|
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54... Don, Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please? Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they understand and accept the consequences. Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to "take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should understand that. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53... Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed by laws to protect my family from people like you. When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is that not anarchy? Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where no one has to hear you complain again. How's that for a hypothetical? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:19:56 -0400, "Don"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:25:49 -0400, "Don" wrote: "Henry Blackmoore" wrote "Doug Kanter" wrote: Actually, it's legally permitted, performed and tested in the courts on a fairly regular basis. In many places, including what you'd consider "normal suburbs", animals which damage food crops may be killed as long as the method does not endanger neighbors or violate weapons laws. You really ought to think before you hurl, boy. Uh-huh. And you think that somebody's garden comes under the "food crop" definition and that you have the right to kill your neighbor's pets for a damaged tomato plant? Can I come into your house and eat all your food, drink all your beer, fondle your 13 yo daughters nubbins, issue you a matched pair of knuckle sandwiches and take your DVD player on the way out the door? If you choose to use MY personal property for YOUR use, YOU open yourself up to that same behavior. Doesn't anyone know how to *think* anymore? Perhaps you need to measure your response to the situation. A damaged flower is not the same as a break-in, theft, sexual assault etc. Lethal force is justified in cases of imminent threat, but not for lesser infractions. Perhaps you need to surround your garden with a fence. Killing a pet is an excessive response, and shows a general irresponsibility and reckless disregard for other people's rights. There are other effective (and legal) ways of dealing with a situation like this. IMHO, people who can easily justify the killing of an animal for such petty "crimes", is only one step away from using that same mindset against humans as well. Psychological studies show that most serial killers started out torturing animals. So maybe the ticking time bomb analogy is not so far off the mark....... sigh Dave, Dave, Dave. Again, you are trying to smear me as a person that harms animals. Why? Please be specific. Thanks. Doug has outwardly stated his intention of "taking out" the offending dog. You have implied a similar mindset. If that is not your intention then I would suggest that you are being deliberately vague and possibly disingenuous with regard to your position. The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in taking matters into your own hands? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:07:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Two things: First of all, the guy who killed the pet didn't finish the job. He should wrapped it in a trash bag and taken it to a dumpster. He still ended up forking over some dough for illegally killing his neighbor's pet. That in itself would seem to validate the notion that killing a pet over yard damage is neither legal nor justified. Not necessarily. First of all, this was a TV show. Jerry Springer aside, do you seriously think a network would air a court session which informed millions of people that they could get away with executing stray dogs? So you now posit that the law is somehow "modified" in its interpretation when the legal venue is televised? I'd be interested in seeing some data that supports this. The laws you referenced were put into place to cover wild animals destroying commercial crops, not domestic pets invading a vegetable garden. The law here does not specify animals by species. Any uncontrolled animal is "wild". A good lawyer could argue that. A domestic "pet" is not considered wild. Especially if it is properly licensed, and displays them. In a town with the laws written the way they are in mine, that lawyer would be wasting his breath. Besides, what difference does it make whether crops are destroyed by a coyote or your neighbor's stray dog? Either way, the damage is done. Right, which is why someone who is as concerned about crop damage as you are, would be well advised to take preventative measure, such as erecting a fence. Don't rely on everyone else to protect your investment. You have as much (if not more) responsibility to keep your valuables away from harm. And, answer a question which I posed to one of the Patsy Twins: How large do YOU think a vegetable garden has to be before YOU consider it a food source which, if threatened, is the same as someone sticking a knife in your face and demanding your wallet? Would you kill someone who ran off with your car? Would the law consider it justified? Why then do you not extend the same logic to pets? The "value" of the item is irrelevant. That you resorted to using deadly force, when the use of such was not warranted IS the issue. If someone runs off with my car, they are no longer on my property. Even if caught them in the driveway fiddling with the ignition, the law only allows me to shoot them if they are in my dwelling. I can't even SHOW a gun legally in that situation. It's called "brandishing". I can have my hand ready on the concealed weapon, and I can tell them I have a weapon, but it can only be drawn under a narrow set of circumstances. I'm glad you understand this so well, and you are 100% correct. But tell me then, how can you extend a whole different set of circumstances to a neighbor's dog? In an earlier post, you remarked about the intrinsic "value" of crops versus that of destructive animals as some sort of justification for killing them. In the case of wild animals, the "value" of commercial crops would seem to exceed the "value" of rabbits, deer, or other indigenous