"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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

OK. Let's fix what you said. "There is NO law recorded anywhere that I have
found yet...."

Run with that.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Otherwise,
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?

Pay attention. I said "complex".

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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

1) No, dummy. But if I'm on the way to my car before going to work, it's my
right, on my property to walk over to the flowers and smell them without
having to change my shoes. Get it?

2) No, dummy. One does not spread horse manure on 100% of the property. One
composts it or digs it into the soil within the vegetable garden. The
gardener knows where it is and can avoid it if necessary, unlike dog ****,
which is random.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Others think
insects are much more valuable than dogs.

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

What??? Gardeners and entymologists find insects valuable. Are you saying
there are less than 5 such people on this planet?



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.

OK. I can deal with that.



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

Do the exercise and then I'll let you know what the relevance is. Hopefully,
DSK won't give away the answers first.

Doug Kanter wrote:
Do the exercise and then I'll let you know what the relevance is. Hopefully,
DSK won't give away the answers first.

Oh, sorry, did I give away any answers? Didn't mean to. Would it be too
revealing if I merely commented that it's likely Dave H. avoids exercise
as assiduously as he avoids learning facts?

D.S. "My Name Is Doug, Too" King

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
Do the exercise and then I'll let you know what the relevance is.
Hopefully,
DSK won't give away the answers first.

Oh, sorry, did I give away any answers? Didn't mean to. Would it be too
revealing if I merely commented that it's likely Dave H. avoids exercise
as assiduously as he avoids learning facts?

D.S. "My Name Is Doug, Too" King


I know, but I'm afraid that addressing you by your first name will REALLY
confuse the issue....two of us....know what I mean? Dave's got enough
problems as it is.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:00:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Otherwise,
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?

Pay attention. I said "complex".

And the O.J. case wasn't? I'd say considering the length of time that
it took and the general grand standing done by the defense, that the
case was made way more "complex" than it needed to be.

Dave

On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:05:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Others think
insects are much more valuable than dogs.

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

What??? Gardeners and entymologists find insects valuable. Are you saying
there are less than 5 such people on this planet?

There are less than 5 of them in any given neighborhood.


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.

OK. I can deal with that.



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

Do the exercise and then I'll let you know what the relevance is. Hopefully,
DSK won't give away the answers first.

I'm not playing your games any more Doug. They're nothing more than
deflection tactics. You STILL cannot make the case that you are
legally authorized to kill someone's dog who craps on your grass.

That is the ONLY point that needs to be made in this "discussion".

Dave

On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:20:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
Do the exercise and then I'll let you know what the relevance is.
Hopefully,
DSK won't give away the answers first.

Oh, sorry, did I give away any answers? Didn't mean to. Would it be too
revealing if I merely commented that it's likely Dave H. avoids exercise
as assiduously as he avoids learning facts?

D.S. "My Name Is Doug, Too" King


I know, but I'm afraid that addressing you by your first name will REALLY
confuse the issue....two of us....know what I mean? Dave's got enough
problems as it is.



You two remind me of the Daryll brothers, from that TV sitcom, a few
years back. "Hi I'm Daryll, and this is my other brother Daryll.


Dave

On Wed, 05 May 2004 08:20:58 -0400, DSK wrote:

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 never made the statement in the extreme context that you presented
it.


.. 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?

That is correct.


... 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.

That's it right there. As long as you make the blanket statement that
"you are responsible for your wake" without any limits, then it allows
for absurd and unreasonable conditions such as what I have
illustrated. That is why I have a problem with absolutes. Life is
conditional. So the rules which govern us also need to be as well.


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.

I guess I really need to pin down each and every detail in order to
make my point, otherwise you will take whatever detail that isn't
nailed down specifically, and interpret it to the most extreme sense
that fits your viewpoint.

My whole reason for stating "The middle of the bay" was to illustrate
the large distances that can be involved. Had I meant to paint the
picture of two boats crossing 100' apart, I wouldn't have placed them
"in the middle of the bay". You know as well as I do that wakes can
travel a great distance. If there is a half mile or more distance
between the two boats, I can hardly hold the operator of the large
boat liable for his wake. He can't be expected to know the situation
of every other boat within the distance his wake can travel to, and in
the time that it takes for it to traverse a body of water.

I frequently boat is waters that see large ship traffic. They are
under speed restriction in certain parts of the bay, but not in
others. The Coast Guard approved nav charts actually warn of the
presence of these ships and advise recreational boats to watch for
wakes "in excess of five feet". One such warning is stated in the
approach to Baltimore Harbor.

It's clear that these warnings are intended to give a "heads up" to
the responsibility that recreational boaters assume when they operate
in these areas to avoid mishaps.

Dave