On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:36:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


A life is a life, regardless of whether it's useful to you or not. If you
believe it's cruel to kill a dog, then you believe it's cruel to kill ANY
animal unless it threatens your life. You should not be killing bugs
because
they annoy you or cows because you love steak.

Then the obvious corollary to that logic then is if you can justify
killing bugs, then you should be ok with killing people, since they
are, after all just "Another life".

So how many people have you killed?

I choose not to kill people because for the most part, they can be dealt
with in other ways, usually via reasoning, intimidation, fear, or a
judiciously timed offer of a cold beer.

But you choose to kill selected animals. Even after your attempt at an
"all or nothing" logical approach to killing living things.

Do you believe that you have the right to kill a dog that strays on
your property, despite what the law may say to the contrary?

Honestly, Dave, even if the law didn't explicitly allow it, and a
specific
set of conditions*** were met, I'd do it anyway.

In other words, the law doesn't allow it. You're just a vigilante.

We are not going to settle the "is it legal" question. Drop it. Suffice it
to say that that with rare exceptions, the church committee approach to
getting things done is a lame way of doing things. Of course, for someone
who delegates so much responsibility to a deity, a committee is a natural
thing.



I'm part of society. I do NOT place value on a pet that violates private
property. I think you'd be surprised at how many people feel the same way.
In NY, it's illegal for a hunter to use dogs to "run" deer. Some still do
it, though. Once those dogs are trained to do that, they do it even when the
owner's not with them. Guess what DEC game wardens sometimes do with those
dogs. BLAM....and walk away. Now those dogs are a feast for raccoons and a
bunch of other happy scavengers.


So, taking these last two comments of yours in perspective, you claim,
on one hand, to be a member of society. Part of the responsibility of
being a member of society is consensus building, and harmony in
action. But you've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to
certain matters, you are more than willing to fly in the face of
society and play by your own rules, when it suits you.

In other words, you're a hypocrite




You really need to live a wider life, Dave. You spend too much time with TV.

I rarely watch TV. Why would you think that I do? I find reality (REAL
reality) much more interesting......

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:36:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


A life is a life, regardless of whether it's useful to you or not. If
you
believe it's cruel to kill a dog, then you believe it's cruel to kill
ANY
animal unless it threatens your life. You should not be killing bugs
because
they annoy you or cows because you love steak.

Then the obvious corollary to that logic then is if you can justify
killing bugs, then you should be ok with killing people, since they
are, after all just "Another life".

So how many people have you killed?

I choose not to kill people because for the most part, they can be dealt
with in other ways, usually via reasoning, intimidation, fear, or a
judiciously timed offer of a cold beer.

But you choose to kill selected animals. Even after your attempt at an
"all or nothing" logical approach to killing living things.

Do you believe that you have the right to kill a dog that strays on
your property, despite what the law may say to the contrary?

Honestly, Dave, even if the law didn't explicitly allow it, and a
specific
set of conditions*** were met, I'd do it anyway.

In other words, the law doesn't allow it. You're just a vigilante.

We are not going to settle the "is it legal" question. Drop it. Suffice
it
to say that that with rare exceptions, the church committee approach to
getting things done is a lame way of doing things. Of course, for someone
who delegates so much responsibility to a deity, a committee is a natural
thing.



I'm part of society. I do NOT place value on a pet that violates private
property. I think you'd be surprised at how many people feel the same
way.
In NY, it's illegal for a hunter to use dogs to "run" deer. Some still do
it, though. Once those dogs are trained to do that, they do it even when
the
owner's not with them. Guess what DEC game wardens sometimes do with
those
dogs. BLAM....and walk away. Now those dogs are a feast for raccoons and
a
bunch of other happy scavengers.


So, taking these last two comments of yours in perspective, you claim,
on one hand, to be a member of society. Part of the responsibility of
being a member of society is consensus building, and harmony in
action. But you've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to
certain matters, you are more than willing to fly in the face of
society and play by your own rules, when it suits you.

In other words, you're a hypocrite

No, Dave. I don't live by a rigid set of rules. I'm flexible. Just like DEC
game wardens.


You really need to live a wider life, Dave. You spend too much time with
TV.

I rarely watch TV. Why would you think that I do? I find reality (REAL
reality) much more interesting......

You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

On Mon, 03 May 2004 10:48:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



I'm part of society. I do NOT place value on a pet that violates private
property. I think you'd be surprised at how many people feel the same
way.
In NY, it's illegal for a hunter to use dogs to "run" deer. Some still do
it, though. Once those dogs are trained to do that, they do it even when
the
owner's not with them. Guess what DEC game wardens sometimes do with
those
dogs. BLAM....and walk away. Now those dogs are a feast for raccoons and
a
bunch of other happy scavengers.


So, taking these last two comments of yours in perspective, you claim,
on one hand, to be a member of society. Part of the responsibility of
being a member of society is consensus building, and harmony in
action. But you've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to
certain matters, you are more than willing to fly in the face of
society and play by your own rules, when it suits you.

In other words, you're a hypocrite

No, Dave. I don't live by a rigid set of rules. I'm flexible. Just like DEC
game wardens.

I doubt if the law allows you such broad "flexibility"......




You really need to live a wider life, Dave. You spend too much time with
TV.

I rarely watch TV. Why would you think that I do? I find reality (REAL
reality) much more interesting......

You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs
would NEVER show on TV?

On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs
would NEVER show on TV?

I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show?

Are you attempting more negative logic?

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs
would NEVER show on TV?

I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show?

Are you attempting more negative logic?

Dave

Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to
him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be
better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not
televising cases which expose those laws? I mean, let's face it: An audience
which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an
audience of idiots.

On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:13:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs
would NEVER show on TV?

I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show?

Are you attempting more negative logic?

Dave

Dave....thiMk. Do you suppose a TV producer's legal staff might explain to
him that there are laws which permit activities that the audience would be
better off not knowing about, and that the show would be better off not
televising cases which expose those laws?

So you are now championing the idea that the government should keep
the people in the dark, and media are their instruments?

With all the liberal (Insert item of the week)-rights groups around,
do you think that they would allow the press to sit on such practices?

I mean, let's face it: An audience
which gets its legal advice from television is, without question, an
audience of idiots.

So, you are also proposing that people ignore informative programming
because it is presented on the TV as its forum?


So, let me get this straight. If the "info" comes from such bastions
of credibility such as (cough...Jayson Blair) the New York Times,
it should be taken as above reproach. But if the same material is
presented on the TV, it should be automatically suspect?

You really are a man full of bias......

Dave