When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote
You're trying to argue with a person that has the mental capacity of a
child.

He won't respect YOUR property rights, but if HIS property rights are
violated he starts squealling like a bald tire.

The law works both ways.

***YAWN***

You watch a lot of TEEVEE don't you?
Don't fib now.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

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



With what evidence do you base this "assumption"?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:02:04 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


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?



Since we've resorted to ad-hominem attacks, I suppose I owe you
this....

You come off like the spoiled child of rich (or sufficiently well-off)
liberal parents who never taught you that pride and self esteem are
the result of accomplishment, rather than a trait in and of itself.
You were never denied anything, and therefore were never able to
understand the boundaries which life provides. It is likely that you
were raised with few, if any, siblings and the concepts of sharing and
cooperation were never instilled in you. As a result you developed a
strong sense of individuality, independence, and a general lack of
regard for the needs and rights of others.

As you grew older, your misplaced ideals likely caused friction
between you and your social peers, who you would ultimately alienate.
This led to a general feeling of disenfranchisement, and a
re-enforcing of your "I'll do what I want, and screw everyone else"
attitude. You were probably fairly intelligent, but a severe
underachiever, as you were constantly questioning the relevance of
school and the subjects which were taught. I doubt if you were
involved in any extracurricular school activities, and you only did
what you needed to get by. Your whole attitude with regard to society
and how easily you confuse the concepts of harmonious society with
socialism, underscore the extreme views which you hold. You should 've
paid more attention when you were in school.

I doubt that you could be much over 30, as attitudes like yours
eventually lead either to jail or, if you are lucky, a period of
introspection and revelation, followed by an abrupt change.

I knew all sorts of misfits who were into "anarchy", back in the glory
days of underground hacker BBSes 20 years ago. It was the "cool" thing
for disenfranchised young people to reject society and the
establishment (A common deflection tactic for underachievers). Not too
different from the hippies of the 60's. But like swimming upstream, it
becomes overwhelming to continue, and quite frankly, most people
eventually mature. When this finally happens to you, is anyone's
guess.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:53:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?



Doug, you're grasping at straws (Soon you'll have enough to build
another strawman) here. Is the amplification and the taking of
statements to the extreme and out of context your only means of
avoiding the core issue?

Do you believe that you have the right to kill a dog that strays on
your property, despite what the law may say to the contrary?

Until you are kind enough to provide a link to the law which states
otherwise, I will continue to believe that it is not legal to do so,
based on the laws that I know which cover my area.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:02:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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.

Well, that is an answer. Just not the answer to the question which I
asked. I didn't ask where you shop and why. I asked you whether you
refrain from stealing because you believe, through an inner sense of
morality, that it's the "right" thing to do, or whether you do so
because you don't want to take the chance of getting caught and being
forced to atone for your crime?


Wait! Let me head off your next question. No, I do not steal from places I
do NOT like.

Somehow I don't think you will give me a straight answer to my first
question. You are deliberately vague and non committal. Not unlike a
certain democratic presidential wannabee.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:02:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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.


Well, that is an answer. Just not the answer to the question which I
asked. I didn't ask where you shop and why. I asked you whether you
refrain from stealing because you believe, through an inner sense of
morality, that it's the "right" thing to do, or whether you do so
because you don't want to take the chance of getting caught and being
forced to atone for your crime?



Wait! Let me head off your next question. No, I do not steal from places I
do NOT like.


Somehow I don't think you will give me a straight answer to my first
question. You are deliberately vague and non committal. Not unlike a
certain democratic presidential wannabee.

Dave


Get off your high horse, Dave. Your secret is out...DON has exposed you
as ... a socialist!

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:58:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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


Then what is?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:24:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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



Mine's just another version of the same thing.

No it's not. An animal control person is acting within the boundaries
of the law. You are not. And they merely remove the animal. You kill
it.


