|
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:07:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:04:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Who's responsibility is it to clean up the droppings from the Canadian Geese, Deer, Squirrels, Chipmunks, Foxes, Wild Turkey, Rabbits, Occasional bears, Raccoons, Possums, Various species of birds, etc? Do kids only pick up dog poop? When you come up with a good answer for that, then maybe I'll entertain your fantasy. Stupid question. NOBODY can control thousands of wild animals. But dog owners can control their dogs and clean up after them. Not a stupid question, but a stupid rule. What difference would it make in the grand scheme of things if the only turds removed, in a collection of many, were the dog's? Would the rest of them magically disappears? Does the fact that some of us like to pretend that they aren't really there, change the fact that they really are? Have you ever seen the mess that can be left after a flock of Geese roam an area for a while? Maybe you should feel lucky that an occasional dog dropping is your only concern. Dave I never had multitudes of wild animals crapping on my property. Just squirrels, whose turds seem to be invisible, one cat, who buried them someplace where they never caused a problem, and quite a few dogs. If I lived in the Adirondacks and deer were a problem, I would've accepted the fact of life that you have to coexist with deer and whatever else comes along. Now you're starting to catch on. Expand upon that thought a little more....... Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Dave Hall wrote:
In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would we have? So far, nobody has proposed "taking the law into his own hands." If everybody obeyed the laws about keeping their dogs out of other people's yards, then we'd have a society where no property owner was considering killing somebody elses dog because it was destroying his property. If everybody obeyed the laws about not making a large wake, and/or very loud engine noise, where it is dangerous & destructive to do so, then far fewer people would be be convinced that motorboaters are obnoxious oblivious jerks. It's really very simple Dave. Keep reading it over and over, maybe you'll "get" it. DSK |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Mon, 03 May 2004 09:51:19 -0400, DSK wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: And what if a hedge doesn't fit my landscaping scheme? But Doug, you're missing the point... you don't have the right to decide what to do with your property, nor the right to protect your property. So are you a gun-toting anarchist too? You only obey the laws which are in your favor? Dave Hall (and his like-minded legion of fascist whackos) has (have) the right to impose their ideals and their values on you. No, you are confusing me with a liberal. I believe in live and let live. You must conform, In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would we have? Dave Conformity. Good thought, Dave. You should conform to good pet ownership practices. Pick up your dog's crap, no matter where it happens, even though you say your town has no law requiring you to do so. You say I shouldn't have a problem cleaning it off my shoes & floors because you believe that I find it "too objectionable". According to your logic, you should find it even LESS objectionable because you can plan for it. Conform. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much. I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a "drama". Dave Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs would NEVER show on TV? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Doug Kanter wrote:
Conformity. Good thought, Dave. You should conform to good pet ownership practices. Pick up your dog's crap, no matter where it happens, even though you say your town has no law requiring you to do so. You say I shouldn't have a problem cleaning it off my shoes & floors because you believe that I find it "too objectionable". According to your logic, you should find it even LESS objectionable because you can plan for it. With his attitude, I don't understand why he objects to cleaning up after his dog. He should enjoy pickng it up in his hands and carrying it home where he can put it on his own carpet... or maybe in his fridge... DSK |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... 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. The difference is intent, and whether or not the action was sanctioned by the law. Dave That would not change how the family felt about losing the pet. Gone is gone. Ok, you like using hypothetical examples, so here's one. Would you feel differently knowing that a loved one was killed in a car accident, or by some gang banger looking to score some dope? Dave Identical. Gone is gone. So you would not feel the slightest bit more resentment toward someone who was responsible for deliberately causing that loved one's death over a purely accidental scenario where no one was responsible? Dave Most car accidents are not accidents. I'd feel the same way toward both people. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long and short of it. I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week or a month sooner. You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make. You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental difference which you can't seem to resolve. In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn about his neighbors. The payback should be equal. Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be equal. No. That would be childish and disgusting, But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not? No more so than killing a mosquito on your arm. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:35:24 -0400, DSK wrote:
