Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1293
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/7/01 3:12:06 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Free and clear means they owned the property free and clear, no mortgages.
The government taxes property each year but that has nothing to do with the
property being "free and clear." If the husband hadn't been ill they could
have taken a loan out on the property but they couldn't get anyone to do
that either. The county wasn't interested in helping, the county was only
interested in getting the property into the hands of a developer in order to
increase the tax base.
The county is currently being investigated and, and I believe one lawsuit
has been filed. I also understand from dil's brother (he lives not far from
there) that nepotism is part of this--someone in government has relatives
that are part of the folks that want to develop all this lake front
property. >>
You still have to pay your taxes or make arrangements. Maybe there is
something fishy going on in the county I don't know. Also small town talk
really does get a lot of incorrect info. maybe your dil's brother is right.
Even details from one person removed from the source changes and then it
rolls. So I am not sure we will ever really know what went on here. Also will
we hear the truth from either side? I doubt it since each side wants to look
good. It is all speculation at this point.
From another post asking about gun handling........Yes I was taught gun
safety and handling. But I have been in some homes where there are guns
everywhere. Propped up against doors and outside and in bedrooms. To me this
is dangerous.
[email protected] writes:
<< Free and clear means they owned the property free and clear, no mortgages.
The government taxes property each year but that has nothing to do with the
property being "free and clear." If the husband hadn't been ill they could
have taken a loan out on the property but they couldn't get anyone to do
that either. The county wasn't interested in helping, the county was only
interested in getting the property into the hands of a developer in order to
increase the tax base.
The county is currently being investigated and, and I believe one lawsuit
has been filed. I also understand from dil's brother (he lives not far from
there) that nepotism is part of this--someone in government has relatives
that are part of the folks that want to develop all this lake front
property. >>
You still have to pay your taxes or make arrangements. Maybe there is
something fishy going on in the county I don't know. Also small town talk
really does get a lot of incorrect info. maybe your dil's brother is right.
Even details from one person removed from the source changes and then it
rolls. So I am not sure we will ever really know what went on here. Also will
we hear the truth from either side? I doubt it since each side wants to look
good. It is all speculation at this point.
From another post asking about gun handling........Yes I was taught gun
safety and handling. But I have been in some homes where there are guns
everywhere. Propped up against doors and outside and in bedrooms. To me this
is dangerous.
[email protected]
Are people and their actions all good or all bad?
I don't understand the drive to defend biting dogs.
Saying that the dogs should have been dealt with if they caused injury
doesn't in my mind carry on out to justifying incarcerating this woman and
separating her from her children.
**And, before the question is asked, yes, the kidlets are
very familiar with the concept and able to employee it even under duress.
No. 3 son used his quite successfully when he was under 3 yo.**
Good for him, good for you. So what? So dangerous dogs should be allowed to
run loose? So anyone who gets bit has only themselves to blame?
Deborah
I don't understand the drive to defend biting dogs.
Saying that the dogs should have been dealt with if they caused injury
doesn't in my mind carry on out to justifying incarcerating this woman and
separating her from her children.
**And, before the question is asked, yes, the kidlets are
very familiar with the concept and able to employee it even under duress.
No. 3 son used his quite successfully when he was under 3 yo.**
Good for him, good for you. So what? So dangerous dogs should be allowed to
run loose? So anyone who gets bit has only themselves to blame?
Deborah
Tami Labig-Duquette
What I got from her (I think it was Lynda) post was the the ammonia was a
good deterrent if you live where there are dogs/packs like that. I didnt
feel she was condoning dogs that attackand or bite, But if you did(live in
this kinda area), you might want to use this. Sometimes one person can say
something and 10 people will hear/get something else that the others didnt
get/hear. So anyway, thats what I got/heard :)
Indiana Tami-Who can easily confuse even herself :)
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
good deterrent if you live where there are dogs/packs like that. I didnt
feel she was condoning dogs that attackand or bite, But if you did(live in
this kinda area), you might want to use this. Sometimes one person can say
something and 10 people will hear/get something else that the others didnt
get/hear. So anyway, thats what I got/heard :)
Indiana Tami-Who can easily confuse even herself :)
>From: DACunefare@..._________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1293
>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:19:42 EDT
>
>Are people and their actions all good or all bad?
>
>I don't understand the drive to defend biting dogs.
>
>Saying that the dogs should have been dealt with if they caused injury
>doesn't in my mind carry on out to justifying incarcerating this woman and
>separating her from her children.
>
>**And, before the question is asked, yes, the kidlets are
>very familiar with the concept and able to employee it even under duress.
