Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...7891244581996/

On Jun 11, 11:52*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...ng-not-free-sp...


Sorry, but she got what she deserves. If she bought a house in a HOA
area, then she has to live by the rules that came with it. And
banning chickens in the backyard certainly doesn't seem
unreasonable. More to the point, there is no one in their right
mind that would think blasting a car horn at dawn in front of
someone's house is protected free speech.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...ee-speech/UPI-
67891244581996/

Oh come on. This would have brought about a conviction no matter what
the precedent. The original city judge got it exactly right, this isn't
free speech it is harassment.

--
"I found what I thought was a REALLY good book,
called _Girl to Grab_. Imagine my surprise when I found
out it was volume 6 of the *Encyclopedia Britanica*!"
-Martin Mull

On Jun 11, 11:52*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...ng-not-free-sp...

Nice troll.

R

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:10:43 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:52:28 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

Your freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone elses
freedom of anything.

I agree with Kurt - it's harassment, not freedom of speech.

The first ammendment has never guaranteed the right to yodel in movie
theaters.

You can't cry censorship unless you actually have something to say.
Being an asshole with a car horn isn't saying anything other than that you're
an asshole with a car horn.

I used to have a neighbor whose ex-wife would arrive every week and honk
the horn until her brats came out. I wish we had an HOA that could have
charged her. I tried to explain to her how one can get out of a car and
ring a door bell instead of bothering the whole neighborhood, but her only
reaction was to make every effort to impress upon me that she was
a world class bitch.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many
chickens in her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a
dawn (since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's
president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free
speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...ee-speech/UPI-
67891244581996/

Oh come on. This would have brought about a conviction no matter what
the precedent. The original city judge got it exactly right, this
isn't free speech it is harassment.

But think of the chickens!

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:52 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many
chickens in her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a
dawn (since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's
president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free
speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...ng-not-free-sp...

Nice troll.


Not a troll. Notice the URL "upi" = Uppity Pullets International"

HeyBub wrote:
Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...7891244581996/


And who said you weren't a gadfly?

Evan Platt wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:52:28 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

Your freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone elses
freedom of anything.


You would freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone
else's freedom of anything but there is at least one exception to this
theory:

Anti-religious nuts believe they can use the "separation of church and
state" interpretation to cause other people to no longer have a freedom
of religion in certain situations (i.e. any where not in the privacy of
your home). The sad thing is that many of them are winning their battle
(or maybe others are just caving so a win by forfeit). So we have
freedom of no religion impinging on the rights of others to have a
freedom of religion and no one thinks that double standard needs to stop
so in that case one freedom hasn't ended when it has interfered with
another freedom.

HeyBub wrote:
Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...7891244581996/



If she had stood on public property outside of the
target house and crowed like a rooster, that would
have probably been considered free speech.

TDD

In article 0813f091-db38-4672-a06d-
,
) says...
On Jun 11, 11:52=A0am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens i=
n
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...ng-not-free-sp...


Sorry, but she got what she deserves. If she bought a house in a HOA
area, then she has to live by the rules that came with it. And
banning chickens in the backyard certainly doesn't seem
unreasonable. More to the point, there is no one in their right
mind that would think blasting a car horn at dawn in front of
someone's house is protected free speech.

She was probably raised by a TV set and never learned to be decent to
other people. You see a lot of people who react to any restriction with
rage and retribution.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

In article m,
(Brandon McCombs) says...
Evan Platt wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:52:28 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

Your freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone elses
freedom of anything.


You would freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone
else's freedom of anything but there is at least one exception to this
theory:

Anti-religious nuts believe they can use the "separation of church and
state" interpretation to cause other people to no longer have a freedom
of religion in certain situations (i.e. any where not in the privacy of
your home). The sad thing is that many of them are winning their battle
(or maybe others are just caving so a win by forfeit). So we have
freedom of no religion impinging on the rights of others to have a
freedom of religion and no one thinks that double standard needs to stop
so in that case one freedom hasn't ended when it has interfered with
another freedom.

Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. How would you feel
if a judge made you sacrifice a chicken to the Loa before testifying in
court? Or a teacher started each day by having your children channel
the spirits?

Certainly a government sponsored religion would have real benefits for
Christians. For instance, children could be taught that the idea of
people going to heaven when they die is a corruption brought back by the
crusaders from Islam. The Bible clearly states that the dead sleep
until the resurrection. Children need to be taught that Heaven is a
childish fairy tale, like Santa Claus. Just two or three generations of
government religion and Heaven would be extinct. There are those who
think the loss of personal freedom would be worth it if it would purify
the faith and stamp out heresy.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

The Daring Dufas wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many
chickens in her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a
dawn (since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's
president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free
speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...g-not-free-spe
ech/UPI-67891244581996/



If she had stood on public property outside of the
target house and crowed like a rooster, that would
have probably been considered free speech.

TDD


Then do you call her a cu* or a cock? Inquiring minds want to know.

Larry Caldwell wrote:

Sorry, but she got what she deserves. If she bought a house in a
HOA area, then she has to live by the rules that came with it. And
banning chickens in the backyard certainly doesn't seem
unreasonable. More to the point, there is no one in their right
mind that would think blasting a car horn at dawn in front of
someone's house is protected free speech.

She was probably raised by a TV set and never learned to be decent to
other people. You see a lot of people who react to any restriction
with rage and retribution.

She did win a Pullet Surprise.

On 6/11/2009 11:00 AM AZ Nomad spake thus:

The first ammendment has never guaranteed the right to yodel in movie
theaters.

I believe you can yodel, so long as you don't yodel "Fire!".


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 6/11/2009 7:00 PM Larry Caldwell spake thus:

In article m,
(Brandon McCombs) says...

Evan Platt wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:52:28 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many chickens in
her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a dawn
(since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

Your freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone elses
freedom of anything.

You would freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone
else's freedom of anything but there is at least one exception to this
theory:

Anti-religious nuts believe they can use the "separation of church and
state" interpretation to cause other people to no longer have a freedom
of religion in certain situations (i.e. any where not in the privacy of
your home). The sad thing is that many of them are winning their battle
(or maybe others are just caving so a win by forfeit). So we have
freedom of no religion impinging on the rights of others to have a
freedom of religion and no one thinks that double standard needs to stop
so in that case one freedom hasn't ended when it has interfered with
another freedom.

Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion.

Thank you thank you THANK YOU for pointing that out.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Red Green wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many
chickens in her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a
dawn (since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's
president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free
speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/...g-not-free-spe
ech/UPI-67891244581996/


If she had stood on public property outside of the
target house and crowed like a rooster, that would
have probably been considered free speech.

TDD


Then do you call her a cu* or a cock? Inquiring minds want to know.

Probably a fryer or even a roasting chick?

TDD

An obvious case of fowl play.


--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Larry Caldwell wrote in
:

In article m,
(Brandon McCombs) says...
Evan Platt wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:52:28 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Washington woman gets complaint from HOA that she has too many
chickens in her yard (like more than zero).

Woman registers her displeasure by honking her horn repeatedly, a
dawn (since there are no more roosters), in front of HOA's
president's house.

When arrested, woman claims horn-honking is an exercise in free
speech.

Convicted anyway.

Obviously the judge is in the pocket of the HOA.

Your freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone
elses freedom of anything.


You would freedom of anything ends when it interferes with someone
else's freedom of anything but there is at least one exception to
this theory:

Anti-religious nuts believe they can use the "separation of church
and state" interpretation to cause other people to no longer have a
freedom of religion in certain situations (i.e. any where not in the
privacy of your home). The sad thing is that many of them are winning
their battle (or maybe others are just caving so a win by forfeit).
So we have freedom of no religion impinging on the rights of others
to have a freedom of religion and no one thinks that double standard
needs to stop so in that case one freedom hasn't ended when it has
interfered with another freedom.

Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. How would you
feel if a judge made you sacrifice a chicken to the Loa before
testifying in court? Or a teacher started each day by having your
children channel the spirits?

Certainly a government sponsored religion would have real benefits for
Christians. For instance, children could be taught that the idea of
people going to heaven when they die is a corruption brought back by
the crusaders from Islam. The Bible clearly states that the dead
sleep until the resurrection. Children need to be taught that Heaven
is a childish fairy tale, like Santa Claus. Just two or three
generations of government religion and Heaven would be extinct. There
are those who think the loss of personal freedom would be worth it if
it would purify the faith and stamp out heresy.


the entire idea of school prayer is to indoctrinate other schoolkids into
their religion.
Certainly,any kid who -wants- to pray can find their own time to quietly do
it.
School time is for school;it's State time.

Besides,I suspect the school-prayer proponents would scream if Muslim kids
hauled out their prayer rug and began praying in public schools.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Larry Caldwell wrote:

Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. How would you
feel if a judge made you sacrifice a chicken to the Loa before
testifying in court? Or a teacher started each day by having your
children channel the spirits?


But what if your religion mandates proselytizing? Or your religion mandates
imposing your rules on infidels?

If I were a Christian and the government said I couldn't participate in the
Eucharist or (if Catholic) I couldn't go to Confession or join a Holy Order,
I'd be a tad disappointed. If I were a Muslim woman and the authorities said
I had rights, my husband would be upset.

I understand there's a difference between proselytizing on a front porch and
passing out tracts in the schoolroom, but, to the religious person, the
venue is irrelevant.

I, personally, would like to see the public schools offer, say, an hour's
worth of religious instruction per week. The teaching could be done by
experienced lay people and, when the bell rings, kids would decamp to the
room housing their preferred denomination: Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew,
Buddhist, Undeclared, Whatever. Moreover, kids could rotate between the
groups thereby gaining an understanding of those poor *******s doomed to
Hell.

"TD" wrote:

Some dumbass on my street does the beeping in front of another's home.
What beep dopes. You never know when they'll drive by so it's hard to
catch who they are.

Woman a couple houses down had a visitor do that when she picked her
daughter up.

Bunch of us neighbors discussed it one day, how obtrusive it was, so we all
said we'd poke our heads outside whenever we heard it.

Took a couple of weeks, but eventually she got to where she would leave her
car and knock on the front door.

I guess having a half dozen strangers on their porches staring at you gets
the message across.

Jon

clipped

I, personally, would like to see the public schools offer, say, an hour's
worth of religious instruction per week. The teaching could be done by
experienced lay people and, when the bell rings, kids would decamp to the
room housing their preferred denomination: Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew,
Buddhist, Undeclared, Whatever. Moreover, kids could rotate between the
groups thereby gaining an understanding of those poor *******s doomed to
Hell.



You left out Scientology, wiccam (sp?), voodoo, etc. I like the idea of
taking children to church/temple/synagog for religious training -
helps the whole family learn and practice their beliefs. Of course,
there is often little of that going on at home, what with a six-pack to
finish off every evening, parents in jail or under the influence of
____. You seriously want to pass on to government the last aspect of
family life not already pawned off to public schools? Really? My
parents learned more by 8th grade than I did by 12th, and it now takes a
B.S. to learn to spell....schools too busy busing, feeding and raising
kids to actually teach.

wrote:
clipped

I, personally, would like to see the public schools offer, say, an
hour's worth of religious instruction per week. The teaching could
be done by experienced lay people and, when the bell rings, kids
would decamp to the room housing their preferred denomination:
Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Undeclared, Whatever.
Moreover, kids could rotate between the groups thereby gaining an
understanding of those poor *******s doomed to Hell.



You left out Scientology, wiccam (sp?), voodoo, etc.