No. That would be childish and disgusting, Dave Hall wrote: But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not? This is a new high water mark in stupidity, even for you, Dave. Did anybody say anything about "teaching them a lesson?" No. Doug did. If you are going to enter this fray, then you need to pay attention. An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed by the property owner. Those "circumstances" do not include taking a dump on the yard. This is in order to prevent further damage to his property. It comes under the heading of "property rights" and could easily be equated with defending one's home against robbers. Not in any sane interpretation of law. If you feel that eliminating a defecation problem is in the same category as defending against robber, I would offer that your perception is a bit out of whack. In fact there was a recent news story, in my general area, where a guy caught two thugs breaking into his shed. He shot at them and killed one of them. The homeowner is now facing murder charges. You simply can't kill people or animals for being on your property unless there is an imminent threat of life or safety. Your "right" to defend your property is severely limited in scope. The fact that the animal is a pet does not change the circumstances, It does change the circumstances as a pet is perceived to have some intrinsic value to the person who owns him, as opposed to a "wild" animal. Think of it this way; If I blow up your boat, will you not seek retribution? Does the law not give you that right? The fact remains that other vigilante types have taken the law into their hands before, and killed animals that they didn't like. They have also been taken to court , by the animal's owner, and found liable for damages. except that the owner of the animal has declared himself to be responsible for the animal, then abdicated his responsibility. And it is not the place of Joe Citizen to play judge and jury. That's why we have agencies like animal control. This explanation might have too many big words for you, Dave, but it doesn't matter since you appear to be determined to never ever learn a single fact in this world. I know a lot of facts. The fact that YOU fail to accept them and instead choose to view the world through your own myopic bias does not mean that I am wrong. Look it up. Find me any law which gives a property owner the right to shoot domestic animals for simple trespass. I have asked "the other" Doug to do the same, and he bobbed and weaved, and spun his way out of it. Put up or shut up. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:57:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long and short of it. I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week or a month sooner. You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make. You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental difference which you can't seem to resolve. In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn about his neighbors. The payback should be equal. Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be equal. No. That would be childish and disgusting, But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not? No more so than killing a mosquito on your arm. Back to the "all or nothing" defense? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:46:31 -0400, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would we have? So far, nobody has proposed "taking the law into his own hands." Have you been paying attention? That EXACTLY what's the case here. There is NO law of the books that I have found yet, which gives anyone the right to shoot a neighbor's pet because they took a dump on their lawn. Since there is no law authorizing this action, the fact that you undertook it anyway is, by definition, "taking the law into your own hands". If everybody obeyed the laws about keeping their dogs out of other people's yards, then we'd have a society where no property owner was considering killing somebody elses dog because it was destroying his property. And if the dog didn't stop to take a dump, he would 've caught the rabbit. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground. What's your point? Why base your life on "what-if" scenarios? Deal with reality. If everybody obeyed the laws about not making a large wake, and/or very loud engine noise, where it is dangerous & destructive to do so, then far fewer people would be be convinced that motorboaters are obnoxious oblivious jerks. If we didn't have people who complained incessantly and loudly when people enjoy a different form of recreation than they do, we wouldn't clap and cat call when they fall overboard, or when some otherwise unfortunate circumstance happens to befall them. It's really very simple Dave. Keep reading it over and over, maybe you'll "get" it. I "get it" just fine. You judge everyone by your rules, your standards, and your opinions. You have no room for any diversity in lifestyle. You are a classic liberal. Preach tolerance, except when the activity bothers you. Preach diversity, except when the ideas are diametrically opposed to your own core beliefs. You believe that "personal responsibility" means that everyone is responsible for looking out for everyone else. You are so far off the mark it isn't even funny. Dave DSK |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much. I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a "drama". Dave Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs would NEVER show on TV? I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show? Are you attempting more negative logic? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Dave Hall wrote:
