On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:52:29 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:15:23 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote
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.

Was this clipped from the Marxist manifesto? Seriously.....LOL

You really need to study marxism and socialism. Seriously.......

If you think that personal responsibility is a socialist trait, you
are really out there......

There's something wrong with this boys circuit board.
Hey Dave, if your neighbor can't keep himself out of your yard it is not
your responsibility to put up a fence, now is it?

If someone (or many someones) makes a habit of cutting across your
lawn (Many kids do that as they are too lazy to go around the block),
you have basically 4 options:

1. Lie in wait to catch each and every kid, each and every time they
do it. You can then berate them and threaten them, and pretty much
guarantee that your house will be egged by the next mischief night.

2. You could complain to the cops, who would have to also catch them
in the act to "do something" about it.

3. You could become an anarchistic, anti-social lunatic and shoot
them.

4. You could put up a fence which effective bars their ability to
trespass.

Now, which one do you think will be ultimately the most effective?
Which one would most likely lead to legal trouble for you (not that
you'd care)?



Dave

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

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:13:23 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Yes you are.
Your collectivist nature is reflected in many of your posts.

Do you think that the U.S. is a socialist state?

The *pool/fence* post for example, and many others.

Care to cite some examples?

Combine that with the fact that you think anarchy = chaos and it's clear
that you're braindead.


According to the American Heritage dictionary, the word "Anarchy" is
defined as:

1. Absence of governmental authority or law.

2. Disorder and confusion.

Now, most civilized people would equate disorder with chaos, and in
fact the dictionary further defines the word "Chaos" as:

1. Great disorder or confusion.

2. The disordered state held to have existed before the ordered
universe.

Now applying some simple logic; since anarchy is defined as disorder
and confusion, and chaos is defined as great disorder and confusion,
it is therefore a logical conclusion to conclude that Anarchy = Chaos.

I fully expect that you will now resort to making feeble claims about
my sources of information, since you seem unwilling to see the world
through anything but your narrow warped viewpoint.

Now go back to your dungeons and dragons game..... Your wisdom points
are fading.

Dave

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:21:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

It's called a "weed whacker". They work just fine.

We don't like them. They're noisy. I've gotten along fine without one for
25
years so far.

You have venerable plethora of excuses don't you? They make electric
ones you know, (And after the anticipated "I don't want to deal with
long cords" excuse) and battery ones too.

What? Yet *another* item you think I should buy, after the fence??? When did
you start making these choices for me?

You pay taxes don't you? You pay for car insurance don't you? Is it by
choice or necessity? Think of things like a fence and trimmer as
"insurance".


I'm familiar with the laws in general. Unless you live in six-gun
territory, it's likely that your laws are not much different.

That statement belongs in the Dave Hall Top 10 list of stupidest
comments.
What you've said is that since the law is a certain way in one place,
it's
probably that way in ALL places.

Not exactly the same, but now much variation would you expect?

In Sag Harbor, NY (near the end of Long Island), it is against the law to
bring a pig into the village on Sundays.

I didn't say ALL laws. We're dealing specifically with pet laws here.


I am
still waiting for you to provide me with the text of the law that
states that you have the right to "vanish" an animal that ****es you
off.

Dave....you don't actually think I'm going to take a trip to the town hall
to make copies for you, do you? Besides, why should I doubt what the judge
told me? The judge, from MY town, who was my son's baseball coach, who
discussed this issue with me several times. Not just the vanishing dog
thing, but the various interpretations of "civil trespass", which you also
chose to doubt.

I had a cop once tell me that if someone breaks into my house, to make
sure I drag the body back inside after I shoot him. It's one thing to
be buds and "wink-wink" at loopholes in the law. But the law still
does not give you the right to kill someone's dog.


I'll tell you what, though. If, in the next couple of years, I'm in the town
hall during business hours for some other reason, I'll make a copy and offer
to fax it to you. OK?

A simple link to a web site would be sufficient. Surely your town has
entered the 21st century by now?

Dave

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:53:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

You have an overinflated sense of what the rest of society owes you
WRT consideration.

Dave

Really? If you had my flower garden, you were out at night enjoying the
sights and smells, and I thought it was cute to shine one of the zillion
candlepower searchlights in your face, how many days would it take before
you had an ulcer? After all, you wouldn't actually DO anything about it,
right?

Why would someone do that? You speak as if you have first hand
experience. One has to wonder why you have so many issues with
neighbors.


You come up with so many "annoyances" with relation to neighbors, I
have to wonder just what you were like to live next too. I'd love to
talk to your former neighbors. I'm sure they have some interesting
stories to tell.......

Dave

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:53:44 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

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

Then you would have no problem with someone else's dogs ****ting in your
yard on a regular basis?

Personally, I don't care. I've had my own dog droppings to deal with,
so what's few more? It's natural fertilizer.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:52:29 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:15:23 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote
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.