wildlife. Commercial crops? Who are YOU to determine the monetary value of the food I grow? One year, I got a 20x40 area to crank out what we estimated to be over $800.00 worth of food. What is the "value" that you place on another living being? Depends on which being you're referring to. On a scale of 0 to 10, everyone in my family is worth 10. The neighbor's dog is worth 4, at most, as long as it's off my property. Its value drops to 0 the minute it breaks the rules on my property. To give you something to compare to: Earthworm: 8 Cow: 8 Cat: 9 Coyote: 6 Trout, any species: 218 Neighbors' kids: 9 I find it interesting that you'd rate fish higher than you own family....... But pets are another matter. People place a high "value" on their pets, and as such, they are not as arbitrary and subject to the same considerations WRT intrinsic value versus a wild animal. Correction: ***SOME*** people place a high value on their pets. The ones who let dogs roam the neighborhood do NOT. And you know this how? Because I'm much smarter than you, and won't fall for such a ridiculous question. For a guy who's supposedly so smart, you sure have a convoluted understanding of the law and your rights and responsibilities within it. And for the record, you not "falling" for the question is not so much a matter of your greater intelligence as it is your realization that you would be unable to honestly answer the question, since you cannot be in the position to make that statement with any degree of validity. Your answer, therefore, was little more than another feeble attempt at deflection. Those people have clearly demonstrated that they want their dogs to be hit by cars. Otherwise, they would not let them roam. An assumption. One that is not interchangeable with fact. To apply that same logic, parents who let their kids out to play, must want harm to come to them, since by doing so, they open them up to potential accidents and abductions. Surely you see the flaws in your logic. No. Kids can eventually be taught that it's dangerous to be careless around traffic. But accidents can still happen, and pedophiles are lying in wait. Dogs, on the other hand, are stupid, and will never learn this. An interesting statement coming from someone who once declared that animals are as intelligent as humans. Since this is obvious, it's safe to assume that anyone who lets their dog roam has accepted the likelihood that it will be hit by a car. You've obviously never spent much time training a dog. I've been around many dogs who were not only aware of traffic, they actually learned to look both ways before crossing a street. Any seeing-eye dog is aware of things like traffic, the life of their handler depends on it. That you would make such a blanket statement shows how little you really know about dogs. Anything which is easily prevented but which is NOT prevented, is intentional. And you have the nerve to accuse me of living in a black and white, binary world? If that statement is not an example of binary thinking on steroids, I don't know what is.... This is the logic behind laws involving negligence, i.e.: criminally negligent homicide. Which is much different from an intentional homicide, like murder. You can be legally responsible for a loss of life, but you didn't have to intend to do it. That's the difference between manslaughter and murder. You should learn the difference. Do you have a right to kill a wild rabbit who invades your garden? What if it was your neighbor's prized poodle? What if it was the neighbor's kid? Where do you draw the line? I'm curious to hear your justification. Rabbit: 99% of the time, no. Bugs and rabbits sometimes eat 10% of your crops. I plant 10% extra. It works out nicely. Rabbits may eat some lettuce, but they don't dig up a 1x1 square every time they take a crap. Most dogs don't either. Dogs dig for other reasons which have little to do with their potty habits. Doesn't matter to me why they do it. If they do it in my garden, they're headed for trouble. I begin working on food plants in the middle of January using plant lights. The hard work goes on indoors until April. Once they're in the ground, the plants are vulnerable until they reach a certain size. Any animal that destroys 4 months' worth of work can expect to be dealt with. So why not just put up a fence then? It seems that your investment is valuable enough for you to take precautions? One particularly bold rabbit became coniglio con aglio, rosmarino & pomodori, served with buckwheat polenta. Delicious. But the point here is that no one would miss a wild rabbit, so there's likely no one who would challenge your "right" to kill it. A pet is another story. You keep falling into this hole. Question: If a person cares about his dog, why does that person let it roam a suburban neighborhood full of traffic? If a person cares so much about his vegetable garden, then why does he not put a fence around it? Poodle: If it fits the necessary criteria and diplomatic efforts to stop the problem have failed, the dog is in trouble. It's not your call to make. The law says it is, as long as I've pursued legal means to put a stop to it. Show me the passage where it states that if you have exhausted (or became frustrated with) legal channels that you have the right to kill the offending pet. I won't hold my breath. Incidentally, you've chosen or pretended to miss the difference between a rabbit and a dog. The rabbit's doing what it's supposed to do. And a dog is not? Private property, Dave. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that concept? On your property, you have the right to put tacky stuffed sheep and ugly statues and there's not a thing I can do about it. On my property, I have the right to deal with dogs. No you don't. I can jump up and down naked on your property and you can call the cops to come arrest me. But you CAN'T shoot me. Nor can you shoot my dog. You seem to have no problem understanding that you can't shoot a person, but you seem to have a problem extending this to animals. Some neighborhoods have restrictions about what "tacky" things you can put out as well. The "man's home is his castle" concept is long gone in a growing number of areas.. The dog belongs to a person who is pretending not to know that you cannot destroy your neighbor's property. Like I said before, put up a fence if you can't deal with a neighbor's pet who occasionally wanders. Only if the neighbor pays for the fence. Otherwise, they're stealing from me. Nice fences don't come cheap. So you want other people to "protect" your investment? You sound just like those waterfront idiots who want all boats to pass by at no-wake speeds so you don't have to invest your own money to build a retaining wall. Neighbor's kids: Don't be stupid. That's a human being, easily dealt with via the standard laws of civil trespass. So why then, can you not exercise the same consideration for pets? I suspect that you just have some sort of mental thing for dogs. A mental thing? Yeah...it's called "hate". I don't feel this way about any other animal. I even like mosquitoes more than dogs. :-) I'm polite to the well-behaved dogs and their owners. That's as far as I go, and that's enough. I would suggest that your hatred for dogs is severely clouding your judgement in this case. As far as inadvertent damage to property, whether it is caused by a human or an animal, there are laws that address this, as well as civil court. Those options are far better than shooting something you are just itching for an excuse to do anyway. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:21:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Who said anything about SENDING the dog over. Pardon the pun, but **** happens. It's not the dog's fault that you live in its toilet. If your answer is "yes", then you must also believe I have the right to roll my trash barrel down to HIS property and dump it on his porch. You are supposed to know better. A dog does not. You're a piece of work, boy. The neighbor knows that he is doing wrong by letting the dog roam. Does he? Here, when you go to get a license for your vermine, you're given a brochure which explains the law regarding leashes. Therefore, if you let the dog roam the neighborhood, you are doing so with the clear intent of ****ing off your neighbors. So you are of the opinion that every dog owner who's dog digs under the fence or breaks off of his tether is plotting to "screw with the neighbors"? Even those who simply "let them out", do not do so with the intent of making your life miserable. That's an unfortunate consequence. No wonder you have problems understanding such concepts as "collateral damage". One could also make the claim that since there will be a certain percentage of people who let their dogs roam, as well as stray and wild animals, that it is reasonable to expect that if you wish to have your "valuable" garden protected, that you should take preventative measures of your own, such as a fence. A fence would go a long way toward preventing animal damage from occurring rather than you waiting for it to happen, and then trying to extract restitution from either the unfortunate animal or his befuddled owner. When you are out fishing, do you make your passengers wear a PFD, or will you wait for an accident to happen so that you can sue someone for their "negligence"? You ever hear of the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: And if I found a way to somehow occupy 20% of YOUR weekend time with bull**** that annoyed you, and repeated this every weekend for the entire summer, what would YOU do? Suffer with it in silence? That would make you my wife ;-) . Oh, and I WOULD be ****ed off. Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your pain. I just don't agree that you have the right to take the law into your own hands as a solution. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:11:53 -0400, "Don"
wrote: No one has the right to govern others. Anarchy is fine as long as you have the upper hand. When someone else decides that they don't like YOU, and they exercise their lawless "rights" to your detriment, then you'll cry for "justice". Except that there won't be any. Don't give yourself any rights that you wouldn't want someone else using against you. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Being a good neighbor works both ways. I would certainly cross the guy who kills my pet off of my Christmas list. Did you type that without laughing? Satire is one of my favorite comedic ironies. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
I don't have time right now to answer your longer questions, but let me ask
you one: Do YOU let YOUR dog out of the house and let it roam the neighborhood sometimes? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:18:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Don" wrote in message .. . Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your couch repeatedly? Warning, Don: You've just suggested a hypothetical situation. Dave Hall likes to call that a "straw man", which he's incapable of dealing with. He doesn't realize that virtually every legal debate in the higher courts involves lawyers and judges trading a series of "straw men" to test the law. So, he uses the term to dismiss other peoples' arguments. Doug, you REALLY need to spend more time studying logic and fallacious argument techniques. Most of those fallacious arguments are nothing more than attempts at deflection. As such, a "strawman" argument is commonly defined as: "Strawman Argument: (np) 1. Stating a misrepresented version of an opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier target to knock down. A common, but deprecated, mode of argument". Including, but not limited to, building up an exaggerated set of extreme circumstances which, while intended to better illustrate the position of one side of the debate, rarely occur in reality, and it's therefore generally discarded as little more than an endless circular debate over "what-if" scenarios. I don't mind, and have no problem dealing with hypothetical situations, as long as they bear some semblance to reality. The likelihood of a neighbor's dogs opening the door to my house and then "relieving" themselves on my couch, is about the same as you getting hit by a falling meteor while tending your garden. Dave Have you ever read transcripts of the way judges and lawyers debate the validity of laws in the Supreme Court or appellate courts? Yes, or no? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... That is fair. However, I went one step further, to insure your civility. We installed a 6' high estate fence around our new home so that your dog will not cause you to get killed. See how nice I am? Funny that in all the posts that I've suggested the same to Doug, he fails to consider it. I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. A fence would've shaded the garden and made it more difficult for my GOOD neighbor and I to keep the lawn trimmed neatly. We could've gotten around the problem of shade by installing chain link, but we didn't like the looks of those. Thanks for the suggestion, though, Dave. You seem to have this issue with comparing apples to oranges. In no way, in any rational person's mind, should something so trivial as "dog droppings" justify lethal force as a response. Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your couch repeatedly? Why do you guys like to go to the extreme and out of the realm of reality when trying top make points? Strawman arguments are easy to pick apart because they do not reflect reality. I'm not suggesting that you don't have the right to respond to inconsiderate neighbors. I am saying that you are restricted by law to a measured response. So, you're familiar with the law here in my town? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: And if I found a way to somehow occupy 20% of YOUR weekend time with bull**** that annoyed you, and repeated this every weekend for the entire summer, what would YOU do? Suffer with it in silence? That would make you my wife ;-) . Oh, and I WOULD be ****ed off. Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your pain. I just don't agree that you have the right to take the law into your own hands as a solution. Dave I didn't ask for your opinion. I asked what you would do. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:40:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: As far as a dog simply crapping on your lawn: The law defines civil trespass to INCLUDE causing or negligently permitting foreign substances to enter private property. So, if neighbor's dog craps on your property, the human has trespassed, even if he's on the sofa when the dog is on your property. I'd love to see the case law which backs up your position. Even if you are right, and the neighbor assumes all liability (and he does to some degree) it still does not give you the right to circumvent the law. Ask any lawyer, Dave. This was explained to me by our town justice when he was my son's baseball coach. The conversation began over a problem with my immediate neighbor, who continually allowed the ChemLawn fools to let their sprays drift onto my garden. That is civil trespass. If a neighbor breaks your window with a baseball, you talk to him. The 38th time it happens, you nail him for civil trespass. Exactly the same as a person actually entering your property when you'd rather he didn't. In my case, the judge offered to provide an injunction, which would force the police to arrest (right on the spot) the neighbor and the ChemLawn fools if they continued to spray near the property line. Luckily, it never came to that point. That's REALLY a stretch interpretation of the law. But then again, the way some cases have been tried lately, I shouldn't be surprised. Trespass laws were never intended to apply to situations like this. But like many other laws, this one has been convoluted to fit into otherwise open territory. But it still does not allow you to kill the neighbor's dog........ If your neighbor is spray painting his garage and allows it to drift onto your car, he's trespassing. Get it? No, he's not trespassing. But he will be liable for cleaning up the car, as this is actionable in small claims court. You must've spoken to a different judge. It is civil trespass. If you take him to court and he agrees to pay for all damages, trespass will never come up in the discussion. But, if he mouths off at the judge, he will, indeed, have trespass tacked onto his rap sheet. Maybe. But most civil damages cases rarely need to go into that area. It is sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the defendant in order to be awarded damages. So you like inflicting pain on other people? I believe in giving back too. If you killed my dog, lets just say that your land would soon become unable to sustain life for the next several years....... And then where would you be? Right, just where you are now, in an apartment. If you allow your dog to litter private property, YOU obviously enjoy inflicting pain. Litter = Pain? On which planet? In places where people enjoy beauty, not garbage. On private property, the definition of beauty is none of your business. If I say your garbage doesn't belong on my property, you have one choice: Do not speak. Clean it up and stop it from coming my way. I know some people who start having convulsions when a single dandelion graces their otherwise perfect green grass. I have a friend who moved next to one of these people. I'm sure he was clutching his bottle of nitro pills when my friend's kids would run around their lawn blowing dandelion seeds around. I would hate to be so wound up about such things. Life is too short. What if a neighbor needs to take 3 hours off from work to wait at home for a carpet cleaning service. Why would he? I already told you, 5 minutes with a bottle of spray cleaner and brush. No carpet service is necessary. You really do live in a world of extremes..... No. I own a high-functioning nose. And, on my property, you do not determine maintenance methods. I'm merely illustrating just how extreme you are. I have a high functioning nose as well. I can guarantee you that my method was effective, and not nearly as costly or time consuming as your illustration. That way you can take the money, you saved on a cleaning service, and apply it toward a fence. You have stolen from them, Davey. Because