But hang on....something's
wrong here....the animal shelter stole someone's cat. That's OK with you?

It's not considered theft. Why do you have so much trouble
differentiating these differences?

......

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?

What does this have to do with the original topic? Why do you feel
the need to go off on slightly related, but not relevant, tangents to
deflect from that which makes you uncomfortable?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:25:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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.

I don't think you understand. I would not be the one who was
responsible for the cat ending up dead. The fact is that the cat got
hit by a car and, by extension, solves my little problem.

To paraphrase the bible, "vengeance is mine, says the lord". I've
often had bad things done to me in the past, by less than civilized
people, only to find out later that some even worse thing happened to
them. Coincidence? Maybe. But in any case, they got what they
deserved. What goes around, comes around. God's Revenge.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:10:41 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"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.



Hey Don, some pimply red headed kid called. He wants his game boy
back.....

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:52:29 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"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?

If someone (or many someones) makes a habit of cutting across your
lawn (Many kids do that as they are too lazy to go around the block),
you have basically 4 options:

1. Lie in wait to catch each and every kid, each and every time they
do it. You can then berate them and threaten them, and pretty much
guarantee that your house will be egged by the next mischief night.

2. You could complain to the cops, who would have to also catch them
in the act to "do something" about it.

3. You could become an anarchistic, anti-social lunatic and shoot
them.

4. You could put up a fence which effective bars their ability to
trespass.

Now, which one do you think will be ultimately the most effective?
Which one would most likely lead to legal trouble for you (not that
you'd care)?



Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:46:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



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.

The law would seem to disagree with you.

All stray dogs ****
someplace, and it's rarely on their owner's property.

Really? Then I guess all those "doggie donuts" in my yard are a
figment of my imagination?

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.

To say that a dog intends to do damage every time he leave his lawn is
also false. A dog is a four legged anarchist. He's just doing his
thing.

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.

I still don't understand your continual reference to coprophilia. What
does this have to do with anything? Who handled dog crap?
The fact that you place a greater importance, than most people, to
normally trivial things like dog droppings, paints the picture that
YOU are the one suffering from coprophilia.
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.

And if you had a fence, there's no way that dog would be able to
wander onto your yard. Case closed.




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.

But it doesn't change the truth that the owner may not have been aware
that the dog left the property.


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.

In the Philly area, they have trouble removing dogs which are
mistreated, bread for combat, or to attack people (Pit Bulls are
especially bad), or create a public health hazard. I find it hard to
believe they respond so forcefully to such trivial issues like
dropping on lawns. I guess in your area, they don't have better things
to do.



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.

The venue with which the case was presented is irrelevant. The laws
are sound, and proven in court. I watch Court TV on occasion. I find
it interesting. These are REAL cases, not Perry Mason re-runs.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:13:23 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"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.

Do you think that the U.S. is a socialist state?

The *pool/fence* post for example, and many others.

Care to cite some examples?

Combine that with the fact that you think anarchy = chaos and it's clear
that you're braindead.


According to the American Heritage dictionary, the word "Anarchy" is
defined as:

1. Absence of governmental authority or law.

2. Disorder and confusion.

Now, most civilized people would equate disorder with chaos, and in
fact the dictionary further defines the word "Chaos" as:

1. Great disorder or confusion.

2. The disordered state held to have existed before the ordered
universe.

Now applying some simple logic; since anarchy is defined as disorder
and confusion, and chaos is defined as great disorder and confusion,
it is therefore a logical conclusion to conclude that Anarchy = Chaos.

I fully expect that you will now resort to making feeble claims about
my sources of information, since you seem unwilling to see the world
through anything but your narrow warped viewpoint.

Now go back to your dungeons and dragons game..... Your wisdom points
are fading.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:21:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?

You pay taxes don't you? You pay for car insurance don't you? Is it by
choice or necessity? Think of things like a fence and trimmer as
"insurance".


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 didn't say ALL laws. We're dealing specifically with pet laws here.


