"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

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.

Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to
my yard and litter it with ****? 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.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to
my yard and litter it with ****?

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.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over
to
my yard and litter it with ****?

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. 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.

Doug,
If your neighbors child was always running through your yard, leaving his
toys in your yard, stepping on your flowers etc, would you shot him?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog
over
to
my yard and litter it with ****?

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. 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.

John, get up to speed here. A toy doesn't get stuck to your shoes, stink up
your home or car rugs, and cost you time to clean it. Forget shooting. We're
way past that subject. Besides, it's not safe to kill a dog with a gun in a
typical neighborhood.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:zcdic.12536$aQ6.939244@attbi_s51...
Doug,
If your neighbors child was always running through your yard, leaving his
toys in your yard, stepping on your flowers etc, would you shot him?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog
over
to
my yard and litter it with ****?

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. 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.

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

"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.

You're trying to debate with a socialist.
It's not possible to do so, they lack the intellect.
The best you can do is ridicule them.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:47:16 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

You're trying to debate with a socialist.
It's not possible to do so, they lack the intellect.
The best you can do is ridicule them.

Doug knows me well enough to know that I'm no socialist. You're
relatively new here. The only one who's being ridiculed is yourself
when you make obviously uninformed statements.

Doug may be somewhat off the mark, but he is at least intelligent
enough to research things. You would do well to follow that example
before running your fingers without your brain being fully engaged.

Dave

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:49:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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".


Ok, if we stick to your binary view of property, you are either on
your property or someone else's. When you leave your property, am I to
assume that you are intending to damage someone else's property?

Assuming that a dog owner knows that the dog has left his property
(And many don't), while you may assume that they may mark some
territory along the way, many times they roam just to roam.
You seem to harbor this notion that dogs do nothing but destroy
things. A notion brought about from your hatred of dogs, no doubt.


Of course in reality, there are places where property is either public
or government owned. Not all property is private.

Dave