I know a lot of facts. Good. ... The fact that YOU fail to accept them and instead choose to view the world through your own myopic bias does not mean that I am wrong. No it doesn't, but somehow you manage to be wrong pretty much all the time anyway. Or is it just when you try to argue? ... Look it up. Find me any law which gives a property owner the right to shoot domestic animals for simple trespass. That isn't the case at all. You seem determined to put your own spin on the situation. In most locations I've ever lived, property owners are allowed to protect their land from desructive animals. Put up or shut up. Now it's big talk, eh, Dave? If you're seriously interested, a google search on property destruction & animals & municipal codes will probably set you straight. But I suspect that you are only having a little hissy because your dim views are challenged. DSK |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... There is NO law of the books that I have found yet, which gives anyone the right to shoot a neighbor's pet because they took a dump on their lawn. There are thousands of townships in this country. What percentage of their laws have you researched? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much. I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a "drama". Dave Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs would NEVER show on TV? I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show? Are you attempting more negative logic? Dave Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not televising cases which expose those laws? I mean, let's face it: An audience which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an audience of idiots. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed by the property owner. Those "circumstances" do not include taking a dump on the yard. If said dump is taken in the food garden, the "circumstances" have most certainly been met, in places where the law is written that way. But, you've researched the local laws in every township in America, so you know better, right? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:57:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long and short of it. I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week or a month sooner. You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make. You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental difference which you can't seem to resolve. In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn about his neighbors. The payback should be equal. Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be equal. No. That would be childish and disgusting, But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not? No more so than killing a mosquito on your arm. Back to the "all or nothing" defense? My ex-wife's got a goldfish pond in the back yard. They grow fat and beautiful by eating mosquitoes, among other things. To her (and me), mosquitoes have far more intrinsic value than a destructive dog. Matter of fact, they have more value than the dog's owner, too, who contributes nothing of beauty. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much. I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a "drama". Dave Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs would NEVER show on TV? I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show? Are you attempting more negative logic? Dave Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not televising cases which expose those laws? I mean, let's face it: An audience which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an audience of idiots. Doug... thiMk yourself. Who but an idiot would endlessly respond to someone like Dave, as if they thought they had a chance of educating him. You are becoming as big an idiot by association at this point. Spit the hook and move on with your life. BB I thiMk you may be right. But....it's so easy, and so much fun to see what he'll say next. :-) |
When would you board someone else's boat??
wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:13:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much. I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a "drama". Dave Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs would NEVER show on TV? I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show? Are you attempting more negative logic? Dave Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not televising cases which expose those laws? I mean, let's face it: An audience which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an audience of idiots. Doug... thiMk yourself. Who but an idiot would endlessly respond to someone like Dave, as if they thought they had a chance of educating him. You are becoming as big an idiot by association at this point. Spit the hook and move on with your life. BB I thiMk you may be right. But....it's so easy, and so much fun to see what he'll say next. :-) To onlookers, it's become impossible to tell which of you is the nitwit. He's basically playing you like a fiddle. Are you really this lonely? BB Silly boy. I work out of a one man office. I type around 90 words per minute. Why not make the most of it when things are quiet? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:20:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Back to the "all or nothing" defense? My ex-wife's got a goldfish pond in the back yard. They grow fat and beautiful by eating mosquitoes, among other things. To her (and me), mosquitoes have far more intrinsic value than a destructive dog. That you would think such a think is enlightening in its own right. I'd also be willing to bet that your opinion WRT dogs/mosquitos would be at odds with the greater majority of people. Matter of fact, they have more value than the dog's owner, too, who contributes nothing of beauty. The concept of "beauty" is purely subjective. Subjectivity has no place in a logical debate. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:09:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:13:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much. I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a "drama". Dave Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs would NEVER show on TV? I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show? Are you attempting more negative logic? Dave Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not televising cases which expose those laws? I mean, let's face it: An audience which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an audience of idiots. Doug... thiMk yourself. Who but an idiot would endlessly respond to someone like Dave, as if they thought they had a chance of educating him. You are becoming as big an idiot by association at this point. Spit the hook and move on with your life. BB I thiMk you may be right. But....it's so easy, and so much fun to see what he'll say next. :-) To onlookers, it's become impossible to tell which of you is the nitwit. He's basically playing you like a fiddle. Are you really this lonely? BB Silly boy. I work out of a one man office. I type around 90 words per minute. Why not make the most of it when things are quiet? So I was correct when I surmised you were very lonely. Sorry. BB 1) What have you achieved by surmising this? 2) If this thread bothers you so much, don't look. Do you need some quick instructions as to how to not look? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:10:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . There is NO law of the books that I have found yet, which gives anyone the right to shoot a neighbor's pet because they took a dump on their lawn. There are thousands of townships in this country. What percentage of their laws have you researched? It only takes one to prove me wrong. And, unless it happens to be in the town where you live, it isn't applicable. I'm still waiting. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:10:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . There is NO law of the books that I have found yet, which gives anyone the right to shoot a neighbor's pet because they took a dump on their lawn. There are thousands of townships in this country. What percentage of their laws have you researched? It only takes one to prove me wrong. And, unless it happens to be in the town where you live, it isn't applicable. I'm still waiting. Dave "There is NO law of the books that I have found yet...." You mentioned "books". Which have you read? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much. I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a "drama". Dave Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs would NEVER show on TV? I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show? Are you attempting more negative logic? Dave Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not televising cases which expose those laws? So you are now championing the idea that the government should keep the people in the dark, and media are their instruments? With all the liberal (Insert item of the week)-rights groups around, do you think that they would allow the press to sit on such practices? I mean, let's face it: An audience which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an audience of idiots. So, you are also proposing that people ignore informative programming because it is presented on the TV as its forum? So, let me get this straight. If the "info" comes from such bastions of credibility such as (cough...Jayson Blair) the New York Times, it should be taken as above reproach. But if the same material is presented on the TV, it should be automatically suspect? You really are a man full of bias...... Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:09:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: To onlookers, it's become impossible to tell which of you is the nitwit. He's basically playing you like a fiddle. Are you really this lonely? BB Silly boy. I work out of a one man office. I type around 90 words per minute. Why not make the most of it when things are quiet? Then maybe you should go home and clean your carpets. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:20:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Back to the "all or nothing" defense? My ex-wife's got a goldfish pond in the back yard. They grow fat and beautiful by eating mosquitoes, among other things. To her (and me), mosquitoes have far more intrinsic value than a destructive dog. That you would think such a think is enlightening in its own right. I'd also be willing to bet that your opinion WRT dogs/mosquitos would be at odds with the greater majority of people. Who gives a damn what other people think? Some people spend their weekends with binoculars, watching birds. I have no problem with that. Others thing insects are much more valuable than dogs. You pretend to have a problem with that because it's convenient to your rapidly deflating argument. Matter of fact, they have more value than the dog's owner, too, who contributes nothing of beauty. The concept of "beauty" is purely subjective. Subjectivity has no place in a logical debate. In my yard, the only concept of beauty that's important is MINE. Here's something to think about. Statement #1, below, is open to a wide range of interpretation. You may want to suggest some possible ones. But, tell me how many ways you can interpret #2. 1) "Things are going very badly at work lately". 2) "I have to leave for work in five minutes, but first, I want to see if the cucumber flowers have opened since I looked at them last night". |
When would you board someone else's boat??
