When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Let's make this simple, Dave. There are only two kinds of property:
Yours,
and someone else's. If the dog ****s or destroys things on your property,
that's fine. If the dog leaves your property and ****s/destroys, it's
doing
so on someone else's property. Now, please explain how any dog owner can
see
his dog leave his property and say "I didn't know it was going to mess up
someone else's property".


Ok, if we stick to your binary view of property, you are either on
your property or someone else's. When you leave your property, am I to
assume that you are intending to damage someone else's property?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.


Assuming that a dog owner knows that the dog has left his property
(And many don't), while you may assume that they may mark some
territory along the way, many times they roam just to roam.
You seem to harbor this notion that dogs do nothing but destroy
things. A notion brought about from your hatred of dogs, no doubt.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't **** on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget that
nonsense. When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner NEVER
to try that line on him again. Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.


Of course in reality, there are places where property is either public
or government owned. Not all property is private.

Great. So, it's OK for dogs to crap on a public sidewalk, where, if you're
out walking at night, the crap blends in with bits of wet leaves?
Oh..wait...I know your answer: Normal people don't go for walks at night.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:51:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws
which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in
taking matters into your own hands?

Dave

Which part of "the law" do you not understand? Here, the law states that
in
certain instances, an animal may be killed by a landowner. Period. If the
conditions are met, it can be done.

I suspect that those "conditions" do not extend to inadvertent digging
in some one's yard.

The moment that digging destroys vegetable seedlings, the conditions have
been met.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


If you have a dog, when it goes outside, it should be on a leash and you
should pick up after it, or, it should be on a run in *your* yard.

Normally yes. But dogs do get loose on occasion

We're not talking about "on occasion", Dave. We're talking about repeat
offenders, with owners who thumb their noses at the rest of the world.


Because **** happens? And it goes away in a few weeks.

So would a trash bag full of vegetable scraps. Would it be OK if I dumped
mine all over your lawn, driveway and the hood of your car every day? I have
more than enough compost. I want you to have some, too. Sorry if the color
of the orange & grapefruit rinds clashes with your lawn and the coffee
grounds go into the vent intakes of your car.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Doug,
Why do you think they have small claims court? In case you are not familiar
it is so people will not take the law into their own hands.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the
law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place
where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my
cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned,
the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Great. You get paid for the damage, but the animal still exists, as does its
owner. No, John. The Good Way is to "vanish" the animal. Not a big scene -
just "vanish". Quietly.

As I asked elsewhere in this thread: "Dog? What dog?"

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:VhPjc.36185$0u6.6217364@attbi_s03...
Doug,
Why do you think they have small claims court? In case you are not
familiar
it is so people will not take the law into their own hands.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society
governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually
belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the
law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place
where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth
of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What
if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my
cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial
to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned,
the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month
or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be
honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned, the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?


Couldn't resist jumping in here, 'cause this actually happened to me. The car
was a brand new Saab. I trapped the cat and took it to the animal shelter. Told
them the story. They wanted to know only the street the cat came from. I never
saw the cat again. The owner must not have been concerned as she would have only
had to call the animal shelter to get her cat back.

John H

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

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society
governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually
belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the
law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place
where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What
if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my
cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned,
the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be
honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?


Couldn't resist jumping in here, 'cause this actually happened to me. The
car
was a brand new Saab. I trapped the cat and took it to the animal shelter.
Told
them the story. They wanted to know only the street the cat came from. I
never
saw the cat again. The owner must not have been concerned as she would
have only
had to call the animal shelter to get her cat back.

John H

Two questions:
1) What kind of bait did you use?
2) "Where there's smoke, there's a SAAB". The Car Talk guys on NPR love that
line. Is it true?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Couldn't resist jumping in here, 'cause this actually happened to me. The car
was a brand new Saab. I trapped the cat and took it to the animal shelter.
Told
them the story. They wanted to know only the street the cat came from. I
never
saw the cat again. The owner must not have been concerned as she would have
only
had to call the animal shelter to get her cat back.

What's the big deal? Just another instance of loose pussy in MD.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:36:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

YOU have no say at all in how I conduct my life and that galls you
something
fierce.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but despite your feelings to the
contrary, in any civilized society there are laws which you are
obligated to follow, irrespective of your anarchistic and nihilistic
nature. The reality of this would seem to "gall" you.

Aren't you the same guy who has said, at least 12 million times

12 million and 1, but who's counting?

in the past,
that there are too many laws, and that personal responsibility, if taught
correctly, would obviate the need for more laws?

