"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:58:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


This example has nothing to do with dog ordinances. And, there's no reason
(or easy way) to photograph plants covered in ****. The issue is this: If
a
property owner asks you not to do something on their property, you do not
ask why. You obey. If you disagree with what I've just said, then I have
the
right to urinate on your dog, in your mail box, or anything on that
property, and there's nothing you can do about it.

With me so far?


I'm with you, but not with the level of anger you have about it. Then
again, I let rats live on my property and wouldn't think of killing
them.


It's not anger. Frankly, it's an interesting legal debate, but for some
people, that involves some heavy lifting. They don't realize that in Supreme
Court hearings, the justices use hypothetical ideas that seem outrageous,
but they're important for purposes of pushing peoples' legal thinking to
extremes. The same thing goes on with dog owners. Was it you who asked
earlier why someone didn't deserve an explanation about why I wanted no dogs
on the property? A judge might ask you this: If you're hiking, and see lots
of signs saying "No Trespassing", do you disobey the signs because they
don't contain a reason why?

I find the discussion very peaceful.