West Seattle Blog… | Subject: Madison Middle School: Self-appointed law enforcement assistant for dog owners?
I can’t remember who said it, but I wholeheartedly agree, with the original post being fair for the money in its application of the stereotypes that abound about this region. If you have what it takes to break the law (it’s posted on gates and fences), then you have what it takes to accept the consequences. In this case, it’s just someone calling you about it… seems pretty lighthearted to me, but it’s changed that sense of complacency in you.
Just because it doesn’t cause immediate and discernible harm doesn’t mean it’s not always illegal, despite what you might think. This is a concept that young children grasp; it’s against the rules, so you don’t do it. We seem to age beyond this understanding and move on to equivocation and rationalization. It’s ironic, isn’t it, that your wrath may be called out rather than thwarted by those who violate the rules in place to protect the health and well-being of those who use this playground. play and periodically find themselves with a face full of it and hopefully just the field…it is the purpose of these laws to protect the HEALTH and safety of users of a public school playground.
No, there is no dog park specific to those who live in the Admiral’s Neighborhood. There is no specific dog park for anyone, even those on Mercer Island who think Luther Burbank is theirs alone. Anyone can use any dog playpen. I’m sure you know this, but you seem really upset that there isn’t one in your neighborhood, you can use one in another neighborhood. Also, it’s extremely unlikely that there will ever be a dog park in the Admiral’s Quarter, where would you place it? A new one is in the works and it will take years for it to become a reality.
Your second post is riddled with what I’ve noted as a new and aggravating pattern of apparent anger that I’m not responding the way you want. I don’t have to answer your questions, I can say whatever I want, even if you think it’s irrelevant. I can criticize the concepts you put forward and any shitty rhetoric you put forward. Your original post certainly led me and others to assume you got yelled at, given that’s how you started this whole thread and it’s a reasonable thing to conclude. Also in your second sullen post you don’t clarify anything, you just attack other people’s posts except to say you want to compare behind. To conclude, you also decide to go so far as to criticize the writing of others and compare it to that of a 6th grader.
So to wrap up your argument is terrible “I don’t like it and I don’t see who it hurts immediately so the law doesn’t apply” followed by “going to legal dog parks isn’t practice so I can use the school field.” Terrible arguments.I hope you’re not a lawyer.