|
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 08:29:52 -0400, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: I know a lot of facts. Good. ... The fact that YOU fail to accept them and instead choose to view the world through your own myopic bias does not mean that I am wrong. No it doesn't, but somehow you manage to be wrong pretty much all the time anyway. You have yet to EVER prove me wrong Doug. You might not LIKE what I say, and you have the right to a differing opinion. But that's it. Or is it just when you try to argue? Lightweights like you and "your brother Doug" are entertaining to say the least. Totally devoid of logic, and relying solely on your own subjective viewpoints. That and 50 cents won't even win you the prize at the county fair. ... Look it up. Find me any law which gives a property owner the right to shoot domestic animals for simple trespass. That isn't the case at all. You seem determined to put your own spin on the situation. Have you not been paying attention at all, or is it that you lack even the simplest comprehensive skills? You can't shoot a dog for taking a dump on your grass. Period. In most locations I've ever lived, property owners are allowed to protect their land from desructive animals. The definition of "destructive" does not extend to dropping "doggie donuts", nor do they consider normal domestic pets to be a part of that classification. Put up or shut up. Now it's big talk, eh, Dave? I hear you clowns all trying to tell me I'm wrong yet not one of you can point me to a place that allows such behavior. If you're seriously interested, a google search on property destruction & animals & municipal codes will probably set you straight. I have, and it doesn't allow the kind of behavior that Doug originally embraced (and you seem to be of the mind to support). And I am well familiar with the particulars in my area, and they most certainly don't allow it. Then there are documented court cases of people being held civilly liable for the unauthorized killing of a neighbor's dog. That's all I need to know. suspect that you are only having a little hissy because your dim views are challenged. You have yet to mount a serious challenge. You are just throwing your biased opinion into the ring with the other radical vigilantes. And you wonder why the PWC operators seem to be gunning for you..... Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed by the property owner. Those "circumstances" do not include taking a dump on the yard. If said dump is taken in the food garden, the "circumstances" have most certainly been met, in places where the law is written that way. Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer. What's the difference? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
wrote in message
... To onlookers, it's become impossible to tell which of you is the nitwit. He's basically playing you like a fiddle. Are you really this lonely? BB Silly boy. I work out of a one man office. I type around 90 words per minute. Why not make the most of it when things are quiet? So I was correct when I surmised you were very lonely. Sorry. BB 1) What have you achieved by surmising this? 2) If this thread bothers you so much, don't look. Do you need some quick instructions as to how to not look? Okay, you are now officially an even bigger idiot than Dave Hall. Mission accomplished. Good work. Give yourself a star, and an extra cracker at snack time. I kill-filed Dave Hall a long time ago. I guess that if you are going to insist on keeping him alive here, I'll have to do without whatever "other" thoughts you might have had to offer that were worthwhile. BB Then why did you jump into the middle of the discussion? Slow morning? Need to win an argument? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Dave Hall wrote:
You have yet to EVER prove me wrong Doug. Wrong again. I have proven you wrong every time. For example, last time I bothered to enter a discussion with you, you claimed to have never said other people should have to put up with your wake. That took all of 40 seconds to repost the archived thread. And you still didn't admit you were wrong. You NEVER admit when you are wrong. That's why it doesn't surprise me that you keep insisting you're right... you are simply blind & deaf to any inconvenient fact. ... Then there are documented court cases of people being held civilly liable for the unauthorized killing of a neighbor's dog. Let's see it. That's all I need to know. Ignorance is bliss, they say. Never tried it myself. You also need to know that 1- you are responsible for your dog 2- you are responsible for your boat's wake 3- let's just toss in the idea that you *should* be responsible and accountable for all your actions. DSK |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much. I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a "drama". Dave Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs would NEVER show on TV? I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show? Are you attempting more negative logic? Dave Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not televising cases which expose those laws? So you are now championing the idea that the government should keep the people in the dark, and media are their instruments? As of this moment, I have decided that you have either lied about your profession (some sort of telecommunications thing, if I recall), or you're nothing but the janitor at a phone company facility. Nobody with such pathetic powers of deduction could possibly be competent in a technical capacity. Hint: None of your "Judge Judy" shows has ever, or will ever televise a case involving the application of the RICO statutes to white collar crime. The audience couldn't understand it. None of your legal shows will air anything about the way the police evaluate gun permit applications in cities where the laws are especially intricate or draconian. Using google, I ran across an article about a guy in Utah who shot 73 deer in one year, legally, because the law says that even though his alfalfa crop is totally fenced, the deer were still destroying it and he can eradicate any and all animals which do that. Do you think Judge Judy would present such a case? Every hunter in Utah who wanted to take more than the