of your dog, the neighbor may end up experiencing friction with his boss. If the boss is an asshole, the employee may not hear the end of the aggravation for quite some time, all because you were too busy on the sofa to walk your dog. Oh brother! You should be writing novels. A meteor might hit your yard tomorrow too. Living your life according to "what-if" scenario strawmen, is about as unrealistic as one could get. This "what if" scenario has been going on for 20 years, Dave. Therefore, it is real. I highly doubt that your novelized scenarios are anywhere close to reality. No one has that much stress in their lives, and are still alive. Dave, you seem to support the idea that dog owners should feel fine about letting their vermine run around the neighborhood. How do you justify that? Live and let live. Don't sweat the small stuff. Anticipate future problems and take preventative measures to avoid them. Treat people like you would like them to treat you. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. And last, but not least; **** happens. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:05:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "jim--" wrote in message ... So you think that money makes one happy? You sound pretty shallow to me. And are you friendly to anyone on this board? It does not look like it. He's pretty friendly to me, even though we disagree on a few things. But see....here's the deal: Neither he nor I say outrageous things that fly in the face of logic. What? Most of your arguments thus far on this topic have been outrageous. Both of you guys are projecting the position that you are justified in taking the law into your own hands, despite written law to the contrary. The law does NOT say I can call a cop and have a destructive animal liquidated. It says the animal can be liquidated. Period. You bemoan "inconsiderate" neighbors, who may be guilty of some degree of negligence, but "retaliate" against them with an equally inconsiderate response. I'm sorry but you will never convince me that you are morally or legally authorized to terminate the life of another living being no matter what "damage" or inconvenience they may have caused you. There are proper channels to seek out compensation or retribution for these acts. That these proper channels are not "good enough" for you is not our problem. Dave So, you're a vegetarian? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:42:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:14:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: How about this: I'm creating a new art form. It's sort of like etchings. I use a key on the side of your car. It won't be just a scratch, mind you. It'll be an actual picture. This is identical to your allowing your dog to crap on my lawn. Is my new art form OK with you? Another strawman? You also seem to be unable to grasp the difference between deliberate and malicious intent, and incidental, consequential actions. The dog craps because that's a natural act. In some places, it's illegal to allow a dog to roam loose. In other places it's perfectly acceptable (and legal). I suggest you move to one of those uptight areas where people share your outrage at such trivial incidents. Dave Coprophilia: marked interest in excrement, especially the use of feces or filth for sexual excitement. Interesting? But I fail to see the relevance. Are you fixated with doggie doo? This hobby is fine for some, but dog owners should ask before sharing their fixation with others. I would challenge that you seem to be the one projecting the fixation with dog poop. You are the one making the big deal about it. Most other people just let nature take its course. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54... Don, Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please? Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they understand and accept the consequences. Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to "take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should understand that. Dave You only "take your chances" if you're unfamiliar with the law. If I shoplift $50 worth of razor blades from a grocery store, I understand that I've instantly given up my right to complain if I'm arrested. That's simple. The act is immoral. The understanding of the law is irrelevant. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53... Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed by laws to protect my family from people like you. When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is that not anarchy? Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where no one has to hear you complain again. Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of work into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What if you collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my cat jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to you? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:04:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I suggest you move to one of those uptight areas where people share your outrage at such trivial incidents. Dave I'll go out on a limb here and say that there is not a residential neighborhood anyplace in this country whose laws permit dogs to roam the neighborhood. If it exists, its part of a small minority of towns, probably populated and governed by coprophiliacs. Think certain places in Texas, Nevada, Montana, the Mojave desert etc. Places like that where the average population doesn't exceed a few thousand. Not everyone lives in a concrete jungle..... Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:56:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "DSK" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: Yeah...I got your behavioral psychology right here, Mr King. :-) Dr Smith & Dr Wesson. The best dog training tool money can buy. But it only works on six dogs at a time. And bullets don't go around corners ;) I apologize if my posts have seemed to be more sympathetic to your annoying neighbors than to your situation. That hasn't been my intention. While I am definitely a "dog person" I don't like people who let (or encourage) their dogs to cause problems. DSK I know. The average of all your posts in the past have kept you on my Good List, meaning I'd let you borrow my lawnmower. Not my boat, though. :-) Hopefully he won't run over any "doggie donuts" when he borrows that lawn mower........... Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:21:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Who said anything about SENDING the dog over. Pardon the pun, but **** happens. It's not the dog's fault that you live in its toilet. If your answer is "yes", then you must also believe I have the right to roll my trash barrel down to HIS property and dump it on his porch. You are supposed to know better. A dog does not. You're a piece of work, boy. The neighbor knows that he is doing wrong by letting the dog roam. Does he? Let's make this simple, Dave. There are only two kinds of property: Yours, and someone else's. If the dog ****s or destroys things on your property, that's fine. If the dog leaves your property and ****s/destroys, it's doing so on someone else's property. Now, please explain how any dog owner can see his dog leave his property and say "I didn't know it was going to mess up someone else's property". Here, when you go to get a license for your vermine, you're given a brochure which explains the law regarding leashes. Therefore, if you let the dog roam the neighborhood, you are doing so with the clear intent of ****ing off your neighbors. So you are of the opinion that every dog owner who's dog digs under the fence or breaks off of his tether is plotting to "screw with the neighbors"? Even those who simply "let them out", do not do so with the intent of making your life miserable. That's an unfortunate consequence. See above. If the dog's not on your property, you KNOW it's on someone else's. Since there are no other outcomes, it's safe to say that the owner is either fully aware of what his dog is doing, or the owner is monumentally stupid and probably will never understand what it means to be responsible pet owner. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Dave Hall wrote:
... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in taking matters into your own hands? Dave Which part of "the law" do you not understand? Here, the law states that in certain instances, an animal may be killed by a landowner. Period. If the conditions are met, it can be done. I've told you in the past to visit your town all and ask to look at YOUR local laws. You may find them to be the same. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:56:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "DSK" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: Yeah...I got your behavioral psychology right here, Mr King. :-) Dr Smith & Dr Wesson. The best dog training tool money can buy. But it only works on six dogs at a time. And bullets don't go around corners ;) I apologize if my posts have seemed to be more sympathetic to your annoying neighbors than to your situation. That hasn't been my intention. While I am definitely a "dog person" I don't like people who let (or encourage) their dogs to cause problems. DSK I know. The average of all your posts in the past have kept you on my Good List, meaning I'd let you borrow my lawnmower. Not my boat, though. :-) Hopefully he won't run over any "doggie donuts" when he borrows that lawn mower........... Dave You keep returning to the word "donuts", Dave. Do you enjoy handling them? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:42:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:14:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: How about this: I'm creating a new art form. It's sort of like etchings. I use a key on the side of your car. It won't be just a scratch, mind you. It'll be an actual picture. This is identical to your allowing your dog to crap on my lawn. Is my new art form OK with you? Another strawman? You also seem to be unable to grasp the difference between deliberate and malicious intent, and incidental, consequential actions. The dog craps because that's a natural act. In some places, it's illegal to allow a dog to roam loose. In other places it's perfectly acceptable (and legal). I suggest you move to one of those uptight areas where people share your outrage at such trivial incidents. Dave Coprophilia: marked interest in excrement, especially the use of feces or filth for sexual excitement. Interesting? But I fail to see the relevance. Are you fixated with doggie doo? This hobby is fine for some, but dog owners should ask before sharing their fixation with others. I would challenge that you seem to be the one projecting the fixation with dog poop. You are the one making the big deal about it. Most other people just let nature take its course. Dave Let nature take its course? That's what I've been saying all along. But, here's the difference: I acknowledge that nature sometimes works in ways that are sad. I don't think it's funny when I see a lion kill a gazelle on TV, but as you say, "**** happens". Usually, the gazelle which ends up as lu nch made some sort of mistake, not unlike some dogs. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"DSK" wrote in message
. .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? This coincides with "attractive nuisance" laws in many communities. Usually these laws state anything on your property that can be considered "attractive" to children or adults of diminished reasoning capacity (Henry?), which presents a potential danger, must also have a resonable safegards to deter unauthorized access. My answer to this question falls in line with my previous statements. I don't necessarily believe in these laws per se (I'm sure their are individual cases where I will concede this point). I don't think I could easily reconcile the fact that an innocent child found dead in my pool as "his tough luck". Just because I believe in personal responsibily does not mean I am devoid of compassion. It's the difference between being right, and doing the right thing. Bob Dimond |
When would you board someone else's boat??