Under "Whatever"

I like the idea
of taking children to church/temple/synagog for religious training -
helps the whole family learn and practice their beliefs. Of course,
there is often little of that going on at home, what with a six-pack
to finish off every evening, parents in jail or under the influence of
____.

Yeah, I had a rabbi tell me that when pop drops off junior at Hebrew school
on the way to the golf course, junior learns pretty quickly what's important
in life.

You seriously want to pass on to government the last aspect of
family life not already pawned off to public schools? Really? My
parents learned more by 8th grade than I did by 12th, and it now
takes a B.S. to learn to spell....schools too busy busing, feeding
and raising kids to actually teach.

That's not the fault of the school concept - put the blame on the
educationists. Just as one grandmother is equivalent to three pediatricians,
one teacher is better than thirty "educators."

A few years ago, I did some research. The following, at that time, were
forbidden, by law, to teach in the public schools of my state (Texas)

* All living Nobel Laureates
* All winners of Pulitzer, Newberry, Caldecott, Edgar, and most other
literary prizes.
* Most members of the federal judiciary
* Most members of Congress
* All members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
* All living ex-presidents and vice-presidents
* Virtually the entire faculty of the University of Texas College of
Medicine

Why? Because they had concentrated their endeavors on wiping out Polio,
leading vast armies in combat, or wrestling with issues of civil rights,
instead of learning advanced blackboard techniques in an accredited college
of education.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
clipped
I, personally, would like to see the public schools offer, say, an
hour's worth of religious instruction per week. The teaching could
be done by experienced lay people and, when the bell rings, kids
would decamp to the room housing their preferred denomination:
Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Undeclared, Whatever.
Moreover, kids could rotate between the groups thereby gaining an
understanding of those poor *******s doomed to Hell.


You left out Scientology, wiccam (sp?), voodoo, etc.

Under "Whatever"

I like the idea
of taking children to church/temple/synagog for religious training -
helps the whole family learn and practice their beliefs. Of course,
there is often little of that going on at home, what with a six-pack
to finish off every evening, parents in jail or under the influence of
____.

Yeah, I had a rabbi tell me that when pop drops off junior at Hebrew school
on the way to the golf course, junior learns pretty quickly what's important
in life.

You didn't notice that I used the word "taking", rather than "sending".....?

You seriously want to pass on to government the last aspect of
family life not already pawned off to public schools? Really? My
parents learned more by 8th grade than I did by 12th, and it now
takes a B.S. to learn to spell....schools too busy busing, feeding
and raising kids to actually teach.

That's not the fault of the school concept - put the blame on the
educationists. Just as one grandmother is equivalent to three pediatricians,
one teacher is better than thirty "educators."

I put the blame on millions of parents who don't do the job of parenting.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Larry Caldwell wrote:

Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. How would you
feel if a judge made you sacrifice a chicken to the Loa before
testifying in court? Or a teacher started each day by having your
children channel the spirits?


But what if your religion mandates proselytizing? Or your religion
mandates imposing your rules on infidels?

If I were a Christian and the government said I couldn't participate
in the Eucharist or (if Catholic) I couldn't go to Confession or join
a Holy Order, I'd be a tad disappointed. If I were a Muslim woman and
the authorities said I had rights, my husband would be upset.

I understand there's a difference between proselytizing on a front
porch and passing out tracts in the schoolroom, but, to the religious
person, the venue is irrelevant.

I, personally, would like to see the public schools offer, say, an
hour's worth of religious instruction per week. The teaching could be
done by experienced lay people and, when the bell rings, kids would
decamp to the room housing their preferred denomination: Baptist,
Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Undeclared, Whatever. Moreover, kids
could rotate between the groups thereby gaining an understanding of
those poor *******s doomed to Hell.




The teaching could be done by
experienced lay people

I'm glad you type decent and the G and L are on opposite sides.

On Jun 12, 11:57*am, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:55:33 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





Larry Caldwell wrote:

Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. *How would you
feel if a judge made you sacrifice a chicken to the Loa before
testifying in court? *Or a teacher started each day by having your
children channel the spirits?

