't like
stepping in sticky discarded bubble gum either, but I'm not going on a
crusade against every bubble-gum chewer as a result.

I consider it a major problem because it proves there's someone in the
area
who cares nothing about his neighbors.

But you are not anointed to make that judgement call.


I annointed myself. It was easy. Not everyone needs a committee to make a
decision.



If someone lets their dog out the
front door, unsupervised, there are only two possible conclusions: They
*intend* to annoy their neighbors, or they're oblivious to the
consequences
and should be living in a group home for the retarded, and be more closely
supervised.

Or three, they believe that animals need to run free on occasion. Some
view constant restraint as cruel.

That is another point of view. Just as equal and valid as yours.

Here's another point of view: If you want to own horses, cows or goats, you
usually get a much bigger piece of land than the typical 1/8 or 1/4 acre. If
you think your dog needs lots of room to run around, you ante up and buy
that room. Otherwise, you leaflet your neighborhood to inform your neighbors
that any time they find dog **** on their property, they should call you to
come clean it up, any time of the day or night.

Hey....there's an easy catch-all term for this. Maybe you've heard of it:
Personal responsibility


Part of that "love and care" is the granting of occasional freedom.
Dogs need to run to get proper exercise.


Not on MY property. If you think the community has the right to co-opt my
land, that's socialism.



And if the dog is hit by a car? In that case, I assume you understand it's
daddy & mommy's fault.

Not necessarily. Mommy and daddy might be still at work, and the kids
let the dog out.

Maybe the kids spill ginger ale into the goldfish bowl and the fish dies.
This is how they learn.



But, the educational experience is the same for the
kiddies. They learn that their parents are unsocialized, lazy,
irresponsible
pigs.

That's a bit harsh. Sometimes kids are hit by cars too. Should parents
confine their kids to the house until they're adults too? Would you
not think that this level of confinement is cruel? Why then do you not
feel the same way for a dog?

If you can't teach your kids to be careful near the street, then you and the
kids become poster boys for survival of the fittest. It's simple.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:07:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I suspect this began at the point when I explained to
you that the law in NY allows you to end any animal which destroys food
crops, assuming it can be done safely with regard to neighbors. Hey! No
kneejerk nonsense - I posted a link to the law for you in the past. If you
didn't read it, that's your problem.

I also posted SEVERAL links to actual court cases where neighbors were
convicted of crimes for killing other neighbor's dogs. Guess what? Not
all of them were done with firearms. Poisonings were also common and
just as illegal.

If someone does a lousy job, who's to blame, Dave? The people you mention
must've been stupid. Unless you live in a cave, you know (sort of) how Jimmy
Hoffa was dealt with, right? Do you need this implication explained?

So now you are positing that the only crime that was committed was
that the perps got caught?

Are you another one of those "it's only illegal if you're caught"
types?

The bottom line is that the manner of killing is irrelevant. Making
this about a gun is a red herring, a deflection tactic. The point of
fact is still that you do not have the right to take the law into your
own hands. Now, if you want to go back to your recent regressive
attitude where you stated that you would solve the problem by
utilizing the services of animal control, then I have no further
issue. Once you step over the line of killing the dog yourself, you
are outside of your legal purview.


As
far as stepping in a pile as a reason, I'm chalking that up to
differences
between you and I. I don't like sweet pickles or liver. Maybe you do. I
don't like stepping in dog ****, or the consequences and wasted time
connected with it. You apparently do, and I can accept that, although I
think it's very strange.

No, I don't LIKE stepping in piles of dog crap. But, when I do, I
don't put on my Rambo costume and go looking for all the stray dogs in
the neighborhood to eliminate. I consider it a MINOR annoyance, one
that is easily eliminated by simply wiping off my shoes. I don't like
stepping in sticky discarded bubble gum either, but I'm not going on a
crusade against every bubble-gum chewer as a result.

I consider it a major problem because it proves there's someone in the
area
who cares nothing about his neighbors.

But you are not anointed to make that judgement call.


I annointed myself. It was easy. Not everyone needs a committee to make a
decision.

You are not in the position to do that. You don't make the rules of
society. Society makes the rules and it is, in essence, a committee.