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 had a cop once tell me that if someone breaks into my house, to make
sure I drag the body back inside after I shoot him. It's one thing to
be buds and "wink-wink" at loopholes in the law. But the law still
does not give you the right to kill someone's dog.


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?

A simple link to a web site would be sufficient. Surely your town has
entered the 21st century by now?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:53:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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?

Why would someone do that? You speak as if you have first hand
experience. One has to wonder why you have so many issues with
neighbors.


You come up with so many "annoyances" with relation to neighbors, I
have to wonder just what you were like to live next too. I'd love to
talk to your former neighbors. I'm sure they have some interesting
stories to tell.......

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:53:44 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

"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?

Personally, I don't care. I've had my own dog droppings to deal with,
so what's few more? It's natural fertilizer.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:52:29 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"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?

If someone (or many someones) makes a habit of cutting across your
lawn (Many kids do that as they are too lazy to go around the block),
you have basically 4 options:

1. Lie in wait to catch each and every kid, each and every time they
do it. You can then berate them and threaten them, and pretty much
guarantee that your house will be egged by the next mischief night.

2. You could complain to the cops, who would have to also catch them
in the act to "do something" about it.

3. You could become an anarchistic, anti-social lunatic and shoot
them.

4. You could put up a fence which effective bars their ability to
trespass.

Now, which one do you think will be ultimately the most effective?
Which one would most likely lead to legal trouble for you (not that
you'd care)?



Dave

You can also use their t-shirts as handles to escort the kids back to their
parents and discuss the issue with them.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:23:53 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
I grasp it just fine.

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

I do, when they are truly mine.


... 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.

The problem with your examples are that they are extreme. I would no
more deliberately bring my dog to another property than I would
deliberately pass by another boat at close range while pre-planing.


....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.

Your problem is you are of an "all or nothing" opinion of another's
extended responsibility and negligence WRT liability. If you can make
a case which can illustrate a demonstration of gross negligence on the
part of the offender, then I would agree that they share the lion's
share of responsibility.

On the other hand, if a boater a half mile away throws a wake which
tips my hot coffee onto my lap, and I was not watching out for it,
then it's my problem.

What you fail to understand is that life itself is full of risks. It
is not the role of society to protect the other guy any more than what
would be considered reasonable. Otherwise anything that might happen
to you would be actionable in some way against some other entity. Do
you want that? That's called deflection of responsibility. A liberal
mantra. Serial killers are not really "bad", they're just "victims" of
a poor upbringing.

Like I said before, **** happens. Sometimes you just have to take your
lumps instead of looking to place the blame on some other guy.


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."

Where do you draw the line Doug? At what point does your
"responsibility" to watch out for yourself exceed the other guys
"responsibility" to watch out for you?

Where do you differentiate between incidental and gross negligence?


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:53:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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?

Why would someone do that? You speak as if you have first hand
experience. One has to wonder why you have so many issues with
neighbors.


You come up with so many "annoyances" with relation to neighbors, I
have to wonder just what you were like to live next too. I'd love to
talk to your former neighbors. I'm sure they have some interesting
stories to tell.......

Dave


Actually, Dave, you've avoided the question. I've simply offered an example
of something you would find annoying and perhaps painful. Using this
searchlight example, what would be analogous to a fence?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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 didn't say ALL laws. We're dealing specifically with pet laws here.

You said "how much variation would you expect?", which implies that because
laws are one way in place A, they are probably the same in place B. To an
extent, that's true, but in many cases, it's not. For instance, in my town,
there is no law requiring dog vandals who are walking their vermin to pick
up what their vermin leaves behind. There's a good reason for it: It would
be almost impossible to enforce. However, 2 miles away in the Rochester city
limits, there *is* such a law. Go figure. Two places, two different laws.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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



Doug, you're grasping at straws (Soon you'll have enough to build
another strawman) here. Is the amplification and the taking of
statements to the extreme and out of context your only means of
avoiding the core issue?