limit would plant 1/8 acre of alfalfa, put a fence around it, and buy another deep freeze for the unlimited deer he could then shoot. Better for people to find out about some regulations with a little effort on their part. There's nothing shady going on here, Dave. The laws in most states occupy enormous books. Your TV shows are involved only with the simplest laws, and the ones which are likely to affect the largest number of people. Otherwise, we would've already seen a show about NY insurance regulation #60. You know what that is, right? With all the liberal (Insert item of the week)-rights groups around, do you think that they would allow the press to sit on such practices? Yes. Evil in-house lawyers telling broadcasters what's safe to show. It's a big secret. Wake up, Dave. I mean, let's face it: An audience which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an audience of idiots. So, you are also proposing that people ignore informative programming because it is presented on the TV as its forum? That's not what I said. So, let me get this straight. If the "info" comes from such bastions of credibility such as (cough...Jayson Blair) the New York Times, it should be taken as above reproach. But if the same material is presented on the TV, it should be automatically suspect? You really are a man full of bias...... We're talking about a half hour or one hour lightweight entertainment program, Dave. Tell me about the most complex case you've ever seen on a courtroom drama. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed by the property owner. Those "circumstances" do not include taking a dump on the yard. If said dump is taken in the food garden, the "circumstances" have most certainly been met, in places where the law is written that way. Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer. What's the difference? Dave This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the place where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the pickup with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the following spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with dog crap is NOT my choice. A phone book on a bookshelf is a phone book. A phone book placed on the floor to keep a door from closing is a doorstop. Get the difference? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:10:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message .. . To onlookers, it's become impossible to tell which of you is the nitwit. He's basically playing you like a fiddle. Are you really this lonely? BB Silly boy. I work out of a one man office. I type around 90 words per minute. Why not make the most of it when things are quiet? So I was correct when I surmised you were very lonely. Sorry. BB 1) What have you achieved by surmising this? 2) If this thread bothers you so much, don't look. Do you need some quick instructions as to how to not look? Okay, you are now officially an even bigger idiot than Dave Hall. Mission accomplished. Good work. Give yourself a star, and an extra cracker at snack time. I kill-filed Dave Hall a long time ago. I guess that if you are going to insist on keeping him alive here, I'll have to do without whatever "other" thoughts you might have had to offer that were worthwhile. BB Then why did you jump into the middle of the discussion? Slow morning? Need to win an argument? I was hoping that you might NOT be an idiot, and I might convince you that you are chasing your tail to the detriment of the group, as well as to the detriment of your own reputation. Apparently I was wrong, so it's into the bozo bin for you, where you and Dave can masturbate each other all you want without me having to keep stumbling over either of you. See ya! BB If you're stumbling over us, it's for two reasons. First, you haven't read the instructions included with your news reader. And second, you made a conscious effort to get involved with this thread. Idiot. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:39:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:10:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . There is NO law of the books that I have found yet, which gives anyone the right to shoot a neighbor's pet because they took a dump on their lawn. There are thousands of townships in this country. What percentage of their laws have you researched? It only takes one to prove me wrong. And, unless it happens to be in the town where you live, it isn't applicable. I'm still waiting. Dave "There is NO law of the books that I have found yet...." You mentioned "books". Which have you read? It's a metaphor Doug. Surely you know what they are. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:33:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not televising cases which expose those laws? So you are now championing the idea that the government should keep the people in the dark, and media are their instruments? As of this moment, I have decided that you have either lied about your profession (some sort of telecommunications thing, if I recall), or you're nothing but the janitor at a phone company facility. Nobody with such pathetic powers of deduction could possibly be competent in a technical capacity. And your reasoning is nothing short of "helicopter theory" paranoia. Show me some proof. Hint: None of your "Judge Judy" shows has ever, or will ever televise a case involving the application of the RICO statutes to white collar crime. The audience couldn't understand it. That may be true. But they certainly understand one neighbor shooting another's dog, which is the subject we were talking about. None of your legal shows will air anything about the way the police evaluate gun permit applications in cities where the laws are especially intricate or draconian. There's no "entertainment value" in this. But not all legal shows are of the "Judge Judy" variety. The stuff I watch is usually either on Court TV, TLC, or C-Span. Using google, I ran across an article about a guy in Utah who shot 73 deer in one year, legally, because the law says that even though his alfalfa crop is totally fenced, the deer were still destroying it and he can eradicate any and all animals which do that. But nothing about dogs? Why am I not surprised. Do you think Judge Judy would present such a