But what if your religion mandates proselytizing? Or your religion mandates
imposing your rules on infidels?

If I were a Christian and the government said I couldn't participate in the
Eucharist or (if Catholic) I couldn't go to Confession or join a Holy Order,
I'd be a tad disappointed. If I were a Muslim woman and the authorities said
I had rights, my husband would be upset.

I understand there's a difference between proselytizing on a front porch and
passing out tracts in the schoolroom, but, to the religious person, the
venue is irrelevant.

I, personally, would like to see the public schools offer, say, an hour's
worth of religious instruction per week. The teaching could be done by
experienced lay people and, when the bell rings, kids would decamp to the
room housing their preferred denomination: Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew,
Buddhist, Undeclared, Whatever. Moreover, kids could rotate between the
groups thereby gaining an understanding of those poor *******s doomed to
Hell.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Everyone has the right to free speech, but it doesn't give someone the
right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. She does have the
right to honk her horn, but excessive honking is disturbing the peace,
which is against the law. Who in the hell owns a rooster in a
neighborhood anyway? She needs to move to the country!

"Nail-In-Thumb" wrote in message
...
On Jun 12, 11:57 am, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:55:33 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





Larry Caldwell wrote:

Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. How would you
feel if a judge made you sacrifice a chicken to the Loa before
testifying in court? Or a teacher started each day by having your
children channel the spirits?

But what if your religion mandates proselytizing? Or your religion
mandates
imposing your rules on infidels?

If I were a Christian and the government said I couldn't participate in
the
Eucharist or (if Catholic) I couldn't go to Confession or join a Holy
Order,
I'd be a tad disappointed. If I were a Muslim woman and the authorities
said
I had rights, my husband would be upset.

I understand there's a difference between proselytizing on a front porch
and
passing out tracts in the schoolroom, but, to the religious person, the
venue is irrelevant.

I, personally, would like to see the public schools offer, say, an
hour's
worth of religious instruction per week. The teaching could be done by
experienced lay people and, when the bell rings, kids would decamp to
the
room housing their preferred denomination: Baptist, Catholic, Muslim,
Jew,
Buddhist, Undeclared, Whatever. Moreover, kids could rotate between the
groups thereby gaining an understanding of those poor *******s doomed to
Hell.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Everyone has the right to free speech, but it doesn't give someone the
right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. She does have the
right to honk her horn, but excessive honking is disturbing the peace,
which is against the law. Who in the hell owns a rooster in a
neighborhood anyway? She needs to move to the country!

A rooster is no worse than some of the damned dogs that are left out all
night and if they are properly penned up, they won't be taken for walks to
crap all over you lawn.

clipped

Everyone has the right to free speech, but it doesn't give someone the
right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. She does have the
right to honk her horn, but excessive honking is disturbing the peace,

In many places, it is allowed only for emergency. Can get a ticket for
improper use.


which is against the law. Who in the hell owns a rooster in a
neighborhood anyway? She needs to move to the country!

"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...

which is against the law. Who in the hell owns a rooster in a
neighborhood anyway? She needs to move to the country!

A rooster is no worse than some of the damned dogs that are left out all
night and if they are properly penned up, they won't be taken for walks to
crap all over you lawn.

I don't know much about a rooster, but if he just makes noise at daybreak
that is one thing. Those dogs bark all night. I used to live next to a
person (out in country but in a development of 1/2 acre lots) that had a big
dog that barked all night and lots of times during the day.

It got so bad that sometimes when the owner was not around, if I wanted to
be in my yard and the dog started barking (the neighbor did have a fence
around his yard) I would go in and get my 44 mag handgun and get next to the
fence and shoot a round or two in the ground. The noise would scare the dog
under their deck for a while and he would quit barking. I have done the
same thing at night when he would bark and I could not sleep.