A life is a life, regardless of whether it's useful to you or not. If you
believe it's cruel to kill a dog, then you believe it's cruel to kill ANY
animal unless it threatens your life. You should not be killing bugs because
they annoy you or cows because you love steak.


Do you believe that you have the right to kill a dog that strays on
your property, despite what the law may say to the contrary?

Honestly, Dave, even if the law didn't explicitly allow it, and a specific
set of conditions*** were met, I'd do it anyway. Want to know how I'd
justify it? I'd use YOUR rules: You kill mosquitoes without giving it a
second thought because they annoy you. I can kill a dog if it annoys me.
Unless you can tell me that you kill mosquitoes because you eat them, like
beef, you can't wiggle out of this one.

*** You know the conditions. Do not ask again.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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



With what evidence do you base this "assumption"?

Dave

You allow your dog to roam and claim to not know with 100% certainty that
it's crapping on someone else's garden. Most people who care so little about
their neighbors usually have a long list of things they think they can get
away with.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:00:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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 ****.

Garden hose?


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.

Maybe they are. Some even have girlfriends.


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?

With what? And where would I put it? I usually walked in the street so
that if a (rare) accidental dropping would occur, it would be in the
street and not in someone's yard.

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.

Why would you say that? I have no desire to allow my dog to roam
unsupervised. The only reason I had been letting her out without
restraint, was that she had been advancing in age, and no longer prone
to roam far. For the previous 13 years, she was ALWAYS restrained.
That's why MY yard was a minefield of droppings, not my neighbor's.

Quite frankly, I'm happy to be rid of the mess.


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:56:39 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"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?


The fence is your insurance. It protects you from liability lawsuits,
and it's required by most homeowner's insurance policies.

Maybe that's not the way it should be, but it's the way it IS.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:02:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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.

Well, that is an answer. Just not the answer to the question which I
asked. I didn't ask where you shop and why. I asked you whether you
refrain from stealing because you believe, through an inner sense of
morality, that it's the "right" thing to do, or whether you do so
because you don't want to take the chance of getting caught and being
forced to atone for your crime?


Wait! Let me head off your next question. No, I do not steal from places
I
do NOT like.

Somehow I don't think you will give me a straight answer to my first
question. You are deliberately vague and non committal. Not unlike a
certain democratic presidential wannabee.

Dave

Knucklehead. I most certainly DID answer your question. But, sometimes I use
answers which contain more than one word, which I know befuddles you. If you
need me to take it a step further, here goes: There was a point in my life
when everything fell apart financially and I didn't want to go to my parents
for various reasons. Ever heard of washing dishes for food? I could've
easily shoplifted in a supermarket. I washed dishes for food in three
restaurants.

If that doesn't answer your question, print this response and read it to one
of your children. They'll explain it to you.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:58:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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


Then what is?

Dave

A previous message mentioned a vanishing cat. That seemed OK with you. So,
what difference does it make HOW a pet vanishes, whether it's whisked away
by animal control to place where it will likely be euthanized eventually, or
if it's flattened by a car? Gone is gone.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:24:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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



Mine's just another version of the same thing.

No it's not. An animal control person is acting within the boundaries
of the law. You are not. And they merely remove the animal. You kill
it.

Quite a few animals picked up by animal control end up euthanized, Dave.
Call your local dog catcher and ask. Yes, there are animal welfare groups
which try and rescue as many as they can, but the fact is that if your pet's
taken away due to negligence on your part, you should assume it'll be worm
food soon. The law does not define how dead your pet will be. Dead is dead.


But hang on....something's
wrong here....the animal shelter stole someone's cat. That's OK with you?

It's not considered theft. Why do you have so much trouble
differentiating these differences?

Cat scratches car. Cat is taken by animal control. Cat is gone.
Dog damages private property. Dog is taken by landowner. Dog is gone.
Same thing. Pet is gone.


