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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.


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.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't **** on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget that
nonsense. When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner NEVER
to try that line on him again. Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.


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

Great. So, it's OK for dogs to crap on a public sidewalk, where, if you're
out walking at night, the crap blends in with bits of wet leaves?
Oh..wait...I know your answer: Normal people don't go for walks at night.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:48:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.


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.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't **** on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

But those things aren't going to damage your "crops". You are fighting
a two front war here. You justify the "vanishing" of offensive animals
by citing damage done to crops. Yet, you extend the same rationale for
something as trivial as "droppings". They are not worthy of the same
consideration.


As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget that
nonsense.

So you assert that pet owners are intimately aware of the every
movement that their pets make? Hell, some people have a hard time
keeping track of their kid's every movement.


When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner NEVER
to try that line on him again.

Why not, does he have a problem with the truth?

Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

If the dog is properly licensed, and has not attacked anyone, which
would lead the animal control people to consider them dangerous, then
the owner has every right to reclaim the dog. I have YET to see or
hear of a case where a dog was euthanized for crapping on someone's
lawn. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing the
particulars (verifiable of course).


Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.

It doesn't change the fact that an irate neighbor is civilly liable
for killing their neighbors dog regardless of the reason.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:48:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.

Don't be ridiculous. I define **** on my property as damage. It's my
property, so my definition is the only one that's valid. All stray dogs ****
someplace, and it's rarely on their owner's property. No dog can be told
"Have a nice walk, and don't **** at these addresses". With these absolutes
in mind, we've already established that the dog owner accepts these truths
and continues to make these things happen.

To say that a human intends to do damage every time he leaves his property
is, for the most part, false. Except for my wife's cousin's kid.



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.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off
its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's
property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't ****
on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

But those things aren't going to damage your "crops". You are fighting
a two front war here. You justify the "vanishing" of offensive animals
by citing damage done to crops. Yet, you extend the same rationale for
something as trivial as "droppings". They are not worthy of the same
consideration.

As I've said in other conversations, I can accept quite a few sexual
orientations, even though I don't want to share all of them. Coprophilia is
one I don't want to share. Some infants will handle their feces for
enjoyment, but they usually grow out of it quickly. You have every right to
enjoy it, though.



As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget
that
nonsense.

So you assert that pet owners are intimately aware of the every
movement that their pets make? Hell, some people have a hard time
keeping track of their kid's every movement.

By law, they are required to keep the dog on their own property, unless
they're being walked. If there's no fence and the dog is allowed outside
unsupervised, then only an idiot would assume that the dog will not roam
eventually.


When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner
NEVER
to try that line on him again.

Why not, does he have a problem with the truth?

Because he'd gotten complaints from several neighbors about the same dog.
There was no mistaking this dog for another. Therefore, it was NOT the truth
in this case.



Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

If the dog is properly licensed, and has not attacked anyone, which
would lead the animal control people to consider them dangerous, then
the owner has every right to reclaim the dog. I have YET to see or
hear of a case where a dog was euthanized for crapping on someone's
lawn. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing the
particulars (verifiable of course).

I never said dogs were euthanized by the animal control department simply
for being strays. Here, you get a warning for the first violation, a hefty
fine for the 2nd, and for the third incident, your dog is taken away and you
are slapped with a VERY annoying fine. I believe it's $300 now, but I'm not
sure. Your dog is gone for good. It goes to a place called Lollypop Farm
where it's kept for a period of time, waiting for adoption. Because so many
people don't get their pets vaccinated & neutered, the place charges a
nominal fee when you adopt a pet. So, you pay more than once to get your
vermine back, if you're dumb enough to do that after 3 violations and a
scolding from a judge. If an animal's not adopted after a period of time,
it's euthanized.

Lately, they instituted some sort of rebate plan. I believe the way it works
is that when you go to the vet a year later for the next round of shots, the
vet fills out a form and sends it to the farm, which rebates most of the
money you paid them in the beginning. They keep the nominal cost of the
medical stuff. This ensures that people are serious about adoption, and
encourages them to keep their new pets for the first year.


Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've
also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.

It doesn't change the fact that an irate neighbor is civilly liable
for killing their neighbors dog regardless of the reason.

You're the legal expert, based on your television judges. I guess you're
right.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:46:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.

Don't be ridiculous. I define **** on my property as damage. It's my
property, so my definition is the only one that's valid.

The law would seem to disagree with you.

