On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:10:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?

It only takes one to prove me wrong. And, unless it happens to be in
the town where you live, it isn't applicable.


I'm still waiting.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:10:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?

It only takes one to prove me wrong. And, unless it happens to be in
the town where you live, it isn't applicable.


I'm still waiting.


Dave


"There is NO law of the books that I have found yet...."

You mentioned "books". Which have you read?

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?

So you are now championing the idea that the government should keep
the people in the dark, and media are their instruments?

With all the liberal (Insert item of the week)-rights groups around,
do you think that they would allow the press to sit on such practices?

I mean, let's face it: An audience
which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an
audience of idiots.

So, you are also proposing that people ignore informative programming
because it is presented on the TV as its forum?


So, let me get this straight. If the "info" comes from such bastions
of credibility such as (cough...Jayson Blair) the New York Times,
it should be taken as above reproach. But if the same material is
presented on the TV, it should be automatically suspect?

You really are a man full of bias......

Dave

On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:09:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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?


Then maybe you should go home and clean your carpets.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Who gives a damn what other people think? Some people spend their weekends
with binoculars, watching birds. I have no problem with that. Others thing
insects are much more valuable than dogs. You pretend to have a problem with
that because it's convenient to your rapidly deflating argument.


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.

In my yard, the only concept of beauty that's important is MINE.

Here's something to think about. Statement #1, below, is open to a wide
range of interpretation. You may want to suggest some possible ones. But,
tell me how many ways you can interpret #2.

1) "Things are going very badly at work lately".

2) "I have to leave for work in five minutes, but first, I want to see if
the cucumber flowers have opened since I looked at them last night".

On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:09:19 GMT, wrote:


Doug... thiMk yourself. Who but an idiot would endlessly respond to
someone like Dave,

And what would that "someone" be defined as?



as if they thought they had a chance of educating
him.

Oh, so I take it that you agree with Doug that a person has a right to
arbitrarily kill a neighbor's dog who takes a dump on their yard
despite the fact that the law does not give you that right?

You are also welcome to show me where this "right" is written into
the law.


You are becoming as big an idiot by association at this point.

Bigger actually. The more he twists, ducks, deflects, and builds yet
another strawman analogy, the more obvious it becomes that he's not
living in the real world.

Dave

On Tue, 04 May 2004 08:29:52 -0400, DSK wrote:

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.


You have yet to EVER prove me wrong Doug. You might not LIKE what I
say, and you have the right to a differing opinion. But that's it.


Or is it just when you try to argue?

Lightweights like you and "your brother Doug" are entertaining to say
the least. Totally devoid of logic, and relying solely on your own
subjective viewpoints. That and 50 cents won't even win you the prize
at the county fair.



... 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.

Have you not been paying attention at all, or is it that you lack even
the simplest comprehensive skills? You can't shoot a dog for taking a
dump on your grass. Period.

In most locations I've ever lived, property owners are allowed to
protect their land from desructive animals.

The definition of "destructive" does not extend to dropping "doggie
donuts", nor do they consider normal domestic pets to be a part of
that classification.


Put up or shut up.

Now it's big talk, eh, Dave?

I hear you clowns all trying to tell me I'm wrong yet not one of you
can point me to a place that allows such behavior.


If you're seriously interested, a google search on property destruction
& animals & municipal codes will probably set you straight.

I have, and it doesn't allow the kind of behavior that Doug originally
embraced (and you seem to be of the mind to support). And I am well
familiar with the particulars in my area, and they most certainly
don't allow it. Then there are documented court cases of people being
held civilly liable for the unauthorized killing of a neighbor's dog.
That's all I need to know.


suspect that you are only having a little hissy because your dim views
are challenged.

You have yet to mount a serious challenge. You are just throwing your
biased opinion into the ring with the other radical vigilantes.

And you wonder why the PWC operators seem to be gunning for you.....

Dave

On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer.
What's the difference?

Dave

wrote in message
...

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?


Okay, you are now officially an even bigger idiot than Dave Hall.
Mission accomplished. Good work. Give yourself a star, and an extra
cracker at snack time. I kill-filed Dave Hall a long time ago. I guess
that if you are going to insist on keeping him alive here, I'll have
to do without whatever "other" thoughts you might have had to offer
that were worthwhile.

BB

Then why did you jump into the middle of the discussion? Slow morning? Need
to win an argument?

Dave Hall wrote:
You have yet to EVER prove me wrong Doug.

Wrong again. I have proven you wrong every time.

For example, last time I bothered to enter a discussion with you, you
claimed to have never said other people should have to put up with your
wake. That took all of 40 seconds to repost the archived thread. And you
still didn't admit you were wrong. You NEVER admit when you are wrong.
That's why it doesn't surprise me that you keep insisting you're
right... you are simply blind & deaf to any inconvenient fact.



... Then there are documented court cases of people being
held civilly liable for the unauthorized killing of a neighbor's dog.

Let's see it.

That's all I need to know.

Ignorance is bliss, they say. Never tried it myself.

You also need to know that

1- you are responsible for your dog

2- you are responsible for your boat's wake

3- let's just toss in the idea that you *should* be responsible and
accountable for all your actions.

DSK