"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:57:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to
complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a
problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the
long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a
week
or a
month sooner.

You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make.




You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog
attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that
fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a
damn
about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would
be
equal.

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

No more so than killing a mosquito on your arm.

Back to the "all or nothing" defense?

My ex-wife's got a goldfish pond in the back yard. They grow fat and
beautiful by eating mosquitoes, among other things. To her (and me),
mosquitoes have far more intrinsic value than a destructive dog. Matter of
fact, they have more value than the dog's owner, too, who contributes
nothing of beauty.