All stray dogs ****
someplace, and it's rarely on their owner's property.

Really? Then I guess all those "doggie donuts" in my yard are a
figment of my imagination?

No dog can be told
"Have a nice walk, and don't **** at these addresses". With these absolutes
in mind, we've already established that the dog owner accepts these truths
and continues to make these things happen.

To say that a human intends to do damage every time he leaves his property
is, for the most part, false. Except for my wife's cousin's kid.

To say that a dog intends to do damage every time he leave his lawn is
also false. A dog is a four legged anarchist. He's just doing his
thing.

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.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off
its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's
property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't ****
on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

But those things aren't going to damage your "crops". You are fighting
a two front war here. You justify the "vanishing" of offensive animals
by citing damage done to crops. Yet, you extend the same rationale for
something as trivial as "droppings". They are not worthy of the same
consideration.

As I've said in other conversations, I can accept quite a few sexual
orientations, even though I don't want to share all of them. Coprophilia is
one I don't want to share. Some infants will handle their feces for
enjoyment, but they usually grow out of it quickly. You have every right to
enjoy it, though.

I still don't understand your continual reference to coprophilia. What
does this have to do with anything? Who handled dog crap?
The fact that you place a greater importance, than most people, to
normally trivial things like dog droppings, paints the picture that
YOU are the one suffering from coprophilia.
As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget
that
nonsense.

So you assert that pet owners are intimately aware of the every
movement that their pets make? Hell, some people have a hard time
keeping track of their kid's every movement.

By law, they are required to keep the dog on their own property, unless
they're being walked. If there's no fence and the dog is allowed outside
unsupervised, then only an idiot would assume that the dog will not roam
eventually.

And if you had a fence, there's no way that dog would be able to
wander onto your yard. Case closed.




When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner
NEVER
to try that line on him again.

Why not, does he have a problem with the truth?

Because he'd gotten complaints from several neighbors about the same dog.
There was no mistaking this dog for another. Therefore, it was NOT the truth
in this case.

But it doesn't change the truth that the owner may not have been aware
that the dog left the property.


Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

If the dog is properly licensed, and has not attacked anyone, which
would lead the animal control people to consider them dangerous, then
the owner has every right to reclaim the dog. I have YET to see or
hear of a case where a dog was euthanized for crapping on someone's
lawn. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing the
particulars (verifiable of course).

I never said dogs were euthanized by the animal control department simply
for being strays. Here, you get a warning for the first violation, a hefty
fine for the 2nd, and for the third incident, your dog is taken away and you
are slapped with a VERY annoying fine. I believe it's $300 now, but I'm not
sure. Your dog is gone for good. It goes to a place called Lollypop Farm
where it's kept for a period of time, waiting for adoption. Because so many
people don't get their pets vaccinated & neutered, the place charges a
nominal fee when you adopt a pet. So, you pay more than once to get your
vermine back, if you're dumb enough to do that after 3 violations and a
scolding from a judge. If an animal's not adopted after a period of time,
it's euthanized.

In the Philly area, they have trouble removing dogs which are
mistreated, bread for combat, or to attack people (Pit Bulls are
especially bad), or create a public health hazard. I find it hard to
believe they respond so forcefully to such trivial issues like
dropping on lawns. I guess in your area, they don't have better things
to do.



Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've
also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.

It doesn't change the fact that an irate neighbor is civilly liable
for killing their neighbors dog regardless of the reason.

You're the legal expert, based on your television judges. I guess you're
right.

The venue with which the case was presented is irrelevant. The laws
are sound, and proven in court. I watch Court TV on occasion. I find
it interesting. These are REAL cases, not Perry Mason re-runs.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:46:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.

Don't be ridiculous. I define **** on my property as damage. It's my
property, so my definition is the only one that's valid.

The law would seem to disagree with you.

Actually, the simple concept of "private property" is the basis of a whole
slew of laws. Regardless of how these laws are picked apart, only one phrase
is needed to shut down arguments: private property. This is why people can
get away with painting a house pink and putting stupid stuffed sheep and
plastic flamingoes on their front lawns.


All stray dogs ****
someplace, and it's rarely on their owner's property.

Really? Then I guess all those "doggie donuts" in my yard are a
figment of my imagination?

No dog can be told
"Have a nice walk, and don't **** at these addresses". With these
absolutes
in mind, we've already established that the dog owner accepts these
truths
and continues to make these things happen.

To say that a human intends to do damage every time he leaves his
property
is, for the most part, false. Except for my wife's cousin's kid.

To say that a dog intends to do damage every time he leave his lawn is
also false. A dog is a four legged anarchist. He's just doing his
thing.

I never said the dog intended to do it. I said that the owner intends for
the dog to do it. The owner lets the dog roam because the owner is lazy. He
doesn't want to take the time to walk the dog, and/or the owner doesn't want
to take the time to clean up dog crap in his OWN yard. So, the owner
transfers that work to other people.

If it was discovered that a person didn't change his baby's diaper for 3
days at a time, that person's baby would quickly be taken away by a local
child welfare agency until it could be determined just what was wrong with
the parent. You would have no problem with this. It's the same type of
negligence being practiced by the dog owner. Some people aren't fit to be
parents or pet owners.


I still don't understand your continual reference to coprophilia. What
does this have to do with anything? Who handled dog crap?
The fact that you place a greater importance, than most people, to
normally trivial things like dog droppings, paints the picture that
YOU are the one suffering from coprophilia.

Coprophilia is the practice of handling feces for enjoyment, especially
sexual enjoyment. If your dog craps where innocent people will step in it,
chances are good that it will need to be cleaned off that person's shoes
before they can reenter their home. You feel this is not such a bad chore. I
have chosen to take it further and say that you haven't told us everything.
Not only do you find the cleaning process "not so bad", you actually enjoy
it very much. Therefore, you are practicing coprophilia.

I feel that if you want to use hand puppets 100% of the time when having sex
with your wife, that's fine by me. I don't need to know about it. You're two
consenting adults. Same with coprophilia. Keep that sort of thrill to
yourself. If I want to know more about it, I'll ask.

As far as my "suffering from coprophila", wrong. You have interpreted the
word to mean "obsessed with NOT coming into contact with feces". Check a
dictionary.


By law, they are required to keep the dog on their own property, unless
they're being walked. If there's no fence and the dog is allowed outside
unsupervised, then only an idiot would assume that the dog will not roam
eventually.

And if you had a fence, there's no way that dog would be able to
wander onto your yard. Case closed.

In another message, I explained the fallacy of your repeating this fence
thing. Go find the message.


When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner
NEVER
to try that line on him again.

Why not, does he have a problem with the truth?

Because he'd gotten complaints from several neighbors about the same dog.
There was no mistaking this dog for another. Therefore, it was NOT the
truth
in this case.

But it doesn't change the truth that the owner may not have been aware
that the dog left the property.

Anywhere there are laws prohibiting dogs roaming off the leash, those laws
are based on the very assumption which you claim to be false. If you think
this statement is incorrect, explain why. In other words, why do YOU think
such laws exist?


Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

If the dog is properly licensed, and has not attacked anyone, which
would lead the animal control people to consider them dangerous, then
the owner has every right to reclaim the dog. I have YET to see or
hear of a case where a dog was euthanized for crapping on someone's
lawn. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing the
particulars (verifiable of course).

I never said dogs were euthanized by the animal control department simply
for being strays. Here, you get a warning for the first violation, a
hefty
fine for the 2nd, and for the third incident, your dog is taken away and
you
are slapped with a VERY annoying fine. I believe it's $300 now, but I'm
not
sure. Your dog is gone for good. It goes to a place called Lollypop Farm
where it's kept for a period of time, waiting for adoption. Because so
many
people don't get their pets vaccinated & neutered, the place charges a
nominal fee when you adopt a pet. So, you pay more than once to get your
vermine back, if you're dumb enough to do that after 3 violations and a
scolding from a judge. If an animal's not adopted after a period of time,
it's euthanized.

In the Philly area, they have trouble removing dogs which are
mistreated, bread for combat, or to attack people (Pit Bulls are
especially bad), or create a public health hazard. I find it hard to
believe they respond so forcefully to such trivial issues like
dropping on lawns. I guess in your area, they don't have better things
to do.

That's a slam. How about this: In my part of town, we have less people who
feel so threatened by intruders that they need to keep mutant dogs. Five
miles from me, in the city proper, it's just like Philly. The cops are
trained to put down mutant dogs right on the spot. It's a wonderful thing.


Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on
would've
also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult
to
anyone's intelligence.

It doesn't change the fact that an irate neighbor is civilly liable
for killing their neighbors dog regardless of the reason.

You're the legal expert, based on your television judges. I guess you're
right.