case? I wouldn't know, and it's not relevant. Every hunter in Utah who wanted to take more than the limit would plant 1/8 acre of alfalfa, put a fence around it, and buy another deep freeze for the unlimited deer he could then shoot. Better for people to find out about some regulations with a little effort on their part. So you are advocating the practice of clandestine usage of legal loopholes to your own advantage. You must be a big fan of Ken Lay. There's nothing shady going on here, Dave. Really? Then why hide it? The laws in most states occupy enormous books. Your TV shows are involved only with the simplest laws, and the ones which are likely to affect the largest number of people. Like people shooting their neighbor's dogs. Otherwise, we would've already seen a show about NY insurance regulation #60. You know what that is, right? You're slipping into the outer limits of reality again Doug. With all the liberal (Insert item of the week)-rights groups around, do you think that they would allow the press to sit on such practices? Yes. Evil in-house lawyers telling broadcasters what's safe to show. It's a big secret. Wake up, Dave. Safe? What's unsafe about interesting legal cases? I mean, let's face it: An audience which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an audience of idiots. So, you are also proposing that people ignore informative programming because it is presented on the TV as its forum? That's not what I said. But it's what you implied. What do you expect someone to infer from that statement? For further illustration, lets apply the converse logic to that statement then: "Any intelligent audience, gets their all their legal information from venues other than television". You attempted to make the connection between a person's intelligence and the venue by which they get their information. You also make no allowances for other sources of legal information. Because one case was presented over the forum of TV, does not mean that the TV is the exclusive source for all legal information. Your statement is prejudicial. So, let me get this straight. If the "info" comes from such bastions of credibility such as (cough...Jayson Blair) the New York Times, it should be taken as above reproach. But if the same material is presented on the TV, it should be automatically suspect? You really are a man full of bias...... We're talking about a half hour or one hour lightweight entertainment program, Dave. Tell me about the most complex case you've ever seen on a courtroom (production) The O.J. Simpson trial? drama. That implies a contrived show edited and produced for purely entertainment value, the truth of which is secondary. I've already told you, the stuff I watch is done for purely educational reasons, and are not produced with the "American Idol" mentality in mind. Besides, you keep missing (or deliberately deflecting) the point. Whatever your "beef" with the venue of television, while you may argue the absence of many valid, but not particularly interesting legal cases, the fact that the "dog case" was broadcast does seem to define it as "interesting" from a public perspective. You keep bringing up the things you won't see on TV court shows. Fine, I can accept that. But this was a case which was presented. Are you trying to build the position that the case was fallacious because it was presented on TV? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:44:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:20:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Back to the "all or nothing" defense? My ex-wife's got a goldfish pond in the back yard. They grow fat and beautiful by eating mosquitoes, among other things. To her (and me), mosquitoes have far more intrinsic value than a destructive dog. That you would think such a think is enlightening in its own right. I'd also be willing to bet that your opinion WRT dogs/mosquitos would be at odds with the greater majority of people. Who gives a damn what other people think? It's pretty darn obvious that you don't. Otherwise you would not even contemplate the use of deadly force against the family pet of your neighbor, who dropped a few on you yard, and forced you to clean your shoes. Here's a phrase to mull over: Measured Response. Some people spend their weekends with binoculars, watching birds. I have no problem with that. But you hate dogs. That makes you judgement WRT same impaired. Others think insects are much more valuable than dogs. I'll bet I can count those people on the fingers of my left hand. You pretend to have a problem with that because it's convenient to your rapidly deflating argument. My argument is still sound. You have made all sorts of excuses, constructed several strawman analogies, peppered the exchange with similarly principled, but otherwise unrelated instances, and attempted to appeal to emotional preferences. Yet throughout it all, you have not given ANY substantiating proof that you are legally authorized to kill domestic pets for dumping on your yard. The burden of proof is still on you to demonstrate that your position is legal. I don't care how you *feel* about, how it *should* be, how irresponsible your neighbor is, or how inept your animal control and police personnel are. That fact is, that if you were my neighbor and you killed my dog, you would be standing before a judge and most likely found liable for damages, and possibly subject to animal cruelty charges. Matter of fact, they have more value than the dog's owner, too, who contributes nothing of beauty. The concept of "beauty" is purely subjective. Subjectivity has no place in a logical debate. In my yard, the only concept of beauty that's important is MINE. You can't hide from the law even on your property. You are not the warlord of your own little fiefdom. Here's something to think about. Statement #1, below, is open to a wide range of interpretation. You may want to suggest some possible ones. But, tell me how many ways you can interpret #2. 1) "Things are going very badly at work lately". 2) "I have to leave for work in five minutes, but first, I want to see if the cucumber flowers have opened since I looked at them last night". Relevance? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"There is NO law of the books that I have found yet...."
