"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, and an innocent person might step
in it. And, of course, the dog would still exist.

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.

Dave Hall (and his like-minded legion of fascist whackos) has (have) the
right to impose their ideals and their values on you. You must conform,
you must not try to get them to accept any responsibility for their
actions... or their kids, or their pets, etc etc. If his dogs craps on
your lawn, it is the will of Allah... I mean, it's the way Nature meant
it to be. Accept it and be happy. Or else!

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Dave Hall (and his like-minded legion of fascist whackos) has (have) the
right to impose their ideals and their values on you. You must conform,
you must not try to get them to accept any responsibility for their
actions... or their kids, or their pets, etc etc. If his dogs craps on
your lawn, it is the will of Allah... I mean, it's the way Nature meant
it to be. Accept it and be happy. Or else!

DSK


Yeah....I guess. How could I have been so wrong?

Doug Kanter wrote:
Yeah....I guess. How could I have been so wrong?

It's not your fault, man. You've been seduced by those dadgum libby-rull
traitor sumbidges... prolly starting 'way back in grade school...

DSK

On Mon, 03 May 2004 10:48:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



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.


So, taking these last two comments of yours in perspective, you claim,
on one hand, to be a member of society. Part of the responsibility of
being a member of society is consensus building, and harmony in
action. But you've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to
certain matters, you are more than willing to fly in the face of
society and play by your own rules, when it suits you.

In other words, you're a hypocrite

No, Dave. I don't live by a rigid set of rules. I'm flexible. Just like DEC
game wardens.

I doubt if the law allows you such broad "flexibility"......




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

I rarely watch TV. Why would you think that I do? I find reality (REAL
reality) much more interesting......

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

On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:10:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:39:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.



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

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?

Dave

On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:04:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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

Dave

Why didn't you want those kids in your yard?

Ah, here it comes.........

Well, why not, you're entertaining if nothing else....

I didn't want them for a multitude of reasons.


Then there is the wear and tear on my yard. Not that I'm a yard geek,
but I don't want spots of bare ground corresponding to the bases in a
baseball diamond showing through.

You should lighten up, Dave. Lots of people put up with a little bit of wear
on their lawns. It's even less of a problem than dog ****, or a damaged row
of 1" high lettuce seedlings that you won't have a chance to plant again
until next spring.

What, no comment on the liability aspect? You are transparently
selective when it comes to what you respond to.

Ironically, one of my "defenses" against these little miscreants was
to tie the dog up in that area. Then when the little "tykes" tried to
play ball, they were stepping in all sorts of "poop". Nothing like a
face first slide into first with a pile in your path.........

Dave

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

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.

An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed
by the property owner. 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.

The fact that the animal is a pet does not change the circumstances,
except that the owner of the animal has declared himself to be
responsible for the animal, then abdicated his responsibility.

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.

DSK