The venue with which the case was presented is irrelevant. The laws
are sound, and proven in court. I watch Court TV on occasion. I find
it interesting. These are REAL cases, not Perry Mason re-runs.

I prefer to get my information direct from the source, especially local
sources. Next thing, you'll be telling me zoning laws are the same here as
they are in your town, because you believe they are.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:40:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:46:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.

Don't be ridiculous. I define **** on my property as damage. It's my
property, so my definition is the only one that's valid.

The law would seem to disagree with you.

Actually, the simple concept of "private property" is the basis of a whole
slew of laws. Regardless of how these laws are picked apart, only one phrase
is needed to shut down arguments: private property. This is why people can
get away with painting a house pink and putting stupid stuffed sheep and
plastic flamingoes on their front lawns.

Now you sound like a libertarian, placing property rights above
individual rights. And in many (and a growing number of) places you
CAN'T paint your house pink or put tacky lawn ornaments out.


To say that a dog intends to do damage every time he leave his lawn is
also false. A dog is a four legged anarchist. He's just doing his
thing.

I never said the dog intended to do it. I said that the owner intends for
the dog to do it.

That premise is false as it is based on the assumption that the dog
owner premeditated the act. Most dog owners do not apply that much
thought to a simple act of letting their critter out to roam. My dog
dropped immediately when it hits my grass. If it roams afterward, it's
AFTER it's done doing its business.


The owner lets the dog roam because the owner is lazy. He
doesn't want to take the time to walk the dog, and/or the owner doesn't want
to take the time to clean up dog crap in his OWN yard. So, the owner
transfers that work to other people.

But what about the many cases where the dog DOES drop in their own
yard first? Are you denying that these examples are usually the rule
and not the exception.? A dog tends to "go" where it is most
comfortable and familiar, and that usually means in his own yard.



If it was discovered that a person didn't change his baby's diaper for 3
days at a time, that person's baby would quickly be taken away by a local
child welfare agency until it could be determined just what was wrong with
the parent. You would have no problem with this.

Actually I have a big problem with CPS groups who typically overstep
their authority and make many subjective judgement calls on what it
considers "abuse". That's why so many parents are afraid to discipline
their kids out of fear that CPS will take them away. The results are
yet another generation of kids who grow up like Don.


It's the same type of
negligence being practiced by the dog owner. Some people aren't fit to be
parents or pet owners.

Doug, We've been through this. You are 100% correct. Some people
aren't cut out to be pet owners. But that fact STILL does not give you
the right to take matters into your own hands.



I still don't understand your continual reference to coprophilia. What
does this have to do with anything? Who handled dog crap?
The fact that you place a greater importance, than most people, to
normally trivial things like dog droppings, paints the picture that
YOU are the one suffering from coprophilia.

Coprophilia is the practice of handling feces for enjoyment, especially
sexual enjoyment. If your dog craps where innocent people will step in it,
chances are good that it will need to be cleaned off that person's shoes
before they can reenter their home. You feel this is not such a bad chore. I
have chosen to take it further and say that you haven't told us everything.
Not only do you find the cleaning process "not so bad", you actually enjoy
it very much. Therefore, you are practicing coprophilia.

Your logic process is well..... out to lunch. How can you reach that
conclusion based on the available facts? What should be apparent is
that I am just not as sensitive to the same trivial issues as you seem
to be.



I feel that if you want to use hand puppets 100% of the time when having sex
with your wife, that's fine by me. I don't need to know about it. You're two
consenting adults. Same with coprophilia. Keep that sort of thrill to
yourself. If I want to know more about it, I'll ask.

As far as my "suffering from coprophila", wrong. You have interpreted the
word to mean "obsessed with NOT coming into contact with feces". Check a
dictionary.

You are the one who appears to be fixated with feces. Whether it
brings you pleasure or pain, it never seems far from you mind. I would
take it further then to suggest that your fixation is the basis for
your whole problem.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:46:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.

Don't be ridiculous. I define **** on my property as damage. It's my
property, so my definition is the only one that's valid.

The law would seem to disagree with you.

Dave's been watching LA Law reruns.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message

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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

You're kidding, right?
I'm still wondering why you are trying to argue with a child?

"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message

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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

You're kidding, right?
I'm still wondering why you are trying to argue with a child?




Sport. I can't go fishing until later. This one's like the lone bluegill
that bites your hook 673 times in the same afternoon, even though it's
hardly got any lips left.