In theory that would be true. But you and I both know that there are
too many people in the world who do not rise to the occasion when it
comes to personal responsibility. That being said, I am of the mindset
where laws should be basic and based on moral grounds. Things like
killing, theft,and rape should be clearly defined. I have my biggest
problem with "social lifestyle" and "nuisance" laws, which attempt to
define acceptable behavior according to (supposedly) a majority of the
members of society, despite the overtly subjective value judgement of
the activity in question


Why is it, then, that a
place like NYC finally instituted a scooper law, and began busting people
who let their dogs crap right on the sidewalk and then left it there? We're
talking about dogs on a leash, with their owners watching.

I dispute the value of those laws. They make no sense in places like
where I live. It's supposed to be some big health threat to leave dog
poop on the curb or adjacent lawn, but any number of native wildlife
species have carte blanche access to do the same. Another example of
not seeing the forest for the trees. On the other hand, in a concrete
jungle, it probably makes better sense.


You seem to enjoy using the law to support your arguments as long as the
laws in question have no effect on you.

No, that's not it at all. I respect most laws as they are. I am not
the anarchist here. I am rarely on the wrong side of the law on these
issues. On those laws with which I am odds with, I have no problem
with lobbying for change.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:31:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

You bemoan "inconsiderate" neighbors, who may be guilty of some degree
of negligence, but "retaliate" against them with an equally
inconsiderate response. I'm sorry but you will never convince me that
you are morally or legally authorized to terminate the life of another
living being no matter what "damage" or inconvenience they may have
caused you. There are proper channels to seek out compensation or
retribution for these acts. That these proper channels are not "good
enough" for you is not our problem.

Dave

So, you're a vegetarian?

Relevance?

You said "....you will never convince me that you are morally or legally
authorized to terminate the life of another living being no matter what
"damage" or inconvenience they may have caused you."

You do that every time you eat meat.


Irrelevant. Totally unrelated circumstance. Are you planning to eat
your neighbor's dog?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:37:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:39:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54...
Don,

Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please?

Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they
understand
and
accept the consequences.

Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to
certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to
"take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should
understand that.


Dave

You only "take your chances" if you're unfamiliar with the law. If I
shoplift $50 worth of razor blades from a grocery store, I understand
that
I've instantly given up my right to complain if I'm arrested. That's
simple.
The act is immoral. The understanding of the law is irrelevant.

So from this, can I then infer that you are of the "I'm only guilty if
I'm caught" mindset?

Dave

What??? No - I'm guilty the moment the razor blades go into my pocket.


Ok then. The next question I have is, do you refrain from stealing
those $50 worth of razor blades because you know it's morally wrong,
or because you feel that you have a good chance of getting caught?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned, the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one.

What, are you Darth Dougie now? ;-)

Be honest for once in your life, Dave.

Are you implying that I am not otherwise? Why would you have a problem
believing in my honesty?


What would you REALLY do?

I guess this is the difference between you and I Doug. I suspect that
we both would get really ****ed off, and would desire to retaliate in
some way, which would ensure that it never happened again. The
difference is that you would probably carry it through, while I would
likely restrain myself by a very strong sense of morality. I'd
probably make sure I parked the car in the garage (You do have one of
those right?) from then on. If the cat happened to end up dead in the
road the next week, I'd chalk it up to "God's Revenge".

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:43:00 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned, the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?


Couldn't resist jumping in here, 'cause this actually happened to me. The car
was a brand new Saab. I trapped the cat and took it to the animal shelter. Told
them the story. They wanted to know only the street the cat came from. I never
saw the cat again. The owner must not have been concerned as she would have only
had to call the animal shelter to get her cat back.


That's a FAR better solution than Doug's "vanishing" act.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:31:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

You bemoan "inconsiderate" neighbors, who may be guilty of some
degree
of negligence, but "retaliate" against them with an equally
inconsiderate response. I'm sorry but you will never convince me
that
you are morally or legally authorized to terminate the life of
another
living being no matter what "damage" or inconvenience they may have
caused you. There are proper channels to seek out compensation or
retribution for these acts. That these proper channels are not "good
enough" for you is not our problem.

Dave

So, you're a vegetarian?

Relevance?

You said "....you will never convince me that you are morally or legally
authorized to terminate the life of another living being no matter what
"damage" or inconvenience they may have caused you."

You do that every time you eat meat.


Irrelevant. Totally unrelated circumstance. Are you planning to eat
your neighbor's dog?

Dave

You made a blanket statement. Do you kill silverfish if you find them in
your cellar? How about a mosquito biting your arm?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:50:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:51:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws
which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in
taking matters into your own hands?

