"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?

As of this moment, I have decided that you have either lied about your
profession (some sort of telecommunications thing, if I recall), or you're
nothing but the janitor at a phone company facility. Nobody with such
pathetic powers of deduction could possibly be competent in a technical
capacity.

Hint: None of your "Judge Judy" shows has ever, or will ever televise a case
involving the application of the RICO statutes to white collar crime. The
audience couldn't understand it. None of your legal shows will air anything
about the way the police evaluate gun permit applications in cities where
the laws are especially intricate or draconian.

Using google, I ran across an article about a guy in Utah who shot 73 deer
in one year, legally, because the law says that even though his alfalfa crop
is totally fenced, the deer were still destroying it and he can eradicate
any and all animals which do that. Do you think Judge Judy would present
such a case? Every hunter in Utah who wanted to take more than the limit
would plant 1/8 acre of alfalfa, put a fence around it, and buy another deep
freeze for the unlimited deer he could then shoot. Better for people to find
out about some regulations with a little effort on their part.

There's nothing shady going on here, Dave. The laws in most states occupy
enormous books. Your TV shows are involved only with the simplest laws, and
the ones which are likely to affect the largest number of people. Otherwise,
we would've already seen a show about NY insurance regulation #60. You know
what that is, right?



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?

Yes. Evil in-house lawyers telling broadcasters what's safe to show. It's a
big secret. Wake up, Dave.


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?

That's not what I said.


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......

We're talking about a half hour or one hour lightweight entertainment
program, Dave. Tell me about the most complex case you've ever seen on a
courtroom drama.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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

This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the place
where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the pickup
with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the following
spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with dog
crap is NOT my choice. A phone book on a bookshelf is a phone book. A phone
book placed on the floor to keep a door from closing is a doorstop. Get the
difference?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:10:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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?


I was hoping that you might NOT be an idiot, and I might convince you
that you are chasing your tail to the detriment of the group, as well
as to the detriment of your own reputation. Apparently I was wrong, so
it's into the bozo bin for you, where you and Dave can masturbate each
other all you want without me having to keep stumbling over either of
you.

See ya!

BB

If you're stumbling over us, it's for two reasons. First, you haven't read
the instructions included with your news reader. And second, you made a
conscious effort to get involved with this thread. Idiot.

On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:39:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?


It's a metaphor Doug. Surely you know what they are.

Dave

On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:33:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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?

As of this moment, I have decided that you have either lied about your
profession (some sort of telecommunications thing, if I recall), or you're
nothing but the janitor at a phone company facility. Nobody with such
pathetic powers of deduction could possibly be competent in a technical
capacity.

And your reasoning is nothing short of "helicopter theory" paranoia.
Show me some proof.


Hint: None of your "Judge Judy" shows has ever, or will ever televise a case
involving the application of the RICO statutes to white collar crime. The
audience couldn't understand it.

That may be true. But they certainly understand one neighbor shooting
another's dog, which is the subject we were talking about.


None of your legal shows will air anything
about the way the police evaluate gun permit applications in cities where
the laws are especially intricate or draconian.

There's no "entertainment value" in this. But not all legal shows are
of the "Judge Judy" variety. The stuff I watch is usually either on
Court TV, TLC, or C-Span.



Using google, I ran across an article about a guy in Utah who shot 73 deer
in one year, legally, because the law says that even though his alfalfa crop
is totally fenced, the deer were still destroying it and he can eradicate
any and all animals which do that.

But nothing about dogs? Why am I not surprised.


Do you think Judge Judy would present
such a case?

I wouldn't know, and it's not relevant.



Every hunter in Utah who wanted to take more than the limit
would plant 1/8 acre of alfalfa, put a fence around it, and buy another deep
freeze for the unlimited deer he could then shoot. Better for people to find
out about some regulations with a little effort on their part.

So you are advocating the practice of clandestine usage of legal
loopholes to your own advantage. You must be a big fan of Ken Lay.


There's nothing shady going on here, Dave.

Really? Then why hide it?


The laws in most states occupy
enormous books. Your TV shows are involved only with the simplest laws, and
the ones which are likely to affect the largest number of people.

Like people shooting their neighbor's dogs.


Otherwise,
we would've already seen a show about NY insurance regulation #60. You know
what that is, right?

You're slipping into the outer limits of reality again Doug.


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?

Yes. Evil in-house lawyers telling broadcasters what's safe to show. It's a
big secret. Wake up, Dave.

Safe? What's unsafe about interesting legal cases?


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?

That's not what I said.

But it's what you implied. What do you expect someone to infer from
that statement? For further illustration, lets apply the converse
logic to that statement then:

"Any intelligent audience, gets their all their legal information from
venues other than television".

You attempted to make the connection between a person's intelligence
and the venue by which they get their information. You also make no
allowances for other sources of legal information. Because one case
was presented over the forum of TV, does not mean that the TV is the
exclusive source for all legal information.

Your statement is prejudicial.


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......

We're talking about a half hour or one hour lightweight entertainment
program, Dave. Tell me about the most complex case you've ever seen on a
courtroom (production)

The O.J. Simpson trial?


drama.