Was this clipped from the Marxist manifesto? Seriously.....LOL

You really need to study marxism and socialism. Seriously.......

If you think that personal responsibility is a socialist trait, you
are really out there......

There's something wrong with this boys circuit board.
Hey Dave, if your neighbor can't keep himself out of your yard it is not
your responsibility to put up a fence, now is it?

If someone (or many someones) makes a habit of cutting across your
lawn (Many kids do that as they are too lazy to go around the block),
you have basically 4 options:

1. Lie in wait to catch each and every kid, each and every time they
do it. You can then berate them and threaten them, and pretty much
guarantee that your house will be egged by the next mischief night.

2. You could complain to the cops, who would have to also catch them
in the act to "do something" about it.

3. You could become an anarchistic, anti-social lunatic and shoot
them.

4. You could put up a fence which effective bars their ability to
trespass.

Now, which one do you think will be ultimately the most effective?
Which one would most likely lead to legal trouble for you (not that
you'd care)?



Dave

You can also use their t-shirts as handles to escort the kids back to their
parents and discuss the issue with them.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:23:53 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
I grasp it just fine.

In that case, when are you going to accept responsibility for your actions?

I do, when they are truly mine.


... The difference is that you believe that personal
responsibility extends to cover things and situations that you have no
direct control over, or to events where you could not reasonably
predict an outcome.

You mean like, letting your dog roam other people's yards where it's not
wanted?

You mean like, making a huge wake in proximity to other boats & other
people's property, where there is a possibility of damage & injury, and
a certainty of hazard & aggravation?


..... I don't expect other people
to keep their pets off of my lawn

Good, I'll be over with a 150# rottweiler tomorrow.

The problem with your examples are that they are extreme. I would no
more deliberately bring my dog to another property than I would
deliberately pass by another boat at close range while pre-planing.


....If my boat gets rocked and I spill my drink, I'm not
going to chase after the "offender" and make him clean up the mess.

What if your boat gets slammed violently from side to side, all hands
have to take a handhold with both hands, and there is some breakage?
What if the warning was not sufficient and there is an injury? I guess
that's just the way it goes, tough luck, and the boater who made a huge
wake can buzz right along as he pleases.

Your problem is you are of an "all or nothing" opinion of another's
extended responsibility and negligence WRT liability. If you can make
a case which can illustrate a demonstration of gross negligence on the
part of the offender, then I would agree that they share the lion's
share of responsibility.

On the other hand, if a boater a half mile away throws a wake which
tips my hot coffee onto my lap, and I was not watching out for it,
then it's my problem.

What you fail to understand is that life itself is full of risks. It
is not the role of society to protect the other guy any more than what
would be considered reasonable. Otherwise anything that might happen
to you would be actionable in some way against some other entity. Do
you want that? That's called deflection of responsibility. A liberal
mantra. Serial killers are not really "bad", they're just "victims" of
a poor upbringing.

Like I said before, **** happens. Sometimes you just have to take your
lumps instead of looking to place the blame on some other guy.


That doesn't mean that I'm giving people a pass on negligent behavior.

That's exactly what you're doing, chiefly yourself... not taking
responsibility for your actions is called "being irresponsible."

Where do you draw the line Doug? At what point does your
"responsibility" to watch out for yourself exceed the other guys
"responsibility" to watch out for you?

Where do you differentiate between incidental and gross negligence?


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:53:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

You have an overinflated sense of what the rest of society owes you
WRT consideration.

Dave

Really? If you had my flower garden, you were out at night enjoying the
sights and smells, and I thought it was cute to shine one of the zillion
candlepower searchlights in your face, how many days would it take before
you had an ulcer? After all, you wouldn't actually DO anything about it,
right?

Why would someone do that? You speak as if you have first hand
experience. One has to wonder why you have so many issues with
neighbors.


You come up with so many "annoyances" with relation to neighbors, I
have to wonder just what you were like to live next too. I'd love to
talk to your former neighbors. I'm sure they have some interesting
stories to tell.......

Dave


Actually, Dave, you've avoided the question. I've simply offered an example
of something you would find annoying and perhaps painful. Using this
searchlight example, what would be analogous to a fence?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Not exactly the same, but now much variation would you expect?

In Sag Harbor, NY (near the end of Long Island), it is against the law to
bring a pig into the village on Sundays.

I didn't say ALL laws. We're dealing specifically with pet laws here.

You said "how much variation would you expect?", which implies that because
laws are one way in place A, they are probably the same in place B. To an
extent, that's true, but in many cases, it's not. For instance, in my town,
there is no law requiring dog vandals who are walking their vermin to pick
up what their vermin leaves behind. There's a good reason for it: It would
be almost impossible to enforce. However, 2 miles away in the Rochester city
limits, there *is* such a law. Go figure. Two places, two different laws.