Dave

Which part of "the law" do you not understand? Here, the law states that
in
certain instances, an animal may be killed by a landowner. Period. If the
conditions are met, it can be done.

I suspect that those "conditions" do not extend to inadvertent digging
in some one's yard.

The moment that digging destroys vegetable seedlings, the conditions have
been met.


And you have yet to provide the verbiage which states these
conditions, or at least provide a link to the applicable laws, so that
I can peruse them.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:36:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

YOU have no say at all in how I conduct my life and that galls you
something
fierce.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but despite your feelings to the
contrary, in any civilized society there are laws which you are
obligated to follow, irrespective of your anarchistic and nihilistic
nature. The reality of this would seem to "gall" you.

Aren't you the same guy who has said, at least 12 million times

12 million and 1, but who's counting?

in the past,
that there are too many laws, and that personal responsibility, if taught
correctly, would obviate the need for more laws?

In theory that would be true. But you and I both know that there are
too many people in the world who do not rise to the occasion when it
comes to personal responsibility. That being said, I am of the mindset
where laws should be basic and based on moral grounds. Things like
killing, theft,and rape should be clearly defined. I have my biggest
problem with "social lifestyle" and "nuisance" laws, which attempt to
define acceptable behavior according to (supposedly) a majority of the
members of society, despite the overtly subjective value judgement of
the activity in question


Why is it, then, that a
place like NYC finally instituted a scooper law, and began busting people
who let their dogs crap right on the sidewalk and then left it there?
We're
talking about dogs on a leash, with their owners watching.

I dispute the value of those laws. They make no sense in places like
where I live. It's supposed to be some big health threat to leave dog
poop on the curb or adjacent lawn, but any number of native wildlife
species have carte blanche access to do the same. Another example of
not seeing the forest for the trees. On the other hand, in a concrete
jungle, it probably makes better sense.


You seem to enjoy using the law to support your arguments as long as the
laws in question have no effect on you.

No, that's not it at all. I respect most laws as they are. I am not
the anarchist here. I am rarely on the wrong side of the law on these
issues. On those laws with which I am odds with, I have no problem
with lobbying for change.

Dave


It's safe to assume, then, that you throw empty beverage containers out of
your boat.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:37:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:39:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54...
Don,

Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please?

Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they
understand
and
accept the consequences.

Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences
to
certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to
"take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should
understand that.


Dave

You only "take your chances" if you're unfamiliar with the law. If I
shoplift $50 worth of razor blades from a grocery store, I understand
that
I've instantly given up my right to complain if I'm arrested. That's
simple.
The act is immoral. The understanding of the law is irrelevant.

So from this, can I then infer that you are of the "I'm only guilty if
I'm caught" mindset?

Dave

What??? No - I'm guilty the moment the razor blades go into my pocket.


Ok then. The next question I have is, do you refrain from stealing
those $50 worth of razor blades because you know it's morally wrong,
or because you feel that you have a good chance of getting caught?

Dave

Choice A, Dave. If I shop in a store, it's because I like the place. The
owner or company has created a place that serves me well. They deserve to
prosper.
Wait! Let me head off your next question. No, I do not steal from places I
do NOT like.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:48:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


Let's make this simple, Dave. There are only two kinds of property:
Yours,
and someone else's. If the dog ****s or destroys things on your property,
that's fine. If the dog leaves your property and ****s/destroys, it's
doing
so on someone else's property. Now, please explain how any dog owner can
see
his dog leave his property and say "I didn't know it was going to mess up
someone else's property".


Ok, if we stick to your binary view of property, you are either on
your property or someone else's. When you leave your property, am I to
assume that you are intending to damage someone else's property?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.


Assuming that a dog owner knows that the dog has left his property
(And many don't), while you may assume that they may mark some
territory along the way, many times they roam just to roam.
You seem to harbor this notion that dogs do nothing but destroy
things. A notion brought about from your hatred of dogs, no doubt.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't **** on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

But those things aren't going to damage your "crops". You are fighting
a two front war here. You justify the "vanishing" of offensive animals
by citing damage done to crops. Yet, you extend the same rationale for
something as trivial as "droppings". They are not worthy of the same
consideration.


As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget that
nonsense.

So you assert that pet owners are intimately aware of the every
movement that their pets make? Hell, some people have a hard time
keeping track of their kid's every movement.


When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner NEVER
to try that line on him again.

Why not, does he have a problem with the truth?

Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

If the dog is properly licensed, and has not attacked anyone, which
would lead the animal control people to consider them dangerous, then
the owner has every right to reclaim the dog. I have YET to see or
hear of a case where a dog was euthanized for crapping on someone's
lawn. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing the
particulars (verifiable of course).


Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.

It doesn't change the fact that an irate neighbor is civilly liable
for killing their neighbors dog regardless of the reason.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:23:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:36:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


That is fair.
However, I went one step further, to insure your civility. We
installed a
6'
high estate fence around our new home so that your dog will not cause
you
to
get killed.
See how nice I am?

Funny that in all the posts that I've suggested the same to Doug, he
fails to consider it. I guess in his mind, he should not have to be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility
to keep them out for him.

A fence would've shaded the garden and made it more difficult for my GOOD
neighbor and I to keep the lawn trimmed neatly.

It's called a "weed whacker". They work just fine.

We don't like them. They're noisy. I've gotten along fine without one for 25
years so far.

You have venerable plethora of excuses don't you? They make electric
ones you know, (And after the anticipated "I don't want to deal with
long cords" excuse) and battery ones too.

We could've gotten around
the problem of shade by installing chain link, but we didn't like the
looks
of those.

How much shade does a 4 or 5 foot fence provide? You could 've used a
post/rail fence with mesh attached. It's more aesthetically pleasing
and does not block sun.

Then, you'll be OK with buying one for your neighbor when he complains about
your dog in his yard.

There isn't a fence in the world that will protect against the dreaded
"ghostdog". ;-)

It's not my problem. It's up to him to protect his investments against
incidental damage.


So, you're familiar with the law here in my town?

I'm familiar with the laws in general. Unless you live in six-gun
territory, it's likely that your laws are not much different.

That statement belongs in the Dave Hall Top 10 list of stupidest comments.
What you've said is that since the law is a certain way in one place, it's
probably that way in ALL places.

Not exactly the same, but now much variation would you expect? I am
still waiting for you to provide me with the text of the law that
states that you have the right to "vanish" an animal that ****es you
off.


By the way, I live in Rochester. Not six-gun territory by any stretch of the
imagination.

All the more reason to doubt that you have the right to kill dogs.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:13:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I wouldn't kill a dog for sport or revenge. If it happened, it would be one
of the many things necessary to contribute to the ongoing gardening project.
It's no different than sharpening the spade or going out to buy peat moss.
Just another thing on the list.

Whatever you want to rationalize it as, it's still in response to an
act. That's revenge by any classic definition.


I don't think it's funny when I see a lion kill a gazelle on
TV, but as you say, "**** happens".

Yes, and if you truly needed to hunt the neighbor's dog to provide
food for your family, it would be a different issue.

I *do* need to hunt the neighbor's dog, in order to keep it from obstructing
the creation of food in my garden.

But, here's the real deal, Dave. I plant flowers, too. Tons of them. When
I'm outside, I don't want to have to look down at my feet. I want to look
up. And, some of the flowers bloom or smell best at night. I don't want to
carry a flashlight. If you and your dog make it necessary for me to be more
vigilant than I choose to be on my own property, you have stolen from me in
more ways than one.


You have an overinflated sense of what the rest of society owes you
WRT consideration.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

It's called a "weed whacker". They work just fine.

We don't like them. They're noisy. I've gotten along fine without one for
25
years so far.

You have venerable plethora of excuses don't you? They make electric
ones you know, (And after the anticipated "I don't want to deal with
long cords" excuse) and battery ones too.

What? Yet *another* item you think I should buy, after the fence??? When did
you start making these choices for me?



I'm familiar with the laws in general. Unless you live in six-gun
territory, it's likely that your laws are not much different.

That statement belongs in the Dave Hall Top 10 list of stupidest
comments.
What you've said is that since the law is a certain way in one place,
it's
probably that way in ALL places.

Not exactly the same, but now much variation would you expect?

In Sag Harbor, NY (near the end of Long Island), it is against the law to
bring a pig into the village on Sundays.



I am
still waiting for you to provide me with the text of the law that
states that you have the right to "vanish" an animal that ****es you
off.

Dave....you don't actually think I'm going to take a trip to the town hall
to make copies for you, do you? Besides, why should I doubt what the judge
told me? The judge, from MY town, who was my son's baseball coach, who
discussed this issue with me several times. Not just the vanishing dog
thing, but the various interpretations of "civil trespass", which you also
chose to doubt.

I'll tell you what, though. If, in the next couple of years, I'm in the town
hall during business hours for some other reason, I'll make a copy and offer
to fax it to you. OK?


By the way, I live in Rochester. Not six-gun territory by any stretch of
the
imagination.