You mentioned "books". Which have you read? Dave Hall wrote: It's a metaphor Doug. Surely you know what they are. translation: Dave Hall has never read a book, but he likes to refer to them because he thinks it makes him sound smart DSK |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:15 -0400, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: You have yet to EVER prove me wrong Doug. Wrong again. I have proven you wrong every time. For example, last time I bothered to enter a discussion with you, you claimed to have never said other people should have to put up with your wake. That took all of 40 seconds to repost the archived thread. And you still didn't admit you were wrong. You NEVER admit when you are wrong. That's why it doesn't surprise me that you keep insisting you're right... you are simply blind & deaf to any inconvenient fact. That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion. I believe that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of such wakes during their normal course of boating. You, on the other hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake which may potentially affect another boat (in other words, run at idle speed all day). You base this warped and unrealistic expectation on the rules which restrict wakes in certain areas, and on the irresponsible behavior of those boaters who ignore those rules. If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser, or from (gasp!) a container ship, that's a part of boating, and it's just tough breaks. You seem to be of an "all or nothing" mentality, while I adjust according to circumstances. You are far to literal and rigid. ... Then there are documented court cases of people being held civilly liable for the unauthorized killing of a neighbor's dog. Let's see it. Watch Court TV, It may be shown again. That's all I need to know. Ignorance is bliss, they say. Never tried it myself. Is it ignorance, or simply your inability to consider an opposing viewpoint because it doesn't fit within your definition of an ideal world? You also need to know that 1- you are responsible for your dog And your neighbor does NOT have the right to kill it even if the dog gets away from you once in a while. 2- you are responsible for your boat's wake. In the open water, you are responsible to avoid my wake, or deal with the consequences. That's just common sense. 3- let's just toss in the idea that you *should* be responsible and accountable for all your actions. And you should be accountable and responsible for your LACK of action. Some questions for you. Do you think you should be responsible because an idiot stumbles and falls on your sidewalk? Should a car maker be held responsible for injuries sustained in accidents? Should a gun maker be held responsible for unsafe usage of firearms? Should you be held responsible for actions that were clearly not precipitated by negligence on your part? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:36:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed by the property owner. Those "circumstances" do not include taking a dump on the yard. If said dump is taken in the food garden, the "circumstances" have most certainly been met, in places where the law is written that way. Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer. What's the difference? Dave This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the place where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the pickup with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the following spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with dog crap is NOT my choice. So you routinely garden while wearing $150 dress shoes? And does the "horse dung" not similarly foul them? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Dave Hall wrote:
That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion. Oh? It's my "differing opinio" that you denied making a statement which was then proven that you did indeed make? .. I believe that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of such wakes during their normal course of boating. Ah, good. So in other words, you refrain from making wakes close to other boats & property that might be damaged? ... You, on the other hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake which may potentially affect another boat Please quote my statement to that effect. All I said was that you area responsible for your wake, and if your wake causes damage or injury then *you* are liable for it. If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser If it's because that 65' cruiser, with the whole Bay to run in, passes very close to another boat while making a large wake, then they are responsible, and they should be held liable. Open water is not a license to run down others, nor is it a proxy to run them under with your wake. DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com