>No. 3 son used his quite successfully when he was under 3 yo.**
>
>Good for him, good for you. So what? So dangerous dogs should be allowed to
>run loose? So anyone who gets bit has only themselves to blame?
>
>Deborah
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Lynda
Deborah wrote:
bit" get turned into defending biting dogs?
chased by a dog intent on harming you." Before the creative editing, the
balance of the response that was left out was in response to that question.
This portion was in response to a question might conceivably follow the
post. We know that bicycling can be a dangerous "sport." We know that far
too many people don't have the sense god gave road kill and let their
animals roam at will. Therefore, we have taken what measures we can to help
ensure the safety of the kidlets.
The above response "Good for him, good for you. So what?" is childish!
Nor did anyone say or even vaguely imply that "dangerous" dogs should be
allowed to run loose.
Nor did anyone say or imply that "anyone who gets bit has only themselves to
blame." Although, if one is trespassing, then they do have only themselves
to blame.
Lynda
> Are people and their actions all good or all bad?***No.
>***Hello, how did the leap from "no one even knows if someone was actually
> I don't understand the drive to defend biting dogs.
bit" get turned into defending biting dogs?
>***Well, we agree that.
> Saying that the dogs should have been dealt with if they caused injury
> doesn't in my mind carry on out to justifying incarcerating this woman and
> separating her from her children.
>to
> **And, before the question is asked, yes, the kidlets are
> very familiar with the concept and able to employee it even under duress.
> No. 3 son used his quite successfully when he was under 3 yo.**
>
> Good for him, good for you. So what? So dangerous dogs should be allowed
> run loose? So anyone who gets bit has only themselves to blame?***Another very big leap! The question was asked "have you ever been bit or
chased by a dog intent on harming you." Before the creative editing, the
balance of the response that was left out was in response to that question.
This portion was in response to a question might conceivably follow the
post. We know that bicycling can be a dangerous "sport." We know that far
too many people don't have the sense god gave road kill and let their
animals roam at will. Therefore, we have taken what measures we can to help
ensure the safety of the kidlets.
The above response "Good for him, good for you. So what?" is childish!
Nor did anyone say or even vaguely imply that "dangerous" dogs should be
allowed to run loose.
Nor did anyone say or imply that "anyone who gets bit has only themselves to
blame." Although, if one is trespassing, then they do have only themselves
to blame.
Lynda
Lynda
I was just sharing the method we had come up with to make bicycing a little
safer. We happen to live in an area where quite a few folks who lived in
the city have moved to "to get away from it all" and have brought their
problems with them. I really don't understand the rational that keeping a
dog confined to the owners property is cruel or "we moved to the country so
our animals could be free." hey, I'm all for freedom, just keep them "free"
on your own land.
Lynda
safer. We happen to live in an area where quite a few folks who lived in
the city have moved to "to get away from it all" and have brought their
problems with them. I really don't understand the rational that keeping a
dog confined to the owners property is cruel or "we moved to the country so
our animals could be free." hey, I'm all for freedom, just keep them "free"
on your own land.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tami Labig-Duquette" <labigduquette@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1293
> What I got from her (I think it was Lynda) post was the the ammonia was a
> good deterrent if you live where there are dogs/packs like that. I didnt
> feel she was condoning dogs that attackand or bite, But if you did(live in
> this kinda area), you might want to use this. Sometimes one person can say
> something and 10 people will hear/get something else that the others didnt
> get/hear. So anyway, thats what I got/heard :)
> Indiana Tami-Who can easily confuse even herself :)
>
>
> >From: DACunefare@...
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1293
> >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:19:42 EDT
> >
> >Are people and their actions all good or all bad?
> >
> >I don't understand the drive to defend biting dogs.
> >
> >Saying that the dogs should have been dealt with if they caused injury
> >doesn't in my mind carry on out to justifying incarcerating this woman
and
> >separating her from her children.
> >
> >**And, before the question is asked, yes, the kidlets are
> >very familiar with the concept and able to employee it even under duress.
> >No. 3 son used his quite successfully when he was under 3 yo.**
> >
> >Good for him, good for you. So what? So dangerous dogs should be allowed
to
> >run loose? So anyone who gets bit has only themselves to blame?
> >
> >Deborah
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
<< Nor did anyone say or imply that "anyone who gets bit has only themselves
to
blame." >>
I think someone said "I know better than to run," but it was in reference to
people on bicycles (who do need to keep running, as it were...)
to
blame." >>
I think someone said "I know better than to run," but it was in reference to
people on bicycles (who do need to keep running, as it were...)