All the more reason to doubt that you have the right to kill dogs.

Dave


OK, then. Have it your way.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:26:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that
if
you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you
think
that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their
kids from drowning in your pool?

It's interesting you should bring this up. Using your mindset, parents
should make sure that their kids do not roam on to your lawn. It's
THEIR responsibility to protect the safety of their immature children.
I would tend to agree that it's a parent's responsibility to tend to
the well being of their kids.

For the most part, kids don't **** on your lawn.

You do seem unusually fixated on fecal matter. IS that the only thing
that matters to you?

However, it is a dog's sole
purpose while roaming to find places to **** and mark territory.

You don't know much about dogs Doug.

When a dog
roams the neighborhood, it's pretty much guaranteed that it's going to leave
**** someplace.

Really? I used to be able to take my dog for long walks with me (on a
leash), and it never dropped anything until we returned home.


For the record again Doug, I do not disagree with you that dog owners
should be more responsible with their dogs roaming habits. I just
don't agree that you have the right to kill the dog who gets away more
often than not.

But you said that YOU sometimes let your dog out without chaining it in your
yard,

When I let the dog out without using the rope, I kept an eye on her to
make sure she didn't roam, and she usually didn't. A 13 year old dog
is not too interested in exploring new ground.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:43:00 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society
governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually
belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the
law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place
where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth
of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What
if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my
cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial
to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned,
the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month
or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be
honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?


Couldn't resist jumping in here, 'cause this actually happened to me. The
car
was a brand new Saab. I trapped the cat and took it to the animal
shelter. Told
them the story. They wanted to know only the street the cat came from. I
never
saw the cat again. The owner must not have been concerned as she would
have only
had to call the animal shelter to get her cat back.


That's a FAR better solution than Doug's "vanishing" act.

Dave

Mine's just another version of the same thing. But hang on....something's
wrong here....the animal shelter stole someone's cat. That's OK with you?

and.....

What if your dog is hit by a car because you let if off your property
unsupervised. Would it bother you if the driver stopped for a moment, looked
in his mirror to see what he'd hit, saw that it was not a human and just
kept going?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society
governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually
belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the
law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place
where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What
if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my
cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned,
the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one.

What, are you Darth Dougie now? ;-)

Be honest for once in your life, Dave.

Are you implying that I am not otherwise? Why would you have a problem
believing in my honesty?


What would you REALLY do?

I guess this is the difference between you and I Doug. I suspect that
we both would get really ****ed off, and would desire to retaliate in
some way, which would ensure that it never happened again. The
difference is that you would probably carry it through, while I would
likely restrain myself by a very strong sense of morality. I'd
probably make sure I parked the car in the garage (You do have one of
those right?) from then on. If the cat happened to end up dead in the
road the next week, I'd chalk it up to "God's Revenge".

Dave

God's revenge, eh? Interesting name for a Sopranos-style solution, Dave.
See? You DO have a dark side.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:48:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


Let's make this simple, Dave. There are only two kinds of property:
Yours,
and someone else's. If the dog ****s or destroys things on your
property,
that's fine. If the dog leaves your property and ****s/destroys, it's
doing
so on someone else's property. Now, please explain how any dog owner
can
see
his dog leave his property and say "I didn't know it was going to mess
up
someone else's property".


Ok, if we stick to your binary view of property, you are either on
your property or someone else's. When you leave your property, am I to
assume that you are intending to damage someone else's property?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.

Don't be ridiculous. I define **** on my property as damage. It's my
property, so my definition is the only one that's valid. All stray dogs ****
someplace, and it's rarely on their owner's property. No dog can be told
"Have a nice walk, and don't **** at these addresses". With these absolutes
in mind, we've already established that the dog owner accepts these truths
and continues to make these things happen.

To say that a human intends to do damage every time he leaves his property
is, for the most part, false. Except for my wife's cousin's kid.



Assuming that a dog owner knows that the dog has left his property
(And many don't), while you may assume that they may mark some
territory along the way, many times they roam just to roam.
You seem to harbor this notion that dogs do nothing but destroy
things. A notion brought about from your hatred of dogs, no doubt.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off
its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's
property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't ****
on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

But those things aren't going to damage your "crops". You are fighting
a two front war here. You justify the "vanishing" of offensive animals
by citing damage done to crops. Yet, you extend the same rationale for
something as trivial as "droppings". They are not worthy of the same
consideration.

As I've said in other conversations, I can accept quite a few sexual
orientations, even though I don't want to share all of them. Coprophilia is
one I don't want to share. Some infants will handle their feces for
enjoyment, but they usually grow out of it quickly. You have every right to
enjoy it, though.



