|Guns and dogs||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Paul Milne (paulsmholyrood.ed.ac.uk)|
|Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:14:03 -0600|
Without quoting the whole message, Lynn Nadeau's story of the person blocking consensus because the family next door wanted to be co-opted was very instructional - even if all it showed was that sometimes the group process flounders. But, I was concerned about her mention of this dog: >An analogous situation might be dangerous dogs. There is a large dog here >which has twice bitten my young teenager-- not drawing blood but piercing >clothing. She is terrified of the dog and won't go outdoors if the dog is >loose. I would think this a legitimate factor to take into account in >making rules about dogs (certain dogs anyway) being allowed to run loose. >A personal issue, but like the gun, a sort of matter in which the >personal is what it is about. Right? Surely a dog that bites people in the community is no longer just a personal issue. Are you saying that not only has this dog not been expelled (if not put down) but is also allowed to run loose, after having twice bitten someone? As for guns - well, I am an American living in Britain, where handguns have been banned - and guess what? Society seems to be getting along just fine without them. Cheers Paul Milne Cohousing 2000, Edinburgh, Scotland Where we are looking with interest at a site adjacent to the village of Rosewell, and are in consultation with local authorities and a housing association with a view to getting grant money to fund houses for low-income members. This may not be THE site, but it's looking pretty good at the moment.
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.