"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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


The fact that is was more complex than it needed to be is in no way related
to whether it was more or less complex than a completely different type of
case. You know that.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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

Poor guy. You're completely stumped by a simple thought exercise.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:02:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.



Did you not say the following: "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".

We were talking about "in the garden".

So who's the real dummy?


You flip-flop worse than John Kerry. I claim (rightly) that you can't
shoot a dog for taking a dump on your yard. You claim you can if it's
in the garden (The perceived value thing). I respond that one pile of
dung is the same as another in terms of fertilizer. You then claim
that you spread your fertilizer by choice and that soiling a $150 pair
of shoes is not by choice. Now based on the chain of events, what is
the logical conclusion that should be made here?

You were talking about your garden. If you are not gardening in your
$150 dress shoes, you point is irrelevant anyway since we go right
back to my original assertion that you can't legally kill a dog for
crapping on your YARD.

This has thus far been little more than a back and forth banter of two
people's opinions. Since you have failed to provide any legally backed
statute which allows for the killing of a domestic animal, I decided
to do a little google searching. The results are to numerous to list.
For you edification, I invite you to enter "Killing neighbor's dog"
into the advanced search and view the many articles, including this
one:

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/...ws/293141.html


Now, tell me again how you are legally justified in killing your
neighbor's dog.

Dave

On Wed, 05 May 2004 13:56:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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.

Why play games with semantics Doug? In typical debates, when people
resort to nit-picking things like semantics, grammar, and spelling,
it's a significant indication that they've lost the debate.......

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 13:56:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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.

Why play games with semantics Doug? In typical debates, when people
resort to nit-picking things like semantics, grammar, and spelling,
it's a significant indication that they've lost the debate.......

Dave


Me??? :-) You said "books". I questioned which ones. You said it was a
metaphor. We both know "on the books" means that a law exists, whether in
printed or electronic form. Who's nitpicking, Dave?

Let's try again. Regardless of its recorded form, what percentage of game
laws in this country have you personally read, in order to form your
opinion?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:02:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.



Did you not say the following: "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".

We were talking about "in the garden".

So who's the real dummy?


You flip-flop worse than John Kerry. I claim (rightly) that you can't
shoot a dog for taking a dump on your yard. You claim you can if it's
in the garden (The perceived value thing). I respond that one pile of
dung is the same as another in terms of fertilizer. You then claim
that you spread your fertilizer by choice and that soiling a $150 pair
of shoes is not by choice. Now based on the chain of events, what is
the logical conclusion that should be made here?

You were talking about your garden. If you are not gardening in your
$150 dress shoes, you point is irrelevant anyway since we go right
back to my original assertion that you can't legally kill a dog for
crapping on your YARD.

This has thus far been little more than a back and forth banter of two
people's opinions. Since you have failed to provide any legally backed
statute which allows for the killing of a domestic animal, I decided
to do a little google searching. The results are to numerous to list.
For you edification, I invite you to enter "Killing neighbor's dog"
into the advanced search and view the many articles, including this
one:

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/...ws/293141.html


Now, tell me again how you are legally justified in killing your
neighbor's dog.

Dave

Because I realized late in life that I should've been a teacher.

On Thu, 06 May 2004 13:04:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/...ws/293141.html


Now, tell me again how you are legally justified in killing your
neighbor's dog.

Dave

Because I realized late in life that I should've been a teacher.



Didn't Charles Manson once say something like that?.....

But I digress......

So now that I've made my case, I guess there is no further point in
debating it. Unless, of course, you want to keep picking at the remote
possibility that there may be a few isolated communities around which
haven't yet caught up with the rest of society when it comes to animal
cruelty laws.

You really need to sit down and conduct some serious introspection.
You need to come to terms with your apparent disconnect with the
majority of society WRT your "rights".

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 May 2004 13:04:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/...ws/293141.html


Now, tell me again how you are legally justified in killing your
neighbor's dog.

Dave

Because I realized late in life that I should've been a teacher.



Didn't Charles Manson once say something like that?.....

But I digress......

So now that I've made my case, I guess there is no further point in
debating it. Unless, of course, you want to keep picking at the remote
possibility that there may be a few isolated communities around which
haven't yet caught up with the rest of society when it comes to animal
cruelty laws.

If you place the bullet correctly, no cruelty is involved.


You really need to sit down and conduct some serious introspection.
You need to come to terms with your apparent disconnect with the
majority of society WRT your "rights".

Dave

Do unto thy neighbor as you would have them to unto you. Continue
disrepecting your neighbors' property rights, Dave, and they will do the
same to you.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 13:56:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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.

Why play games with semantics Doug? In typical debates, when people
resort to nit-picking things like semantics, grammar, and spelling,
it's a significant indication that they've lost the debate.......

Dave


Me??? :-) You said "books". I questioned which ones. You said it was a
metaphor. We both know "on the books" means that a law exists, whether in
printed or electronic form. Who's nitpicking, Dave?

Let's try again. Regardless of its recorded form, what percentage of game
laws in this country have you personally read, in order to form your
opinion?

Are you saying that a pet is fair game?
If it happens on your property?
Chad Hansen

"Chad Hansen" wrote in message
om...


Are you saying that a pet is fair game?
If it happens on your property?
Chad Hansen



Chad, this discussion's been going on for at least two weeks. I'm not about
to explain. Work your way back through the messages, please.