On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:06:16 -0400 (EDT), "Harry Krause"
wrote:


Wrong answer, Dave.

It is the pet owner's sole responsibility to keep control of his
animal(s) and make sure they do not run amok or in any way damage the
property of others.

It is also the property owner's responsibility to take proper measures
to ensure that "accidents" don't happens which may damage something he
feels is valuable enough to loose sleep over.


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

Normally yes. But dogs do get loose on occasion, and there are also
strays and other critters to consider. It is much simpler for a
property owner to fence in his "prized" garden rather than looking to
place blame when damage occurs.

Why should someone who doesn't own the offending dog be annoyed by its
defecating?

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

or have to put on a fence?

If you want to protect something of value, you need to take measures
to ensure it. Personal responsibility is taking proactive steps to
cover your assets, and not looking for the rest of society to do it
for you.

He shouldn't. Neither should a
neighbor have to hear someone's dog barking loudly half the day.

That would be far better than half the night.


You have all the makings of a real nuisance neighbor, Dave.

Do I? What do you know about me?

Do you sit
on your porch in your undershirt, swilling cheap beer,

So what if I do? Who are you to make judgement calls about my
lifestyle? You don't like it? Don't look.

letting your dogs
poop all over the neighborhood,

Who says I do? I had (past tense) one dog. That dog is no longer.

and play your stereo so loud that folks
three blocks away have to listen to your music selections?

Who said anything about stereo's? You are attempting to paint me in a
stereotypical manner as a strawman attempt to categorize me as a "bad"
neighbor. Similar to the tactics of the democratic party in their
feeble attempts to tarnish Bush's good name...... Conjecture,
speculation, ad-hominem attacks (With little hard evidence). The tools
of a propagandist.

If you can't argue the logic, malign the person.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:02:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would challenge that you seem to be the one projecting the fixation
with dog poop. You are the one making the big deal about it. Most
other people just let nature take its course.

Dave

Let nature take its course? That's what I've been saying all along. But,
here's the difference: I acknowledge that nature sometimes works in ways
that are sad.

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

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


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

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

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

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Have you ever read transcripts of the way judges and lawyers debate the
validity of laws in the Supreme Court or appellate courts? Yes, or no?

No, I haven't to any great degree. But I have studied some case law on
subjects that were of interest to me. I especially enjoy the reasoning
process that is often used. On the other hand, I get steamed when
sleazy defense attorneys attempt to use legal loopholes to win cases.

In any case, I can be reasonably sure that they aren't off in the
outer limits when they present their arguments. Their arguments are
well thought out, reasonable, relevant, and, most importantly, reflect
reality.

This is in sharp contrast to the strawman arguments which are
presented here.

Dave


Reading case law is not the same as the transcripts - what the people
actually say. Judge: "Are you saying that if insert strawman here, he
should be considered in violation of the law?" This is how real people
debate the law and test its limits. Listen to NPR a little more often and
you'll hear these things. I'm sure there are web-based sources.

Your statement about being "reasonably sure" is, in fact, completely wrong.
Legal scholars are OFTEN in the outer limits when debating law. They MUST
push debates to the extreme to test validity because if they don't, it's
fairly certain that someone else will. Witness the use by prosecutors of the
RICO statutes in situations for which it was never intended.

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

"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. However, it is a dog's sole
purpose while roaming to find places to **** and mark territory. When a dog
roams the neighborhood, it's pretty much guaranteed that it's going to leave
**** someplace.


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, so the paragraph above should be edited slightly: "...other dog owners
except me should be more responsible....."

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel
safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a
large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp
the simple principles of responsibility & accountability.


I grasp it just fine. 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.

This was explained to you. If your dog leaves your property, it is VIRTUALLY
GUARANTEED to take a dump on someone else's property. You have absolute
control of whether or not the dog does that.

"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.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Dave

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

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

Dave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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