When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:04:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Various animal shelters and SPCA organizations will euthanize an
animal if not adopted within a certain time. If a pet owner does not
reclaim their "captured" pet, there can be only 2 possibilities. They
either A) don't know where the animal is, or B) do not want to pay the
costs associated with adoption.

The euthanasia policy for these shelters has nothing to do with the
animal crapping on your yard.



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.

One is legal, the other is not. The ends do not justify the means in
your case. A cop is legally allowed to shoot criminals. It doesn't
mean that I am, in most circumstances which do not involve imminent
threat.

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.


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,

Maybe you should think a little. Your problem is that if you think one
course of action is appropriate in one set of circumstances, that the
same course of action is appropriate in others. That's binary thinking
to the extreme.

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.

or sometimes to befuddle you because it's entertaining.

You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and he'll swear that you're
crazy.........


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:08:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

I wouldn't say that I "reveled" in it's demise. I merely acknowledge
that my problem is solved.


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:17:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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).

No wonder you are such a bitter angry man. You have no place for God
in your heart.


While you're waiting for god's revenge, the crimes are still being committed
and you are suffering.

Not for long in most cases. Things have a way of mysteriously working
out for me. Just last week I was telling my wife that I might need to
build up another computer to dedicate to my video projects. Then just
yesterday, out of the blue, a friend of mine offered his old case to
me. Problem solved. My life is full of examples like this. I do not
believe in random events or coincidence. I prefer to think that I'm
being take care of. You may prefer to think differently. It is why you
have to fight for every pleasure in your life, and I'm quite happy
with mine.

Suffering is a trademark of religion. I choose NOT to
suffer, so I take care of things myself.

Which is why you have so many problems.


I grow a garden for pleasure,

You don't sound like you are very happy if you constantly complain
about everyone who doesn't share your ideal view of what it means to
be a "good neighbor"


not
as bait for evolutionary mistakes and their pets.

Your contempt for your fellow humanoids and their "accessories" is
part of the reason why you lack true happiness.

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.

Then put your garden in a place which allows fences.

How long did it take you to look up that statute to use as yet another
excuse?


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:20:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

I would file that under #1 above. Have you had to deal with some
parents lately? I don't know about in your area, but when I was
growing up and another adult lodged a complaint about me, it was taken
as gospel truth and I was immediately and severely punished. Today, if
you go to a parent to complain about their kid, they cop a "My kid's a
angel, you must be mistaken" attitude.

My next door neighbor, in my old neighborhood, had two kids who made a
habit of migrating to my yard to play their various sports, since my
yard was clear and significantly larger. I had to shoe them away on
almost a daily basis. One day, when I came home and found them playing
yet again, I drove up on the yard with my truck and chased them, in
the hope that they'd now think I was crazy and fear to return. I also
yelled after them and I used some words which I probably shouldn't
have. But I was ****ed. That was many years ago, before I learned how
to effectively manage anger.

The next thing I know, the kids' dad comes over to give me a tongue
lashing. And, get this, he wasn't so upset that I had chased them away
with my truck. He was upset with the words that I used. When I told
him that I didn't want them on my yard, he denied that they were
there. I was floored. I asked him how was it then that I was in the
position to chase them down with my truck and shout after them if they
weren't there? Needless to say, this conversation didn't accomplish
much. In fact I would frequently catch not only the kids, but the
father joining in for games on my yard. The problem was finally solved
when I called the police and had them give him a talking to.

Maybe I should've shot them all huh? Oh, wait, that's only an option
if they are dogs right?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:58:48 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


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.

How else would he get there?

Pay attention.
Answer the question directly.
Quit stalling and fidgeting, if you're capable.

You have the legal means at your disposal to address trespassing
issues. If these avenues do not solve the problem, you can only do so
much to prevent continued transgressions. Putting up a fence would
solve the problem.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Don" wrote in message
...

"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.

Oh, I'm a Dave handler from WAY back. If I wasn't an extremely fast typist,
I wouldn't have time to toy with him.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:34:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Then the obvious corollary to that logic then is if you can justify
killing bugs, then you should be ok with killing people, since they
are, after all just "Another life".

So how many people have you killed?

I choose not to kill people because for the most part, they can be dealt
with in other ways, usually via reasoning, intimidation, fear, or a
judiciously timed offer of a cold beer.


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.

In other words, the law doesn't allow it. You're just a vigilante.

We are not going to settle the "is it legal" question. Drop it. Suffice it
to say that that with rare exceptions, the church committee approach to
getting things done is a lame way of doing things. Of course, for someone
who delegates so much responsibility to a deity, a committee is a natural
thing.


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.

Society assigns a greater value to pets than it does to bugs. Your
feeble justification is just that. Nobody has ever been taken to court
for killing bugs, but the same in not true for those who wantonly kill
another's pet.

I'm part of society. I do NOT place value on a pet that violates private
property. I think you'd be surprised at how many people feel the same way.
In NY, it's illegal for a hunter to use dogs to "run" deer. Some still do
it, though. Once those dogs are trained to do that, they do it even when the
owner's not with them. Guess what DEC game wardens sometimes do with those
dogs. BLAM....and walk away. Now those dogs are a feast for raccoons and a
bunch of other happy scavengers.

You really need to live a wider life, Dave. You spend too much time with TV.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:00:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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.


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.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:06:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


You're just a bully.

No. I'm a teacher.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"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 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.