If someone lets their dog out the
front door, unsupervised, there are only two possible conclusions: They
*intend* to annoy their neighbors, or they're oblivious to the
consequences
and should be living in a group home for the retarded, and be more closely
supervised.

Or three, they believe that animals need to run free on occasion. Some
view constant restraint as cruel.

That is another point of view. Just as equal and valid as yours.

Here's another point of view: If you want to own horses, cows or goats, you
usually get a much bigger piece of land than the typical 1/8 or 1/4 acre.

You also need the proper zoning.

If
you think your dog needs lots of room to run around, you ante up and buy
that room.

Not always practical or affordable in most areas. Most developers
don't make developments with 3 acre lots. Even greater than 1/2 acre
are rare.

Otherwise, you leaflet your neighborhood to inform your neighbors
that any time they find dog **** on their property, they should call you to
come clean it up, any time of the day or night.

Hey....there's an easy catch-all term for this. Maybe you've heard of it:
Personal responsibility

Yep, so clean up that pile, put a fence around your garden, and stop
whining about it.


Part of that "love and care" is the granting of occasional freedom.
Dogs need to run to get proper exercise.


Not on MY property. If you think the community has the right to co-opt my
land, that's socialism.

But I thought, you guys on the left liked that sort of stuff.

If you don't want trespassers on your property, then post it, and put
up a fence to keep out all who can't read.

But, the educational experience is the same for the
kiddies. They learn that their parents are unsocialized, lazy,
irresponsible
pigs.

That's a bit harsh. Sometimes kids are hit by cars too. Should parents
confine their kids to the house until they're adults too? Would you
not think that this level of confinement is cruel? Why then do you not
feel the same way for a dog?

If you can't teach your kids to be careful near the street, then you and the
kids become poster boys for survival of the fittest. It's simple.

I'm all for that. Natural selection has a specific purpose. Only the
compassion of he bleeding hearts circumvents this.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:07:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..


I suspect this began at the point when I explained to
you that the law in NY allows you to end any animal which destroys food
crops, assuming it can be done safely with regard to neighbors. Hey! No
kneejerk nonsense - I posted a link to the law for you in the past. If
you
didn't read it, that's your problem.

I also posted SEVERAL links to actual court cases where neighbors were
convicted of crimes for killing other neighbor's dogs. Guess what? Not
all of them were done with firearms. Poisonings were also common and
just as illegal.

If someone does a lousy job, who's to blame, Dave? The people you mention
must've been stupid. Unless you live in a cave, you know (sort of) how
Jimmy
Hoffa was dealt with, right? Do you need this implication explained?

So now you are positing that the only crime that was committed was
that the perps got caught?

Are you another one of those "it's only illegal if you're caught"
types?

No. I'm saying the body should never be found, silly. Maybe this is why the
mob doesn't hire guys like you. :-)




I annointed myself. It was easy. Not everyone needs a committee to make a
decision.

You are not in the position to do that. You don't make the rules of
society. Society makes the rules and it is, in essence, a committee.

Blah blah blah.....you make sure there are peanut donuts at the committee
meeting, and maybe I'll stop by and listen, church lady.




Here's another point of view: If you want to own horses, cows or goats,
you
usually get a much bigger piece of land than the typical 1/8 or 1/4 acre.

You also need the proper zoning.

Why do you suppose there are zoning rules if you want to keep cows, goats,
horses, etc.?



If
you think your dog needs lots of room to run around, you ante up and buy
that room.

Not always practical or affordable in most areas. Most developers
don't make developments with 3 acre lots. Even greater than 1/2 acre
are rare.

I might want to build my kid a motorcross track, but I only have .18 acres.
However, my yard connects without any physical interruption to two other
yards. Do you suppose it would be OK for me to build some of the track so it
includes my neighbors' yards?




Otherwise, you leaflet your neighborhood to inform your neighbors
that any time they find dog **** on their property, they should call you
to
come clean it up, any time of the day or night.

Hey....there's an easy catch-all term for this. Maybe you've heard of it:
Personal responsibility

Yep, so clean up that pile, put a fence around your garden, and stop
whining about it.