That implies a contrived show edited and produced for purely
entertainment value, the truth of which is secondary. I've already
told you, the stuff I watch is done for purely educational reasons,
and are not produced with the "American Idol" mentality in mind.

Besides, you keep missing (or deliberately deflecting) the point.
Whatever your "beef" with the venue of television, while you may argue
the absence of many valid, but not particularly interesting legal
cases, the fact that the "dog case" was broadcast does seem to define
it as "interesting" from a public perspective.

You keep bringing up the things you won't see on TV court shows. Fine,
I can accept that. But this was a case which was presented. Are you
trying to build the position that the case was fallacious because it
was presented on TV?

Dave

On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:44:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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?

It's pretty darn obvious that you don't. Otherwise you would not even
contemplate the use of deadly force against the family pet of your
neighbor, who dropped a few on you yard, and forced you to clean your
shoes.

Here's a phrase to mull over: Measured Response.


Some people spend their weekends
with binoculars, watching birds. I have no problem with that.

But you hate dogs. That makes you judgement WRT same impaired.

Others think
insects are much more valuable than dogs.

I'll bet I can count those people on the fingers of my left hand.


You pretend to have a problem with
that because it's convenient to your rapidly deflating argument.

My argument is still sound. You have made all sorts of excuses,
constructed several strawman analogies, peppered the exchange with
similarly principled, but otherwise unrelated instances, and attempted
to appeal to emotional preferences. Yet throughout it all, you have
not given ANY substantiating proof that you are legally authorized to
kill domestic pets for dumping on your yard. The burden of proof is
still on you to demonstrate that your position is legal.

I don't care how you *feel* about, how it *should* be, how
irresponsible your neighbor is, or how inept your animal control and
police personnel are. That fact is, that if you were my neighbor and
you killed my dog, you would be standing before a judge and most
likely found liable for damages, and possibly subject to animal
cruelty charges.


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.

You can't hide from the law even on your property. You are not the
warlord of your own little fiefdom.


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".


Relevance?

Dave

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

You mentioned "books". Which have you read?


Dave Hall wrote:
It's a metaphor Doug. Surely you know what they are.

translation: Dave Hall has never read a book, but he likes to refer to
them because he thinks it makes him sound smart

DSK

On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:15 -0400, DSK wrote:

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.

That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion. I believe
that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every
boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of
such wakes during their normal course of boating. You, on the other
hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to
anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the
waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake
which may potentially affect another boat (in other words, run at idle
speed all day).

You base this warped and unrealistic expectation on the rules which
restrict wakes in certain areas, and on the irresponsible behavior of
those boaters who ignore those rules.

If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's
one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed
from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser, or from (gasp!) a
container ship, that's a part of boating, and it's just tough breaks.

You seem to be of an "all or nothing" mentality, while I adjust
according to circumstances. You are far to literal and rigid.


... 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.

Watch Court TV, It may be shown again.


That's all I need to know.

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

Is it ignorance, or simply your inability to consider an opposing
viewpoint because it doesn't fit within your definition of an ideal
world?

You also need to know that

1- you are responsible for your dog


And your neighbor does NOT have the right to kill it even if the dog
gets away from you once in a while.


2- you are responsible for your boat's wake.

In the open water, you are responsible to avoid my wake, or deal with
the consequences. That's just common sense.

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

And you should be accountable and responsible for your LACK of action.

Some questions for you. Do you think you should be responsible because
an idiot stumbles and falls on your sidewalk? Should a car maker be
held responsible for injuries sustained in accidents? Should a gun
maker be held responsible for unsafe usage of firearms? Should you be
held responsible for actions that were clearly not precipitated by
negligence on your part?

Dave

On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:36:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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

This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the place
where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the pickup
with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the following
spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with dog
crap is NOT my choice.

So you routinely garden while wearing $150 dress shoes? And does the
"horse dung" not similarly foul them?


Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
That proof of nothing. It's simply your differing opinion.

Oh? It's my "differing opinio" that you denied making a statement which
was then proven that you did indeed make?

.. I believe
that wakes and wave action are an integral part of boating. Every
boater needs to be aware of and responsible to minimize the impact of
such wakes during their normal course of boating.

Ah, good. So in other words, you refrain from making wakes close to
other boats & property that might be damaged?

... You, on the other
hand, seem to have the wild notion that every boater should be able to
anticipate the course and intention of every other boat on the
waterway, and should make sure that they are not producing any wake
which may potentially affect another boat

Please quote my statement to that effect. All I said was that you area
responsible for your wake, and if your wake causes damage or injury then
*you* are liable for it.


If someone blasts through a no wake harbor and causes damage, that's
one thing. If someone is in the middle of the bay, and gets tossed
from the wake from a 65' aft cabin cruiser

If it's because that 65' cruiser, with the whole Bay to run in, passes
very close to another boat while making a large wake, then they are
responsible, and they should be held liable. Open water is not a license
to run down others, nor is it a proxy to run them under with your wake.

DSK