As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget
that
nonsense.

So you assert that pet owners are intimately aware of the every
movement that their pets make? Hell, some people have a hard time
keeping track of their kid's every movement.

By law, they are required to keep the dog on their own property, unless
they're being walked. If there's no fence and the dog is allowed outside
unsupervised, then only an idiot would assume that the dog will not roam
eventually.


When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner
NEVER
to try that line on him again.

Why not, does he have a problem with the truth?

Because he'd gotten complaints from several neighbors about the same dog.
There was no mistaking this dog for another. Therefore, it was NOT the truth
in this case.



Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

If the dog is properly licensed, and has not attacked anyone, which
would lead the animal control people to consider them dangerous, then
the owner has every right to reclaim the dog. I have YET to see or
hear of a case where a dog was euthanized for crapping on someone's
lawn. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing the
particulars (verifiable of course).

I never said dogs were euthanized by the animal control department simply
for being strays. Here, you get a warning for the first violation, a hefty
fine for the 2nd, and for the third incident, your dog is taken away and you
are slapped with a VERY annoying fine. I believe it's $300 now, but I'm not
sure. Your dog is gone for good. It goes to a place called Lollypop Farm
where it's kept for a period of time, waiting for adoption. Because so many
people don't get their pets vaccinated & neutered, the place charges a
nominal fee when you adopt a pet. So, you pay more than once to get your
vermine back, if you're dumb enough to do that after 3 violations and a
scolding from a judge. If an animal's not adopted after a period of time,
it's euthanized.

Lately, they instituted some sort of rebate plan. I believe the way it works
is that when you go to the vet a year later for the next round of shots, the
vet fills out a form and sends it to the farm, which rebates most of the
money you paid them in the beginning. They keep the nominal cost of the
medical stuff. This ensures that people are serious about adoption, and
encourages them to keep their new pets for the first year.


Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've
also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.

It doesn't change the fact that an irate neighbor is civilly liable
for killing their neighbors dog regardless of the reason.

You're the legal expert, based on your television judges. I guess you're
right.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:13:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I wouldn't kill a dog for sport or revenge. If it happened, it would be
one
of the many things necessary to contribute to the ongoing gardening
project.
It's no different than sharpening the spade or going out to buy peat
moss.
Just another thing on the list.

Whatever you want to rationalize it as, it's still in response to an
act. That's revenge by any classic definition.


I don't think it's funny when I see a lion kill a gazelle on
TV, but as you say, "**** happens".

Yes, and if you truly needed to hunt the neighbor's dog to provide
food for your family, it would be a different issue.

I *do* need to hunt the neighbor's dog, in order to keep it from
obstructing
the creation of food in my garden.

But, here's the real deal, Dave. I plant flowers, too. Tons of them. When
I'm outside, I don't want to have to look down at my feet. I want to look
up. And, some of the flowers bloom or smell best at night. I don't want
to
carry a flashlight. If you and your dog make it necessary for me to be
more
vigilant than I choose to be on my own property, you have stolen from me
in
more ways than one.


You have an overinflated sense of what the rest of society owes you
WRT consideration.

Dave

Really? If you had my flower garden, you were out at night enjoying the
sights and smells, and I thought it was cute to shine one of the zillion
candlepower searchlights in your face, how many days would it take before
you had an ulcer? After all, you wouldn't actually DO anything about it,
right?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:26:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says
that
if
you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you
think
that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep
their
kids from drowning in your pool?

It's interesting you should bring this up. Using your mindset, parents
should make sure that their kids do not roam on to your lawn. It's
THEIR responsibility to protect the safety of their immature children.
I would tend to agree that it's a parent's responsibility to tend to
the well being of their kids.

For the most part, kids don't **** on your lawn.

You do seem unusually fixated on fecal matter. IS that the only thing
that matters to you?

If you get it in the treads of your boots, where do you take the boots to
clean them off? Let's assume it's a HUGE amount of ****.



However, it is a dog's sole
purpose while roaming to find places to **** and mark territory.

You don't know much about dogs Doug.

Right. They're out collecting soda cans so they can get the nickles.



When a dog
roams the neighborhood, it's pretty much guaranteed that it's going to
leave
**** someplace.

Really? I used to be able to take my dog for long walks with me (on a
leash), and it never dropped anything until we returned home.

If it did stop to crap on someone's property, would you clean it up?


For the record again Doug, I do not disagree with you that dog owners
should be more responsible with their dogs roaming habits. I just
don't agree that you have the right to kill the dog who gets away more
often than not.

