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 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

"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?

"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.

"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?

"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.

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. :-)

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?

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

wrote in message
news
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?