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?

What does this have to do with the original topic? Why do you feel
the need to go off on slightly related, but not relevant, tangents to
deflect from that which makes you uncomfortable?

I dont' do it to deflect. I do it in a pointless attempt to make you think,
or sometimes to befuddle you because it's entertaining.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Well another compassionate liberal jumps in.

The difference between a dog attacking his dog and a dog taking a **** in
his yard should be obvious to anyone. You are allowed to protect yourself
and your family (most people consider a pet as part of the family) when they
are placed in immediate danger. The courts would say that your neighbor
was justified in protecting his pet. Now if the Shepard attacked his first
dog and killed him, and then returned home. The courts would not allow the
neighbor to then walk into his house or backyard to kill the Shepard. The
legal system is designed so that people do not take the law into their own
hands.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Some years ago, a neighbor who had two dogs, a sheltie and a cocker
spaniel, lost the sheltie to another neighbor's German shepherd. The two
little dogs were in their own yard, kept there by training and by an
"invisible" fence...one of those electronic fences.

About a month later, the shepherd came back for another visit, and
started going after the cocker spaniel. The spaniel owner came out and
bashed in the skull of the shepherd with a shovel, and then dragged the
carcass out to the middle of the road.

All's well that ends well.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Some years ago, a neighbor who had two dogs, a sheltie and a cocker
spaniel, lost the sheltie to another neighbor's German shepherd. The two
little dogs were in their own yard, kept there by training and by an
"invisible" fence...one of those electronic fences.

About a month later, the shepherd came back for another visit, and
started going after the cocker spaniel. The spaniel owner came out and
bashed in the skull of the shepherd with a shovel, and then dragged the
carcass out to the middle of the road.

All's well that ends well.

I would've dragged the shepherd to the owner's home with the hope that his
children were there to see it. But that's me. Sometimes I like more drama
than other people.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:25:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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.

I don't think you understand. I would not be the one who was
responsible for the cat ending up dead. The fact is that the cat got
hit by a car and, by extension, solves my little problem.

To paraphrase the bible, "vengeance is mine, says the lord". I've
often had bad things done to me in the past, by less than civilized
people, only to find out later that some even worse thing happened to
them. Coincidence? Maybe. But in any case, they got what they
deserved. What goes around, comes around. God's Revenge.

Dave

Whether you kill the cat, or revel in its death, it's still your dark side
revealing itself.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

To paraphrase the bible, "vengeance is mine, says the lord". I've
often had bad things done to me in the past, by less than civilized
people, only to find out later that some even worse thing happened to
them. Coincidence? Maybe. But in any case, they got what they
deserved. What goes around, comes around. God's Revenge.

I knew this nonsense was lurking somewhere. It was just a matter of time
before you tipped your hand (again).

While you're waiting for god's revenge, the crimes are still being committed
and you are suffering. Suffering is a trademark of religion. I choose NOT to
suffer, so I take care of things myself. I grow a garden for pleasure, not
as bait for evolutionary mistakes and their pets.

Oh....and let me shut down your "build a fence" bull**** once and for all.
During my last two years in my house, I added certain vegetables to the
front flower beds. Some vegetables are quite attractive alongside flowers.
Our zoning laws prohibit building fences within a certain distance from the
street. That leaves no options except to deal with the dogs in various ways,
beginning with the legal system.

No more fence talk, Dave.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:46:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



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.

The law would seem to disagree with you.

Actually, the simple concept of "private property" is the basis of a whole
slew of laws. Regardless of how these laws are picked apart, only one phrase
is needed to shut down arguments: private property. This is why people can
get away with painting a house pink and putting stupid stuffed sheep and
plastic flamingoes on their front lawns.


All stray dogs ****
someplace, and it's rarely on their owner's property.

Really? Then I guess all those "doggie donuts" in my yard are a
figment of my imagination?