But you said that YOU sometimes let your dog out without chaining it in
your
yard,

When I let the dog out without using the rope, I kept an eye on her to
make sure she didn't roam, and she usually didn't. A 13 year old dog
is not too interested in exploring new ground.

It's a safe bet that you'd let any dog you owned run out the door
unsupervised.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

The law would care, it is a hit and run even if it is a dog.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:43:00 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society
governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property,
is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually
belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking
the
law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place
where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth
of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial?
What
if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and
my
cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial
to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I
mentioned,
the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was
an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month
or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be
honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?


Couldn't resist jumping in here, 'cause this actually happened to me.
The
car
was a brand new Saab. I trapped the cat and took it to the animal
shelter. Told
them the story. They wanted to know only the street the cat came from.
I
never
saw the cat again. The owner must not have been concerned as she would
have only
had to call the animal shelter to get her cat back.


That's a FAR better solution than Doug's "vanishing" act.

Dave

Mine's just another version of the same thing. But hang on....something's
wrong here....the animal shelter stole someone's cat. That's OK with you?

and.....

What if your dog is hit by a car because you let if off your property
unsupervised. Would it bother you if the driver stopped for a moment,
looked
in his mirror to see what he'd hit, saw that it was not a human and just
kept going?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Frankly, I'm not sure, but that wasn't the point.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:M3Tjc.6998$lz5.841086@attbi_s53...
The law would care, it is a hit and run even if it is a dog.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:43:00 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society
governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy
property,
is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually
belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters,
and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking
the
law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a
place
where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours
worth
of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial?
What
if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them,
and
my
cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be
trivial
to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's
the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I
mentioned,
the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy
was
an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a
month
or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be
honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?


Couldn't resist jumping in here, 'cause this actually happened to me.
The
car
was a brand new Saab. I trapped the cat and took it to the animal
shelter. Told
them the story. They wanted to know only the street the cat came
from.
I
never
saw the cat again. The owner must not have been concerned as she
would
have only
had to call the animal shelter to get her cat back.


That's a FAR better solution than Doug's "vanishing" act.

Dave

Mine's just another version of the same thing. But hang
on....something's
wrong here....the animal shelter stole someone's cat. That's OK with
you?

and.....

What if your dog is hit by a car because you let if off your property
unsupervised. Would it bother you if the driver stopped for a moment,
looked
in his mirror to see what he'd hit, saw that it was not a human and just
kept going?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Dave Hall wrote:
I grasp it just fine.

In that case, when are you going to accept responsibility for your actions?

... The difference is that you believe that personal
responsibility extends to cover things and situations that you have no
direct control over, or to events where you could not reasonably
predict an outcome.

You mean like, letting your dog roam other people's yards where it's not
wanted?

You mean like, making a huge wake in proximity to other boats & other
people's property, where there is a possibility of damage & injury, and
a certainty of hazard & aggravation?


..... I don't expect other people
to keep their pets off of my lawn

Good, I'll be over with a 150# rottweiler tomorrow.


....If my boat gets rocked and I spill my drink, I'm not
going to chase after the "offender" and make him clean up the mess.

What if your boat gets slammed violently from side to side, all hands
have to take a handhold with both hands, and there is some breakage?
What if the warning was not sufficient and there is an injury? I guess
that's just the way it goes, tough luck, and the boater who made a huge
wake can buzz right along as he pleases.



That doesn't mean that I'm giving people a pass on negligent behavior.

That's exactly what you're doing, chiefly yourself... not taking
responsibility for your actions is called "being irresponsible."

DSK

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:15:23 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote
Right, which is why someone who is as concerned about crop damage as
you are, would be well advised to take preventative measure, such as
erecting a fence. Don't rely on everyone else to protect your
investment. You have as much (if not more) responsibility to keep your
valuables away from harm.

Was this clipped from the Marxist manifesto? Seriously.....LOL

You really need to study marxism and socialism. Seriously.......

If you think that personal responsibility is a socialist trait, you
are really out there......

There's something wrong with this boys circuit board.
Hey Dave, if your neighbor can't keep himself out of your yard it is not
your responsibility to put up a fence, now is it?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote
Nature does not include guns. Nor do animals kill for sport or
revenge. But a few weeks of rain will dissolve dog droppings.

