"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fw0ic.5465$cF6.293888@attbi_s04...
Doug,

So you do agree with Don that a person who allows a dog to crap on your
lawn, is the same thing as your neighbor coming over to your house and
sexually molesting your daughter?

Do you also agree with Don, that the law requires you to shot the person
in
the face if their dog craps in your lawn?

If you ask a neighbor to control its dog and the neighbor refuses, then yes.
It is equivalent to molesting your daughter. I do NOT agree that the
neighbor should be shot. However, you must realize that by refusing to
cooperate, the neighbor has made a request. He has asked you to bring all
possible legal forces to bear on him as quickly as possible. If you do not
honor his explicit request, then YOU are a bad neighbor. It's your job to
involve the police, animal control people and courts immediately, the goal
being to remove the animal from the home, extract a huge fine, and cause as
much heartbreak as possible at the loss of a pet. Remember: You are honoring
the neighbor's explicit request. As a side benefit, you will help his
children learn something which he was too stupid or lazy to teach them -
owning a pet involves work.

Dog owners like that really don't want to own pets. They probably get dogs
because someone else in the house wanted one, but was also too lazy to care
for it correctly. In rural areas, it may be safe and legal* to shoot the
dog. Obviously, it's your responsibility to do just that, to honor your
neighbor's request.

*Safe and legal: Proper distance from highways and property lines, and
sufficient land incline to guarantee a bullet will not travel too far and
hit a worthwhile animal, like a rat, a slug or a snake.

John, you better straighten up your act or you will be sent to the corner
for contemplation.
Where in my single sentence below did I mention dogs?

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:vr%hc.5371$YP5.524839@attbi_s02...
Don,
Again, I am confused, are you saying if your neighbors dog takes a crap in
your lawn, you are required by law to shot him in the face?


"Don" wrote in message
...
"Henry Blackmoore" wrote
Show me where the laws in a suburban area in this country have been
interpreted to allow a homeowner to hide under the guise of growing
"food
crops" while killing his neighbors dog or cats? Garden be damned.

The *law* says that if you touch my stuff, I am required to shoot your
stupid ass in the face. Get it?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Henry Blackmoore" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote in message
link.net...

Anybody that would advocate violent action against helpless and
innocent
animals is one sick puppy.

Actually, it's legally permitted, performed and tested in the
courts
on
a
fairly regular basis. In many places, including what you'd consider
"normal
suburbs", animals which damage food crops may be killed as long as
the
method does not endanger neighbors or violate weapons laws. You
really
ought
to think before you hurl, boy.

Uh-huh. And you think that somebody's garden comes under the "food
crop"
definition and that you have the right to kill your neighbor's pets
for
a
damaged tomato plant?

I repeat. You are one sick puppy.

Actually, Henry, a garden *does* fall under that definition. These
laws
were
almost eliminated as farms began to vanish, but in many places, they
were
kept intact because of the victory garden movement during World War
II.
The
current legal argument is that flowers have no intrinsic value unless
they're raised by a commercial grower. But, food *does* have value to
anyone
who grows it. Therefore, any food garden is defined as a farm.

Sorry to burst your bubble.....

Doug,
You don't have to go defensive over erroneous claims.
Henry has no more say over your property than you do over his.
Just smear his nose in his own **** and move on.



I'm simply helping him understand laws he is 100% unfamiliar with. The
same
laws I've become 100% familiar with in order to enjoy the simple pleasure
of
a vegetable garden in the midst of a few neighbors who don't care.

sigh
It's not your job to educate morons, though you may choose to do so for
hobby.
The *law* has nothing to do with it.
We're talking about *morality* here.
If Blackmoore chooses to act immorally and infringe on your *natural*
rights, you just plug him and turn him into fertilizer.
There are way too many Blackmoores running loose anyway.

Geezis, what the hell is going on around here?
I said that if you choose to use MY stuff to YOUR benefit than I have the
moral equivilent to do the same.
John, PLEASE think these things through before reacting emotionally.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Cd%hc.16820$GR.2456214@attbi_s01...
Don,
I am having a hard time following this conversation, but from what I can
tell you are saying that a dog taking a crap on your lawn is the same as
being a child molester. Did I miss something?


"Don" wrote in message
...
"Henry Blackmoore" wrote
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
Actually, it's legally permitted, performed and tested in the courts
on
a
fairly regular basis. In many places, including what you'd consider
"normal
suburbs", animals which damage food crops may be killed as long as
the
method does not endanger neighbors or violate weapons laws. You
really
ought
to think before you hurl, boy.

Uh-huh. And you think that somebody's garden comes under the "food
crop"
definition and that you have the right to kill your neighbor's pets
for
a
damaged tomato plant?

Can I come into your house and eat all your food, drink all your beer,
fondle your 13 yo daughters nubbins, issue you a matched pair of knuckle
sandwiches and take your DVD player on the way out the door?
If you choose to use MY personal property for YOUR use, YOU open
yourself
up
to that same behavior.
Doesn't anyone know how to *think* anymore?

What the **** is it with you John?
What the hell difference does it make if Doug agrees with me?
Don't you have a brain of your own?
Don't you have a backbone?
We're not talking rocket surgery here, just very simple basics.
Most kids are taught these things at about age 5, how old are you?
Here, I'll spell it out for you:
*Treat other people as you want to be treated.*
There, is that simple enough?
If you abuse that one simple rule of humanity you may pay a severe
consequence.
Don't let your dog **** in my yard, don't paintball my house, don't fondle
my daughter, etc.
In turn I won't do those things to you.
Does any of this make sense to you?