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.

To say that a dog intends to do damage every time he leave his lawn is
also false. A dog is a four legged anarchist. He's just doing his
thing.

I never said the dog intended to do it. I said that the owner intends for
the dog to do it. The owner lets the dog roam because the owner is lazy. He
doesn't want to take the time to walk the dog, and/or the owner doesn't want
to take the time to clean up dog crap in his OWN yard. So, the owner
transfers that work to other people.

If it was discovered that a person didn't change his baby's diaper for 3
days at a time, that person's baby would quickly be taken away by a local
child welfare agency until it could be determined just what was wrong with
the parent. You would have no problem with this. It's the same type of
negligence being practiced by the dog owner. Some people aren't fit to be
parents or pet owners.


I still don't understand your continual reference to coprophilia. What
does this have to do with anything? Who handled dog crap?
The fact that you place a greater importance, than most people, to
normally trivial things like dog droppings, paints the picture that
YOU are the one suffering from coprophilia.

Coprophilia is the practice of handling feces for enjoyment, especially
sexual enjoyment. If your dog craps where innocent people will step in it,
chances are good that it will need to be cleaned off that person's shoes
before they can reenter their home. You feel this is not such a bad chore. I
have chosen to take it further and say that you haven't told us everything.
Not only do you find the cleaning process "not so bad", you actually enjoy
it very much. Therefore, you are practicing coprophilia.

I feel that if you want to use hand puppets 100% of the time when having sex
with your wife, that's fine by me. I don't need to know about it. You're two
consenting adults. Same with coprophilia. Keep that sort of thrill to
yourself. If I want to know more about it, I'll ask.

As far as my "suffering from coprophila", wrong. You have interpreted the
word to mean "obsessed with NOT coming into contact with feces". Check a
dictionary.


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.

And if you had a fence, there's no way that dog would be able to
wander onto your yard. Case closed.

In another message, I explained the fallacy of your repeating this fence
thing. Go find the message.


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.

But it doesn't change the truth that the owner may not have been aware
that the dog left the property.

Anywhere there are laws prohibiting dogs roaming off the leash, those laws
are based on the very assumption which you claim to be false. If you think
this statement is incorrect, explain why. In other words, why do YOU think
such laws exist?


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.

In the Philly area, they have trouble removing dogs which are
mistreated, bread for combat, or to attack people (Pit Bulls are
especially bad), or create a public health hazard. I find it hard to
believe they respond so forcefully to such trivial issues like
dropping on lawns. I guess in your area, they don't have better things
to do.

That's a slam. How about this: In my part of town, we have less people who
feel so threatened by intruders that they need to keep mutant dogs. Five
miles from me, in the city proper, it's just like Philly. The cops are
trained to put down mutant dogs right on the spot. It's a wonderful thing.


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.

The venue with which the case was presented is irrelevant. The laws
are sound, and proven in court. I watch Court TV on occasion. I find
it interesting. These are REAL cases, not Perry Mason re-runs.

I prefer to get my information direct from the source, especially local
sources. Next thing, you'll be telling me zoning laws are the same here as
they are in your town, because you believe they are.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Don" wrote in message
...

"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?




Sport. I can't go fishing until later. This one's like the lone bluegill
that bites your hook 673 times in the same afternoon, even though it's
hardly got any lips left.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:00:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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 ****.

Garden hose?

Ha. Talk about stepping in it.....you just did. I now live in an apartment.
The neighborhood's full of stray dogs. The hose outlet is covered by a
locked box so the entire complex doesn't have a car washing party. Where
would you suggest I clean my shoes? Kitchen sink? Bathtub? See? Now the
crime has been compounded. Unfortunately, this isn't MY private property, or
I'd settle the issue.


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?

With what? And where would I put it? I usually walked in the street so
that if a (rare) accidental dropping would occur, it would be in the
street and not in someone's yard.