What??? I'm personally responsible for someone else's dog? Isn't that like
saying YOU are responsible for contributing tax dollars to someone else's
abortion?



Part of that "love and care" is the granting of occasional freedom.
Dogs need to run to get proper exercise.


Not on MY property. If you think the community has the right to co-opt my
land, that's socialism.

But I thought, you guys on the left liked that sort of stuff.

Nah....you never heard anyone say that. It's just a mantra you enjoy.



That's a bit harsh. Sometimes kids are hit by cars too. Should parents
confine their kids to the house until they're adults too? Would you
not think that this level of confinement is cruel? Why then do you not
feel the same way for a dog?

If you can't teach your kids to be careful near the street, then you and
the
kids become poster boys for survival of the fittest. It's simple.

I'm all for that. Natural selection has a specific purpose. Only the
compassion of he bleeding hearts circumvents this.

Well, then I guess I'm not one of them there bleeding hearts, Dave, because
I like it when people incur penalties for their bad decisions. So do you,
when it's convenient for you to say so.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:55:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:07:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I suspect this began at the point when I explained to
you that the law in NY allows you to end any animal which destroys food
crops, assuming it can be done safely with regard to neighbors. Hey! No
kneejerk nonsense - I posted a link to the law for you in the past. If
you
didn't read it, that's your problem.

I also posted SEVERAL links to actual court cases where neighbors were
convicted of crimes for killing other neighbor's dogs. Guess what? Not
all of them were done with firearms. Poisonings were also common and
just as illegal.

If someone does a lousy job, who's to blame, Dave? The people you mention
must've been stupid. Unless you live in a cave, you know (sort of) how
Jimmy
Hoffa was dealt with, right? Do you need this implication explained?

So now you are positing that the only crime that was committed was
that the perps got caught?

Are you another one of those "it's only illegal if you're caught"
types?

No. I'm saying the body should never be found, silly. Maybe this is why the
mob doesn't hire guys like you. :-)

It's still illegal, whether you were caught or not. Condoning the
circumvention of the law, even if you can be reasonably sure of
getting away with it, says much about your moral character, or lack
thereof.


I annointed myself. It was easy. Not everyone needs a committee to make a
decision.

You are not in the position to do that. You don't make the rules of
society. Society makes the rules and it is, in essence, a committee.

Blah blah blah.....you make sure there are peanut donuts at the committee
meeting, and maybe I'll stop by and listen, church lady.

So you don't like living by the rules of society eh? Maybe it's time
you find yourself a nice deserted island.

Were you one of those wacko protesters in the 60's who shouted "down
with the establishment"? Do you feel oppressed by "the man"?

Far out man......


Here's another point of view: If you want to own horses, cows or goats,
you
usually get a much bigger piece of land than the typical 1/8 or 1/4 acre.

You also need the proper zoning.

Why do you suppose there are zoning rules if you want to keep cows, goats,
horses, etc.?

Residential neighbors don't like living next to a major source of bad
odors. And they voted as a block to make sure it doesn't happen.

If
you think your dog needs lots of room to run around, you ante up and buy
that room.

Not always practical or affordable in most areas. Most developers
don't make developments with 3 acre lots. Even greater than 1/2 acre
are rare.

I might want to build my kid a motorcross track, but I only have .18 acres.
However, my yard connects without any physical interruption to two other
yards. Do you suppose it would be OK for me to build some of the track so it
includes my neighbors' yards?

No. But if they kill your kid when he occasionally deviates from his
own yard, I'm sure you'll want them on death row.


Otherwise, you leaflet your neighborhood to inform your neighbors
that any time they find dog **** on their property, they should call you
to
come clean it up, any time of the day or night.

Hey....there's an easy catch-all term for this. Maybe you've heard of it:
Personal responsibility

Yep, so clean up that pile, put a fence around your garden, and stop
whining about it.

What??? I'm personally responsible for someone else's dog?

No your personally responsible for taking care of your property and
preventing things that might happen.


Isn't that like
saying YOU are responsible for contributing tax dollars to someone else's
abortion?

No.


That's a bit harsh. Sometimes kids are hit by cars too. Should parents
confine their kids to the house until they're adults too? Would you
not think that this level of confinement is cruel? Why then do you not
feel the same way for a dog?