Then you would have no problem with someone else's dogs ****ting in your
yard on a regular basis?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote
I have mixed feelings about the pool/fence thing. On the one hand,
unauthorized people have no business trespassing on your yard, and any
problems they get into should be on them. On the other hand, since
many laws are made to protect the irresponsible, they transferred the
responsibility to everyone else when they require you to prevent kids
from wandering into your pool. But while I disagree with the law in
principle, the amount of effort to put up a fence is not that great,
and if it saves even one life, it's probably worth it.

Then why shouldn't the irresponsible people that let their kids run loose
foot the bill for the fence, around their yard?
Why should the people with the pool have to pay for the fence?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:30:55 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:57:05 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

I design million dollar+ custom homes for wealthy island residents and
live
in an area called *Simply Paradise* (run that past google for a clue)
and
am
always in a good mood and in good company.
I get a little frustrated at times when I go into usenet and encounter
legions of complete idiots like you.


"legions of idiots" who understand the law,

**** you and the law you rode in on.

Temper, temper. There is no need to resort to such language. It
certainly does not help your point.


YOU have no say at all in how I conduct my life and that galls you
something
fierce.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but despite your feelings to the
contrary, in any civilized society there are laws which you are
obligated to follow, irrespective of your anarchistic and nihilistic
nature. The reality of this would seem to "gall" you.


YOU are one of the members of the *legion* I mentioned above.
Completely devoid of logic and socialist in nature.

Logic? What's logical about anarchy? Anarchy is chaos, and chaos is
the antithesis of logic.

You're full of ****.
Here, I'll help you out : www.m-w.com
Go look it up and get back with us.


Socialist? You are SERIOUSLY barking up the wrong tree. I am as far
away from socialist as you can get, without abandoning sensible
societal laws.

Yes, Dave, socialist.
You go with the flow, the collective, for you haven't the mental capacity to
do otherwise.
You simply parrot what you have seen on TEEVEE.
Example: You silly notion that anarchy = chaos, just like the bought media
has taught you.

Do you really know what socialism is and what it entails?

It is you that doesn't know that you are a socialist.
You don't seem to know much about anything at all, Dave.
You don't have a spine nor a brain and you speak like a child.
And you expect anyone at all to lend you any creedence?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

YOU have no say at all in how I conduct my life and that galls you
something
fierce.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but despite your feelings to the
contrary, in any civilized society there are laws which you are
obligated to follow, irrespective of your anarchistic and nihilistic
nature. The reality of this would seem to "gall" you.

Aren't you the same guy who has said, at least 12 million times in the
past,
that there are too many laws, and that personal responsibility, if taught
correctly, would obviate the need for more laws? Why is it, then, that a
place like NYC finally instituted a scooper law, and began busting people
who let their dogs crap right on the sidewalk and then left it there?
We're
talking about dogs on a leash, with their owners watching.

You seem to enjoy using the law to support your arguments as long as the
laws in question have no effect on you.

Dave likes laws when they are in his favor, ie., they keep bad men from
hurting him, just like the bought media tells him every day.
The poor oaf hasn't the where with all to figure it out.
He was programed to be an idiot by the public school system and kept stupid
since by massive daily doses of media.
Nothing that a burning tire around the neck won't cure.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote
In theory that would be true. But you and I both know that there are
too many people in the world who do not rise to the occasion when it
comes to personal responsibility.

Yeah, and one of them is you.
You would prefer a bureaucracy to enforce your rights for you because you
are too stupidcowardly to do it yourself.
Anarchy = chaos. LOL
Yeah right, keep telling yourself that moron.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:41:02 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54...
Don,

Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please?

Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they
understand
and
accept the consequences.

Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to
certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to
"take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should
understand that.

I always find it humorous when a socialist attempts to talk bout morals.

I find it equally humorous when a neophyte calls me a socialist.

Of course you do, you have no choice. LOL

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
What would you REALLY do?

I guess this is the difference between you and I Doug. I suspect that
we both would get really ****ed off, and would desire to retaliate in
some way, which would ensure that it never happened again. The
difference is that you would probably carry it through, while I would
likely restrain myself by a very strong sense of ignorance and cowardice.

Duh. It's more than obvious.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:47:16 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

You're trying to debate with a socialist.
It's not possible to do so, they lack the intellect.
The best you can do is ridicule them.

Doug knows me well enough to know that I'm no socialist.

Yes you are.
Your collectivist nature is reflected in many of your posts.
The *pool/fence* post for example, and many others.
Combine that with the fact that you think anarchy = chaos and it's clear
that you're braindead.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message

Ok, if we stick to your binary view of property, you are either on
your property or someone else's. When you leave your property, am I to
assume that you are intending to damage someone else's property?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

You're kidding, right?
I'm still wondering why you are trying to argue with a child?