With a tool and a bag, you idiot. The street is shared property. Nobody
wants it on the sidewalks. Kids play on the sidewalks. Kids (all kids,
everywhere, throughout recorded history) put their hands near or in their
mouths. Regardless of what the law says, it's your responsibility to clean
it up within seconds of it happening. Period.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Don" wrote in message news:l%%jc.246
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.


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.


Hate to burst your bubble, but as usual, you are wrong:

Entry: anarchy
Function: noun
Definition: lawlessness
Synonyms: chaos, confusion, disorder, disorganization, disregard,
hostility, mob rule, nihilism, nongovernment, rebellion, revolution,
riot, turmoil
Antonyms: law and order, lawfulness, order, organization, rule
Concept: govt/political action
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

See the synomym?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Don" wrote in message ...
"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.

Hmm, moron, huh? I think YOU are the one being moronic:

Entry Word: anarchy
Function: noun
Text: 1 absence of effective government or the resulting social
disorder complete anarchy followed the breakdown of communications
Synonyms chaos, lawlessness, mobocracy, ochlocracy

Entry Word: chaos
Function: noun
Text: 1
Synonyms CONFUSION 3, ataxia, ||ballup, clutter, disarray, disorder,
huddle, muddle, snarl, topsyturviness
2
Synonyms ANARCHY 1, lawlessness, mobocracy, ochlocracy
Related Word misrule, unruliness

Entry: anarchy
Function: noun
Definition: lawlessness
Synonyms: chaos, confusion, disorder, disorganization, disregard,
hostility, mob rule, nihilism, nongovernment, rebellion, revolution,
riot, turmoil
Antonyms: law and order, lawfulness, order, organization, rule
Concept: govt/political action
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:23:53 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
I grasp it just fine.

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

I do, when they are truly mine.

Liar. In another message, you said that if your dog crapped while you were
walking it, you wouldn't clean it up. You wondered how you would clean it
up. "With what?", you asked. Lame excuse.


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

So, we should think the same way? OK. I want to tie your daughter to your
stairway bannister and run a video camera as I play "hide the salami" with
her rear end. I know the law frowns on that sort of thing with minors, but
based on your logic, the law is flexible, designed to be ignored based on
what feels right to each of us.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:52:29 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"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?

If someone (or many someones) makes a habit of cutting across your
lawn

shred

We're not talking about someone cutting across your yard, Dave.
Pay attention.
Answer the question directly.
Quit stalling and fidgeting, if you're capable.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:52:29 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"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?

If someone (or many someones) makes a habit of cutting across your
lawn (Many kids do that as they are too lazy to go around the block),
you have basically 4 options:

1. Lie in wait to catch each and every kid, each and every time they
do it. You can then berate them and threaten them, and pretty much
guarantee that your house will be egged by the next mischief night.

2. You could complain to the cops, who would have to also catch them
in the act to "do something" about it.

3. You could become an anarchistic, anti-social lunatic and shoot
them.

4. You could put up a fence which effective bars their ability to
trespass.

Now, which one do you think will be ultimately the most effective?
Which one would most likely lead to legal trouble for you (not that
you'd care)?



Dave

You can also use their t-shirts as handles to escort the kids back to
their
parents and discuss the issue with them.

Don't be sucked in by Daves socialist ploys.
I asked him a direct question, that he failed to answer.
Instead, he spent a lot of time nibbling around the edge.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:53:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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?

Why would someone do that? You speak as if you have first hand
experience. One has to wonder why you have so many issues with
neighbors.


You come up with so many "annoyances" with relation to neighbors, I
have to wonder just what you were like to live next too. I'd love to
talk to your former neighbors. I'm sure they have some interesting
stories to tell.......

Dave


Actually, Dave, you've avoided the question.

Finally, you're catching on.
Dave rarely answers questions.
That is the mark of a coward, someone that *needs* a gov't to do their dirty
work for them.