Atleast our county has a lease law where the dogs have to be under the
owners control if outside their property.
No dog crap in my yard anyway.

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
m:


Atleast our county has a lease law where the dogs have to be under the
owners control if outside their property.
No dog crap in my yard anyway.


No leash law ever stopped any dog owner from allowing their dog to crap in
someone else's yard.

Some folks just don't care where their dog craps,as long as it's not on
their property.(or near -their- apartment)
I've had people allow their dog to crap on the concrete walk around the
mail kiosk,right in front of people's mailboxes.
Of course they don't clean it up,either.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
m:


Atleast our county has a lease law where the dogs have to be under the
owners control if outside their property.
No dog crap in my yard anyway.


No leash law ever stopped any dog owner from allowing their dog to crap in
someone else's yard.

Some folks just don't care where their dog craps,as long as it's not on
their property.(or near -their- apartment)
I've had people allow their dog to crap on the concrete walk around the
mail kiosk,right in front of people's mailboxes.
Of course they don't clean it up,either.



My brother had a problem with a neighbor. There would constantly be dog
poop in their driveway. His driveway was the first convenient stopping
spot for a neighbor and he spotted them there. He mentioned it to the
neighbor who announced it wasn't her dog. He shot a video of the women
and the dog and burned it on a CD. He gave it to the neighbor.
Mysteriously there was never a poop problem again so maybe the neighbor
contacted the dog owner who was responsible...

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
m:


Atleast our county has a lease law where the dogs have to be under the
owners control if outside their property.
No dog crap in my yard anyway.


No leash law ever stopped any dog owner from allowing their dog to crap in
someone else's yard.


No, but that is where the animal control comes in and if no results, the 12
gauge comes out. "I thoght that stray dog had rabies or it attacted me",
That is my story and I am sticking to it.

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:11:14 -0400, "
wrote:

Everyone has the right to free speech, but it doesn't give someone the
right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.


Actually the Supreme court reversed the Oliver Wendall Holmes "fire in
a crowded theater" decision when they upheld the right to wear a "****
the draft" T shirt in the 70s
The original decision SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) compared
"fie in a theater" to protesting the draft..
I guess you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater now.

The SC did not mention in any way Schenck, so it would be hard to
suggest they overturned any of it.

--
"I found what I thought was a REALLY good book,
called _Girl to Grab_. Imagine my surprise when I found
out it was volume 6 of the *Encyclopedia Britanica*!"
-Martin Mull

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Ralph Mowery" wrote in
m:


Atleast our county has a lease law where the dogs have to be under
the owners control if outside their property.
No dog crap in my yard anyway.


No leash law ever stopped any dog owner from allowing their dog to
crap in someone else's yard.


No, but that is where the animal control comes in and if no results,
the 12 gauge comes out. "I thoght that stray dog had rabies or it
attacted me", That is my story and I am sticking to it.




unless animal control actually sees the dog off leash,they will not do
anything.And if you discharge a firearm upon a leashed or unleashed dog,you
will be the one in deep trouble. you can't even point a gun at the dog.
you'll also lose all your gun rights.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
unless animal control actually sees the dog off leash,they will not do
anything.And if you discharge a firearm upon a leashed or unleashed
dog,you
will be the one in deep trouble. you can't even point a gun at the dog.
you'll also lose all your gun rights.

--
Jim Yanik


I did pin about 5 dogs up over the years in my back yard and called animal
control. They picked up the dogs. I don't recall seeing a tag on any of
them.

I understand dogs do get out and if the owner makes an honest effort that is
fine with me. I moved to a new house several years ago. My paper came up
missing about 3 Sundays in a row. Last time I found it all over the
neighbors yard. His dog had gotten loose and had it. Neighbor offered to
pay for it but I told him to forget it. That dog was smarter than the
owner..

Fellow at work had a complaint about his neighbors dog getting into things.
They could not catch the dog out and told the man to shoot that dog if he
wanted to if he was in his yard.