In article
c3dhc2g=.2ce5b04d9f09d5c2c1f26fdcbff0979c@1083078 376.nulluser.com, "Harry Krause" wrote: You have all the makings of a real nuisance neighbor, Dave. Do you sit on your porch in your undershirt, swilling cheap beer, letting your dogs poop all over the neighborhood, and play your stereo so loud that folks three blocks away have to listen to your music selections? Umm... can we please have a civilized discussion without reverting to portraying cheap beers, and the drinks who love them, in an unfavorable light? Thank You. Bob |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Doug,
It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm
or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise
either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does nothing, then what
would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point out that the word "you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person, or people in general. "John Smith" wrote in message news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01... It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Doug,
It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher were viewed as irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming dog complaints or just yours? To answer your question about what I would do: I would video the dog roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either to my garden or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I would then file a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog owner would find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to keep his dog from roaming. As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected representative and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job. Have you ever noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or view you as unreasonable? I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the damage he did, "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does nothing, then what would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point out that the word "you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person, or people in general. "John Smith" wrote in message news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01... It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Bob D." wrote in message
... In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote: Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? This coincides with "attractive nuisance" laws in many communities. Usually these laws state anything on your property that can be considered "attractive" to children or adults of diminished reasoning capacity (Henry?), which presents a potential danger, must also have a resonable safegards to deter unauthorized access. My answer to this question falls in line with my previous statements. I don't necessarily believe in these laws per se (I'm sure their are individual cases where I will concede this point). I don't think I could easily reconcile the fact that an innocent child found dead in my pool as "his tough luck". Just because I believe in personal responsibily does not mean I am devoid of compassion. It's the difference between being right, and doing the right thing. Bob Dimond At the very least, a drowning in your pool would, according to Murphy's Law, occur just when you were about to leave for an excellent afternoon of fishing. That would be inexcusable. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my biggest problems
occurred. "John Smith" wrote in message news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02... Doug, It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher were viewed as irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming dog complaints or just yours? To answer your question about what I would do: I would video the dog roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either to my garden or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I would then file a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog owner would find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to keep his dog from roaming. As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected representative and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job. Have you ever noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or view you as unreasonable? I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the damage he did, "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does nothing, then what would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point out that the word "you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person, or people in general. "John Smith" wrote in message news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01... It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If you had
talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would have solved your problem. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my biggest problems occurred. "John Smith" wrote in message news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02... Doug, It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher were viewed as irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming dog complaints or just yours? To answer your question about what I would do: I would video the dog roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either to my garden or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I would then file a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog owner would find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to keep his dog from roaming. As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected representative and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job. Have you ever noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or view you as unreasonable? I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the damage he did, "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does nothing, then what would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point out that the word "you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person, or people in general. "John Smith" wrote in message news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01... It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
The dog catcher's supervisor, or the town supervisor?
