Prime example of why I hate other parents...

Chookie wrote:
In article . com,
"L." wrote:

Maybe you think it's unreasonable but the fact is, by law, a dog that
bites a human is labeled as a biter.

One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have
encountered it.

shrug we have different laws.

Who is "we"?

This may come as a shock to you, L, but not everyone on Usenet is an American.

Well no ****, Sherlock. I'm not going to dig through some asshole's
header to find out what the **** they are talking about. *The cases
being discussed are in the U.S.* If she wants to bring up local law,
she needs to be more specific.

If you want to keep talking about The Law, you had better specify the
jurisdiction.

Jackass, I repeat myself, the cases we are discussing *happened in the
U.S.*

-L.

"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Chookie wrote:
In article . com,
"L." wrote:

Maybe you think it's unreasonable but the fact is, by law, a dog that
bites a human is labeled as a biter.

One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have
encountered it.

shrug we have different laws.

Who is "we"?

This may come as a shock to you, L, but not everyone on Usenet is an
American.

Well no ****, Sherlock. I'm not going to dig through some asshole's
header to find out what the **** they are talking about.

you wouldn't have to, since i'm not an "asshole". all you'd have to do is
look.

*The cases
being discussed are in the U.S.* If she wants to bring up local law,
she needs to be more specific.

so would you, as some of these laws which have been brought up in this
thread are state laws. pfft!

If you want to keep talking about The Law, you had better specify the
jurisdiction.

Jackass, I repeat myself,

do you think so?

the cases we are discussing *happened in the
U.S.*

"we" aren't talking about "those cases" any more - those cases being
examples that have led to thread drift. we are speaking more generally. like
chookie said, if you want to invoke your local/state/federal law in support
of or reference to somehting you've said, as you apparently have, specify
what it is, or else speak generally or allow for others to also speak
(unspecifically) locally (therefore generally) without blowing a gasket.
general speech is the assumption unless one is specific.

have you ever tried attaching turbines to the steam coming out of your ears?
you could power up the mobile phones of camp-destined children all over the
country.
kylie

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:33:20 GMT, "0tterbot" wrote:

have you ever tried attaching turbines to the steam coming out of your ears?
you could power up the mobile phones of camp-destined children all over the
country.
kylie

LOL, I love your humor ;-)

Nan

In article , Nan says...

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:33:20 GMT, "0tterbot" wrote:

have you ever tried attaching turbines to the steam coming out of your ears?
you could power up the mobile phones of camp-destined children all over the
country.
kylie

LOL, I love your humor ;-)


That was a good one

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Chookie wrote:
In article . com,
"L." wrote:

Maybe you think it's unreasonable but the fact is, by law, a dog that
bites a human is labeled as a biter.

One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have
encountered it.

shrug we have different laws.

Who is "we"?

This may come as a shock to you, L, but not everyone on Usenet is an
American.

Well no ****, Sherlock. I'm not going to dig through some asshole's
header to find out what the **** they are talking about.

you wouldn't have to, since i'm not an "asshole". all you'd have to do is
look.

*The cases
being discussed are in the U.S.* If she wants to bring up local law,
she needs to be more specific.

so would you, as some of these laws which have been brought up in this
thread are state laws. pfft!

Not only that ... some of the "laws" that L states are not laws at all.
Just litle things that she makes up in her head.



If you want to keep talking about The Law, you had better specify the
jurisdiction.

Jackass, I repeat myself,

do you think so?

the cases we are discussing *happened in the
U.S.*

"we" aren't talking about "those cases" any more - those cases being
examples that have led to thread drift. we are speaking more generally.
like chookie said, if you want to invoke your local/state/federal law in
support of or reference to somehting you've said, as you apparently have,
specify what it is, or else speak generally or allow for others to also
speak (unspecifically) locally (therefore generally) without blowing a
gasket. general speech is the assumption unless one is specific.

have you ever tried attaching turbines to the steam coming out of your
ears? you could power up the mobile phones of camp-destined children all
over the country.
kylie

In article .com,
"L." wrote:

shrug we have different laws.

Who is "we"?

This may come as a shock to you, L, but not everyone on Usenet is an
American.

Well no ****, Sherlock. I'm not going to dig through some asshole's
header to find out what the **** they are talking about. *The cases
being discussed are in the U.S.*

Ah, no they weren't. You assumed Otterbot was a USian, because you were
reading lazily. Perhaps you shuld have specified that you only hate
*American* parents.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

"Chookie" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"L." wrote:

shrug we have different laws.

Who is "we"?

This may come as a shock to you, L, but not everyone on Usenet is an
American.

Well no ****, Sherlock. I'm not going to dig through some asshole's
header to find out what the **** they are talking about. *The cases
being discussed are in the U.S.*

Ah, no they weren't. You assumed Otterbot was a USian, because you were
reading lazily. Perhaps you shuld have specified that you only hate
*American* parents.

no no, "jackass", that couldn't be true! clearly the rest of world parental
citizenry is none too popular with lyn either.
love,
"asshole"
g