"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fw0ic.5465$cF6.293888@attbi_s04...
Doug,

So you do agree with Don that a person who allows a dog to crap on your
lawn, is the same thing as your neighbor coming over to your house and
sexually molesting your daughter?

Do you also agree with Don, that the law requires you to shot the person
in
the face if their dog craps in your lawn?


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Cd%hc.16820$GR.2456214@attbi_s01...
Don,
I am having a hard time following this conversation, but from what I
can
tell you are saying that a dog taking a crap on your lawn is the same
as
being a child molester. Did I miss something?

This is simple, John. Based on actual experience:

I'm working in the garden. I have 3 neighbors with little target dogs,
like
dachshunds. I cut my lawn correctly in the summer, which means 3-4". The
target dogs' turds are small enough to fall beneath the level of the
grass.
I step in it. I'm preoccupied with gardening. I am entitled to focus
only
on
the thing I enjoy, rather than having to watch every step I take. I step
in
the turds, and run into the house for a drink of water, and maybe to use
the
bathroom. Now, there's turd on my carpet. I have to stop what I'm doing
and
rent a rug shampooer.

Not only does the machine cost money, but the dog owner has stolen 3-4
hours
of my precious time. If I apply my working rate to my weekend hours,
that
time is worth between $500 and $10,000.00. The dog owner has stolen that
from me.

Get it? Stealing. Why? So the dog owner can keep his fat ass on the sofa
watching football, rather than tie the dog up in his own backyard and
clean
the turds out of his damned lawn. Calling the dog catcher a dozen times
achieved nothing. "Duh...I have to actually witness the dog running
loose
before I can do anything about it". This is why one dog on my street
actually vanished about 15 years ago. Sort of like Jimmy Hoffa.

My property, my garden, my time, my money. No different than if you did
a
gorgeous job of painting your house and I came along with a painball gun
and
redecorated it for you. Get it? Same exact thing.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...
"Henry Blackmoore" wrote
He is a certifiable menace that's for sure. And he certainly doesn't
belong
on a water in a boat.

Too bad, you have no say in what he does.



Actually, I give anchored fishermen a berth so wide, they hardly know I'm
there. I've taught my son to assist other boaters who are docking, or stay
out of their ways if they don't want help. I keep unused bait nice &
fresh,
because there are always kids back at the dock who seem to find it useful.
When fishing streams, I not only stay hundreds of feet from other
fishermen,
I don't even say hello unless their body language indicates they're in the
mood to share info. I go over my outboard with a friggin' toothbrush after
I
change oil so I don't create the oil slick that some guys think is macho.
(Same guys who don't flush the toilet in public bathrooms).

Henry has no idea what he's talking about.

Do as you please.
You have to answer to no other, let alone a moron in Usenet.
Blackmoore presents his false bravado as a symbol of his cowardice and poor
character.
Blackmoore is one of the last people to help when help is needed, so he
shadows himself in his false accusations of others.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:27:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I have no time for such nonsense. If you're happy with that solution,
good
for you. If it were me, I'd invite the neighbor over, shove his face in
the
pile of poop, and explain to him that he should review his will at least
every few months to be sure it's up to date, if he intends to continue
his
antisocial behavior.

LOL !

Isn't moral relativity a stitch? :-)

"Don" wrote in message
...

Doug,
You don't have to go defensive over erroneous claims.
Henry has no more say over your property than you do over his.
Just smear his nose in his own **** and move on.



I'm simply helping him understand laws he is 100% unfamiliar with. The
same
laws I've become 100% familiar with in order to enjoy the simple
pleasure
of
a vegetable garden in the midst of a few neighbors who don't care.

sigh
It's not your job to educate morons, though you may choose to do so for
hobby.
The *law* has nothing to do with it.
We're talking about *morality* here.
If Blackmoore chooses to act immorally and infringe on your *natural*
rights, you just plug him and turn him into fertilizer.
There are way too many Blackmoores running loose anyway.



Morality, yes. But, in some cases, the law reflects basic moral issues which
continue to be important to people. Henry has apparently created nothing
worth preserving, therefore he is having extreme difficulty grasping this
issue. Fortunately, the courts do NOT share this handicap. Henry should
invite his lawyer to dinner and request an education. Better yet, he should
head to his town/city hall and spend an afternoon browsing through his local
laws. It'll be a real eye opener.

"Don" wrote in message
...
Geezis, what the hell is going on around here?

Don, there is either a dense fog around here, or there's a second thing
going on. Henry may have tipped his hand somewhere in this conversation when
he said "you reap what you sow", but refused to admit that sometimes you
reap your uncomfortable harvest right away. The alternative is "later". Now,
what kinds of people have built an entire belief system around "later"? I'd
be specific, but I don't want to spoil a surprise that Henry himself will
provide elsewhere in this thread. :-)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:45:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:56:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Some people bitch a bit too much. Learn to cut some slack and deal
with it.

We both know why you jumped into THIS particular discussion, don't we,
Dave?
:-)


No, why don't you tell us?

Dave

No, Dave. It's not my job to help you with these things.


You're the one who posed the supposedly rhetorical question. By your
act of doing so, you are then taking on the role of "all-knowing".
Consequently, I gave you the chance to validate your statement, by
further imparting your wisdom on us. Since you chose not to, I'll have
to correct my earlier assumption.......

Dave
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj