On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:31:31 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

What the **** is it with you John?
What the hell difference does it make if Doug agrees with me?
Don't you have a brain of your own?
Don't you have a backbone?
We're not talking rocket surgery here, just very simple basics.
Most kids are taught these things at about age 5, how old are you?
Here, I'll spell it out for you:
*Treat other people as you want to be treated.*
There, is that simple enough?
If you abuse that one simple rule of humanity you may pay a severe
consequence.
Don't let your dog **** in my yard, don't paintball my house, don't fondle
my daughter, etc.
In turn I won't do those things to you.
Does any of this make sense to you?


Fair enough. If my dog ****s in your yard, you have my permission to
**** in mine. If you kill my dog, then I kill you. Fair?

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.

Dave.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:31:31 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

What the **** is it with you John?
What the hell difference does it make if Doug agrees with me?
Don't you have a brain of your own?
Don't you have a backbone?
We're not talking rocket surgery here, just very simple basics.
Most kids are taught these things at about age 5, how old are you?
Here, I'll spell it out for you:
*Treat other people as you want to be treated.*
There, is that simple enough?
If you abuse that one simple rule of humanity you may pay a severe
consequence.
Don't let your dog **** in my yard, don't paintball my house, don't
fondle
my daughter, etc.
In turn I won't do those things to you.
Does any of this make sense to you?


Fair enough. If my dog ****s in your yard, you have my permission to
**** in mine. If you kill my dog, then I kill you. Fair?

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.

Dave.

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?

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

"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.

This hobby is fine for some, but dog owners should ask before sharing their
fixation with others.

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
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.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:02:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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.

Nature does not include guns. Nor do animals kill for sport or
revenge. But a few weeks of rain will dissolve dog droppings.

I don't think it's funny when I see a lion kill a gazelle on
TV, but as you say, "**** happens".

Yes, and if you truly needed to hunt the neighbor's dog to provide
food for your family, it would be a different issue.


Usually, the gazelle which ends up as lunch
made some sort of mistake, not unlike some dogs.

Natural selection does not include revenge for an infraction.

Dave

I agree inconsideration should be gauged by the offenders intent.
Obviously a dog has no idea about how its behavior impacts the property
owner. In addition, I am an animal lover, and to a vastly greater extent,
a dog lover.

I would never shot a dog, and it would be under rare circumstances that I
would ever approve of anyone killing a dog. Even if the dog is ****ting
on the lawn and digging up the garden. Even if the property owner
conveyed the problem to the dog owner, I don't believe killing the dog is
an appropriate course of action. I would view people who make the choice
to kill a dog who was only defacing their property as mean spirited.

Still, if a dog went on to someones property and the owner shoots it, even
if its my dog, I wouldn't even consider holding them legally responsible
for thee act.

Even in the most unflattering circustances in which the owners kills my
dog without ever first attempting to communicate or pursue legal efforts,
while I'd think my neighbor to be the biggest prick on God green earth,
I'd still acknowledge the fact that it was my dog, it was my
responsibility to keep this dog under my control, and I failed to meet the
responsibility. Even if the the law gives me the right to seek
retribution, does not make it morally acceptable for me to do so.
Obviously, the rule of Dave applies, and this mean spirited little prick
will be promptly removed from my Christmas card list.

If the property owner warned the dog owner about problem and the intended
consequences, then shame on the owner. Once again I don't agree with the
action, but I really can't comprehend why every one is putting the owness
of the problem on the shoulders property owner and not the dog owner. If
my neighbor told me to build a fence to keep their dog from defacing my
property, they will not have made a friend that day. In the most
reasonable tone I could muster, my replyto their comment would be: "Aside
for the fine point that it is YOUR DOG, it would be quicker and cheaper
solution to put your dog on a restraint when you let it out."

As for any comment about it being legal for dogs to roam loose, while I'm
not an attorney, I'd assume anything citing a dog may run loose implies it
is within the confines of YOUR PROPERTY. I'd love to see any type of
ordinance that even remotely suggest otherwise.

Bob Dimond


In article , Dave Hall
wrote:

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

"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.

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