"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:51:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


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.


I don't believe I said someone didn't deserve and explanation...

I do know if I was really annoyed by something and I needed to sit
with a camera around the usual time this person walks their dog, I'd
do it.

There are laws which protect you as well as me, but the downside of
making reports on people is that their animals usually wind up in the
pound and euthanized.

It's never the fault of the animal.

When babies start walking and investigating everything in the house, most
people put safety locks on cabinets containing anything that could hurt a
baby. Assuming the home did NOT have these safety locks in place before the
baby, would you agree that their appearance is related to the presence of
the new baby?



This discussion comes up now and
then in rec.gardens. Nothing is ever resolved. Have you actually
asked this person not to allow their dog to pee on your plants? If
so, what did that person say?

One obeyed, and remained friendly. Two said that the first X feet of
property belongs to the public, which is not true (according to our town
justice), and continued to argue. All three were asked politely, in the
exact same way.



When these little inconveniences prop up for me I think about the
thousand people who just died all over the world from either
starvation, not a drop of water, or HIV AIDS. I think of the child in
Africa who dies alone at the age of five and a huge vulture now has
some food. There are so many more important things in the world and
locally to put energy into.


You could use this logic to justify looking the other way for almost any
kind of crime. I've got a friend who could remove a picture window from your
house, intact and undamaged, in under 1/2 hour. Would that be OK with you?
After all, it's not assault or indecent exposure, and it's certainly not a
bad as a child starving in Africa. I just like your window and I feel like
having it, purely on a whim. You wouldn't call the police, right?


I know you really hate when the dog pees, but either do the waiting
with the camera and report that person, or do something else to take
your mind off it. Nobody is in disagreement that you have rights.

This discussion has been peaceful. By now most of these type
discussions end in total idiocy. Get the camera out, OR put a video
camera up where it can see the dog doing this. You should be able to
get several hours out of the tape. Eventually you'll capture it.

That would only help if I wanted to waste time at our town court. I'm
considerate of my neighbors. I expect the same, without having to spend
money or take time off from work in order to make it happen. Some of us
understand that when you work hard to have a nice home, you have the right
to peace and harmony.