If you can't teach your kids to be careful near the street, then you and
the
kids become poster boys for survival of the fittest. It's simple.

I'm all for that. Natural selection has a specific purpose. Only the
compassion of he bleeding hearts circumvents this.

Well, then I guess I'm not one of them there bleeding hearts, Dave, because
I like it when people incur penalties for their bad decisions. So do you,
when it's convenient for you to say so.

Which is usually most of the time.

The difference is that if someone does something stupid, and something
bad happens as a direct result of that action, then I feel that they
brought it on themselves. That's a far cry from another person taking
the law into their own hands in order to "teach" someone else a lesson
that they feel is deserved. That's why we have civil laws and
enforcement people to deal with cases like this.

Dave

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:50:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


This really is a dumb string, because the dumb really have prevailed.
Bush is in the White House, we're still at war with a country that did
not attack us, our soldiers are still dying by the hundreds, the neocons
plan to instigate more wars, there's no relief in sight for those who
have no health insurance, the economy still sucks, our trade deficit is
astronomical, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Ergo, the really dumb have prevailed.

How much credibility does one put in the post of a despicable liar?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Here's another point of view: If you want to own horses, cows or goats,
you
usually get a much bigger piece of land than the typical 1/8 or 1/4
acre.

You also need the proper zoning.

Why do you suppose there are zoning rules if you want to keep cows, goats,
horses, etc.?

Residential neighbors don't like living next to a major source of bad
odors. And they voted as a block to make sure it doesn't happen.

Residential neighbors generally don't like having their yards used at
toilets, either.



I might want to build my kid a motorcross track, but I only have .18
acres.
However, my yard connects without any physical interruption to two other
yards. Do you suppose it would be OK for me to build some of the track so
it
includes my neighbors' yards?

No. But if they kill your kid when he occasionally deviates from his
own yard, I'm sure you'll want them on death row.

You said "No", which I take to mean it's NOT ok for me to extend a motocross
track into my neighbor's yard. If the sport requires more space, it's my job
to find another way to give it that space.

But it's OK for a dog that needs more space to use MY space.

Conclusion: You know full well that your argument about dogs needing space
is absurd, but you're hanging onto that idea because of pride.



Otherwise, you leaflet your neighborhood to inform your neighbors
that any time they find dog **** on their property, they should call you
to
come clean it up, any time of the day or night.

Hey....there's an easy catch-all term for this. Maybe you've heard of
it:
Personal responsibility

Yep, so clean up that pile, put a fence around your garden, and stop
whining about it.

What??? I'm personally responsible for someone else's dog?

No your personally responsible for taking care of your property and
preventing things that might happen.

Uh oh! My son plays soccer. My yard adjoins my neighbor's. Every day, the
soccer ball is kicked at high speed into the neighbor's flower bed, breaking
a few stems. A few weeks of this and there will be no flowers left.

Is it the neighbor's job to put up a fence?

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:59:36 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:50:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

This really is a dumb string, because the dumb really have prevailed.
Bush is in the White House, we're still at war with a country that did
not attack us, our soldiers are still dying by the hundreds, the neocons
plan to instigate more wars, there's no relief in sight for those who
have no health insurance, the economy still sucks, our trade deficit is
astronomical, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Ergo, the really dumb have prevailed.


How much credibility does one put in the post of a despicable liar?


Well, you voted for the turd.

You're calling yourself a turd that I voted for? No, you're not a
turd. You're a liar.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:59:36 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:50:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

This really is a dumb string, because the dumb really have
prevailed.
Bush is in the White House, we're still at war with a country that
did
not attack us, our soldiers are still dying by the hundreds, the
neocons
plan to instigate more wars, there's no relief in sight for those
who
have no health insurance, the economy still sucks, our trade
deficit is
astronomical, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Ergo, the really dumb have prevailed.


How much credibility does one put in the post of a despicable
liar?


Well, you voted for the turd.

You're calling yourself a turd that I voted for? No, you're not a
turd. You're a liar.

John H

John, speaking of liars, please show where Harry stated that he "helped
identify" bodies in VietNam.