On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:58:48 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


If someone (or many someones) makes a habit of cutting across your
lawn

shred

We're not talking about someone cutting across your yard, Dave.

How else would he get there?

Pay attention.
Answer the question directly.
Quit stalling and fidgeting, if you're capable.

You have the legal means at your disposal to address trespassing
issues. If these avenues do not solve the problem, you can only do so
much to prevent continued transgressions. Putting up a fence would
solve the problem.

Dave


In many towns, including mine, zoning laws prohibit the installation of
fences within a certain distance of the front property line. That often
leaves 1/3 to 1/2 of the front vulnerable. Then what?

A thick hedge.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:58:48 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


If someone (or many someones) makes a habit of cutting across your
lawn

shred

We're not talking about someone cutting across your yard, Dave.

How else would he get there?

Pay attention.
Answer the question directly.
Quit stalling and fidgeting, if you're capable.

You have the legal means at your disposal to address trespassing
issues. If these avenues do not solve the problem, you can only do so
much to prevent continued transgressions. Putting up a fence would
solve the problem.

Dave


In many towns, including mine, zoning laws prohibit the installation of
fences within a certain distance of the front property line. That often
leaves 1/3 to 1/2 of the front vulnerable. Then what?

A thick hedge.

Dave



And what if a hedge doesn't fit my landscaping scheme?

Doug Kanter wrote:
And what if a hedge doesn't fit my landscaping scheme?

But Doug, you're missing the point... you don't have the right to decide
what to do with your property, nor the right to protect your property.

Dave Hall (and his like-minded legion of fascist whackos) has (have) the
right to impose their ideals and their values on you. You must conform,
you must not try to get them to accept any responsibility for their
actions... or their kids, or their pets, etc etc. If his dogs craps on
your lawn, it is the will of Allah... I mean, it's the way Nature meant
it to be. Accept it and be happy. Or else!

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
And what if a hedge doesn't fit my landscaping scheme?

But Doug, you're missing the point... you don't have the right to decide
what to do with your property, nor the right to protect your property.

Dave Hall (and his like-minded legion of fascist whackos) has (have) the
right to impose their ideals and their values on you. You must conform,
you must not try to get them to accept any responsibility for their
actions... or their kids, or their pets, etc etc. If his dogs craps on
your lawn, it is the will of Allah... I mean, it's the way Nature meant
it to be. Accept it and be happy. Or else!

DSK


Yeah....I guess. How could I have been so wrong?

Doug Kanter wrote:
Yeah....I guess. How could I have been so wrong?

It's not your fault, man. You've been seduced by those dadgum libby-rull
traitor sumbidges... prolly starting 'way back in grade school...

DSK

On Mon, 03 May 2004 09:51:19 -0400, DSK wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
And what if a hedge doesn't fit my landscaping scheme?

But Doug, you're missing the point... you don't have the right to decide
what to do with your property, nor the right to protect your property.

So are you a gun-toting anarchist too? You only obey the laws which
are in your favor?

Dave Hall (and his like-minded legion of fascist whackos) has (have) the
right to impose their ideals and their values on you.

No, you are confusing me with a liberal. I believe in live and let
live.


You must conform,


In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of
conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would
we have?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of
conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would
we have?

So far, nobody has proposed "taking the law into his own hands."

If everybody obeyed the laws about keeping their dogs out of other
people's yards, then we'd have a society where no property owner was
considering killing somebody elses dog because it was destroying his
property.

If everybody obeyed the laws about not making a large wake, and/or very
loud engine noise, where it is dangerous & destructive to do so, then
far fewer people would be be convinced that motorboaters are obnoxious
oblivious jerks.

It's really very simple Dave. Keep reading it over and over, maybe
you'll "get" it.

DSK

On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:46:31 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of
conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would
we have?

So far, nobody has proposed "taking the law into his own hands."

Have you been paying attention? That EXACTLY what's the case here.
There is NO law of the books that I have found yet, which gives anyone
the right to shoot a neighbor's pet because they took a dump on their
lawn. Since there is no law authorizing this action, the fact that you
undertook it anyway is, by definition, "taking the law into your own
hands".


If everybody obeyed the laws about keeping their dogs out of other
people's yards, then we'd have a society where no property owner was
considering killing somebody elses dog because it was destroying his
property.

And if the dog didn't stop to take a dump, he would 've caught the
rabbit. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground.
What's your point? Why base your life on "what-if" scenarios? Deal
with reality.


If everybody obeyed the laws about not making a large wake, and/or very
loud engine noise, where it is dangerous & destructive to do so, then
far fewer people would be be convinced that motorboaters are obnoxious
oblivious jerks.

If we didn't have people who complained incessantly and loudly when
people enjoy a different form of recreation than they do, we wouldn't
clap and cat call when they fall overboard, or when some otherwise
unfortunate circumstance happens to befall them.


It's really very simple Dave. Keep reading it over and over, maybe
you'll "get" it.

I "get it" just fine. You judge everyone by your rules, your
standards, and your opinions. You have no room for any diversity in
lifestyle. You are a classic liberal. Preach tolerance, except when
the activity bothers you. Preach diversity, except when the ideas are
diametrically opposed to your own core beliefs. You believe that
"personal responsibility" means that everyone is responsible for
looking out for everyone else.

You are so far off the mark it isn't even funny.

Dave





DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

There is NO law of the books that I have found yet, which gives anyone
the right to shoot a neighbor's pet because they took a dump on their
lawn.

There are thousands of townships in this country. What percentage of their
laws have you researched?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 09:51:19 -0400, DSK wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
And what if a hedge doesn't fit my landscaping scheme?

But Doug, you're missing the point... you don't have the right to decide
what to do with your property, nor the right to protect your property.

So are you a gun-toting anarchist too? You only obey the laws which
are in your favor?

Dave Hall (and his like-minded legion of fascist whackos) has (have) the
right to impose their ideals and their values on you.

No, you are confusing me with a liberal. I believe in live and let
live.


You must conform,


In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of
conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would
we have?

Dave

Conformity. Good thought, Dave. You should conform to good pet ownership
practices. Pick up your dog's crap, no matter where it happens, even though
you say your town has no law requiring you to do so. You say I shouldn't
have a problem cleaning it off my shoes & floors because you believe that I
find it "too objectionable". According to your logic, you should find it
even LESS objectionable because you can plan for it.

Conform.