"John Smith" wrote in message news:2bxjc.42680$GR.5971547@attbi_s01... It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If you had talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would have solved your problem. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my biggest problems occurred. "John Smith" wrote in message news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02... Doug, It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher were viewed as irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming dog complaints or just yours? To answer your question about what I would do: I would video the dog roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either to my garden or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I would then file a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog owner would find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to keep his dog from roaming. As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected representative and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job. Have you ever noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or view you as unreasonable? I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the damage he did, "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does nothing, then what would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point out that the word "you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person, or people in general. "John Smith" wrote in message news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01... It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
I would start with the dog catcher's supervisor and if that did not work,
then the town supervisor and my council representative. Somehow I feel this is a trick question, but my point is, I can think of no reason to kill a dog, unless the dog was placing someone in immediate danger. As soon as the dog left, or was under control, I would use the courts to resolve my differences with the owner and/or the town council for not obeying the laws. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The dog catcher's supervisor, or the town supervisor? "John Smith" wrote in message news:2bxjc.42680$GR.5971547@attbi_s01... It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If you had talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would have solved your problem. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my biggest problems occurred. "John Smith" wrote in message news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02... Doug, It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher were viewed as irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming dog complaints or just yours? To answer your question about what I would do: I would video the dog roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either to my garden or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I would then file a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog owner would find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to keep his dog from roaming. As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected representative and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job. Have you ever noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or view you as unreasonable? I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the damage he did, "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does nothing, then what would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point out that the word "you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person, or people in general. "John Smith" wrote in message news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01... It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
1) Dog catcher was a one main operation.
2) For small claims, the plaintiff usually isn't reimbursed for lost pay because of having to take time off from work to sit in court. "John Smith" wrote in message news:Tlxjc.52420$aQ6.3937372@attbi_s51... I would start with the dog catcher's supervisor and if that did not work, then the town supervisor and my council representative. Somehow I feel this is a trick question, but my point is, I can think of no reason to kill a dog, unless the dog was placing someone in immediate danger. As soon as the dog left, or was under control, I would use the courts to resolve my differences with the owner and/or the town council for not obeying the laws. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The dog catcher's supervisor, or the town supervisor? "John Smith" wrote in message news:2bxjc.42680$GR.5971547@attbi_s01... It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If you had talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would have solved your problem. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my biggest problems occurred. "John Smith" wrote in message news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02... Doug, It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher were viewed as irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming dog complaints or just yours? To answer your question about what I would do: I would video the dog roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either to my garden or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I would then file a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog owner would find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to keep his dog from roaming. As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected representative and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job. Have you ever noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or view you as unreasonable? I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the damage he did, "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does nothing, then what would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point out that the word "you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person, or people in general. "John Smith" wrote in message news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01... It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Doug,
You seem like a true humanitarian. Don stated that if someone violated his rights, the law required him to shot the person in the face, do you think that might be a little drastic of a solution? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 1) Dog catcher was a one main operation. 2) For small claims, the plaintiff usually isn't reimbursed for lost pay because of having to take time off from work to sit in court. "John Smith" wrote in message news:Tlxjc.52420$aQ6.3937372@attbi_s51... I would start with the dog catcher's supervisor and if that did not work, then the town supervisor and my council representative. Somehow I feel this is a trick question, but my point is, I can think of no reason to kill a dog, unless the dog was placing someone in immediate danger. As soon as the dog left, or was under control, I would use the courts to resolve my differences with the owner and/or the town council for not obeying the laws. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The dog catcher's supervisor, or the town supervisor? "John Smith" wrote in message news:2bxjc.42680$GR.5971547@attbi_s01... It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If you had talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would have solved your problem. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my biggest problems occurred. "John Smith" wrote in message news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02... Doug, It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher were viewed as irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming dog complaints or just yours? To answer your question about what I would do: I would video the dog roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either to my garden or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I would then file a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog owner would find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to keep his dog from roaming. As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected representative and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job. Have you ever noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or view you as unreasonable? I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the damage he did, "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does nothing, then what would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point out that the word "you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person, or people in general. "John Smith" wrote in message news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01... It does appear that we see it differently, but that should not surprise either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the other person's property. The correct course of action is to call the dog pound or the police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are capable of causing harm or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the dog to roam, then you will probably not care if a kid falls into your pool. "John Smith" wrote in message news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54... Doug, It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a fence around his pool. But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing, it would be the pool owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his property, The parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his children not to violate the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other kids in the neighborhood not to step on other peoples property. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message . .. Dave Hall wrote: ... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be "burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility to keep them out for him. Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a leapord never changes his spots. It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of other peoples' yards. Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp the simple principles of responsibility & accountability. DSK It's called "selective personal responsibility". You only need to be responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you don't mind stepping outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But, if the weather's lousy, or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let the dog out the front door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's place. Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their kids from drowning in your pool? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com