quote:lem, I've never seen a do not proselyte sign, have you? I mean at a store, not necessarily at someone's house. Although I've never seen one at a house, either.
I have seen signs that included no proselytizing. I have seen signs where someone hand wrote (proselyters included).
But I think you haven't seen it because most people do not get so many missionaries that they are fed up and need a sign. Small Market.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Soliciting signs probably are intended to mean all types; my point is that there is enough ambiguity that I think it is inaccurate to pin missionaries as ignorant and rude if they don't obey them.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And my point is that it's kind of disingenuous to say "'Do not proselyte' signs are different" and (if they bother you) "then get a more precise sign" like such signs are something you can just pick up at the hardware store like you can a No Soliciting sign. As far as I can tell, they don't exist as a mass produced item. (I googled looking for one.)
And I don't think anyone said missionaries were ignorant and rude if they don't obey them. People have said they are arrogant and rude, as in it's reasonable to assume this person doesn't want to be bothered and the missionary thinks they know better, because their message is so important the need to offer it overrides the homeowner's stated desire not to be bothered. ? even said that part of the reason s/he thinks it's okay to be a little rude because when s/he dies they don't want to be told they didn't do their duty because of a sign. So, it's not about saving me, it's about making sure you don't get in trouble with God? I'd hate to have a little thing like my expressed preference not to be bothered get you a demerit in heaven.
Yes, I know that's not what ? meant. . . I just wish all the people asking that the rest of us try to see it from the missionaries point of view would take a moment to try to see it from the non-LDS's point of view. Most of us aren't saying we're rude to missionaries. In fact, most of us have said that we go out of our way to be polite, unless the person becomes pushy and we can't politely get them to leave us alone. Yet several people have said things like wouldn't it be easier to just politely say no instead of yelling and slamming the door. I realize that every missionary has probably encountered people who do that, but I feel like some former missionaries are assigning characteristics of the worst experiences they had to those of us who are just saying we don't like being bothered at home.
Honestly, it's not a big deal for me. I suffer a bit of social anxiety combined with not the best neighborhood in the world, I can deal with being worried every time the doorbell rings. What really bugs me, though, is that there are people who have legitimate reasons to not want the doorbell to ring during the day except for in case of emergency, such as people who work nights and are asleep during the day. (My former fiance was one of those people.)
There should be one, easy, clear sign that people can put up that says they don't want to be disturbed. They shouldn't have to write out a detailed, specific sign in order to not be bothered. (For instance, I would never post a sign saying I worked nights, so please don't ring the doorbell as I am probably asleep. That's just announcing that I'm gone at night and that would be an excellent time to come break into my house.)
I was under the impression that 'No Solicitors" was that one sign. You admit that it is probably intended to be. The people who are arguing that it doesn't apply to missionaries seem to me to be trying to get off on a technicality -- yeah, I realize this person probably doesn't want to talk to me, but it doesn't specifically say that they don't want to talk to me, so it's okay if I knock anyway! It just seems pretty weak to me.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, ElJay, I would consider a "Do Not Disturb" sign to be more appropriate for your needs. I personally feel it to be much more inappropriate to bother someone with a "Do Not Disturb" sign than a "No Solicitors" sign, in great part do to the language used on the sign. It's much more precise and clear as to the intent of the person posting the sign.
And, since I'm pretty sure that the "legal" definition of Solicitor doesn't include Proselyting Missionaries, I don't understand why it's such a stretch to believe that there are those that don't consider that it applies.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've also never seen a Do Not Disturb sign sold for home use, only at hotels to tell housekeeping you're not ready to have your room made up. Do you recall seeing any when you were on your mission? That weren't handmade? A google search only finds door hanger style Do Not Disturb signs, either sold in bulk for hotel use or "naughty" versions meant as pranks. I agree that it would be more clear. But I think the majority of people who don't want to be bothered are not going to have a sign custom made, they're going to go down to the hardware store and buy what's available. It's not fair to say "they should have gotten X instead" when X isn't available.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
We were being treated as quasi-celebrities, invited to join several parties, tour a private former palace, having cocktails at a private residence in Altenberg Castle, going to Sunday brunch, join locals at a street festival and a Pub crawl with a gang of new Go Away Mat friends.
We were offered champagne just walking down the street, and generally having a ball! "Aah! Zee Go Away Mat!!
posted
I have been up early doing some work things and still brooding on this thread in the back of my mind. Thanks, ElJay, for typing out the long post and putting your thoughts together so clearly.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sixth one Rivka linked to should certainly work on Mormon missionaries: "GO AWAY! (come back with wine)" Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would you respond to a "no tresspassing" sign?
A some places, at least, "no trespassing signs" specifically do not refer to missionaries walking up the front walk and ringing the bell if there are no gates of fences crossed in doing so. (Laws differ - do NOT rely on this for any specific acts.)
Trespass involves entry without either permission or legal right to enter. Permission can be implied or explicit. If one says "no trespassing," one is not generally making a comment about who has legal right or implied permission (some states will interpret them that way).
No trespassing signs deny permission to all in situations where entry is not common. However, front doors and the route to them, if not fenced, are generally considered open to people wanting to talk to someone in the house.
A "No Solicitors" sign is much more specific in denying permission. Since we know some people don't interpret that to include missionaries, a "No Missionaries" sign would be better.
quote:I was under the impression that 'No Solicitors" was that one sign.
Again, I think "No Solicitors" signs do include missionaries. However, knowing that many people do not, it behooves one to communicate more clearly if the message is important.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I there's a difference between trying to get off on a technicality and honestly believing that it doesn't apply to you. If I put up a "No Solicitors" sign, it would mean "For crying out loud, I'm not going to give you any money." Until this thread, that's what I thought it meant. I don't think it's fair to co-opt the meaning of that sign and say it actually means "Go Away, Everyone Whom I Don't Know." and then blame people for not understanding that's what you want it to mean.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would you respond to a "no tresspassing" sign?
A some places, at least, "no trespassing signs" specifically do not refer to missionaries walking up the front walk and ringing the bell if there are no gates of fences crossed in doing so. (Laws differ - do NOT rely on this for any specific acts.)
Trespass involves entry without either permission or legal right to enter. Permission can be implied or explicit. If one says "no trespassing," one is not generally making a comment about who has legal right or implied permission (some states will interpret them that way).
No trespassing signs deny permission to all in situations where entry is not common. However, front doors and the route to them, if not fenced, are generally considered open to people wanting to talk to someone in the house.
A "No Solicitors" sign is much more specific in denying permission. Since we know some people don't interpret that to include missionaries, a "No Missionaries" sign would be better.
quote:I was under the impression that 'No Solicitors" was that one sign.
Again, I think "No Solicitors" signs do include missionaries. However, knowing that many people do not, it behooves one to communicate more clearly if the message is important.
I meant more for the missionaries, but it's also good to know in a legal sense. So thanks!
My building has a big fence around it. While our gate is pretty much always open, there's still a fence.
I've never had trouble here. We never had ANY trouble at our old building because our gates were always locked, and you couldn't get in without a key or a passcode. And we had a security guard. So, good to know they should stay away at my new place as well, if I'm interpreting you correctly.
posted
Saying you don't know what it means is fair, although it seems to me that ignorance of the plain meaning isn't much of an excuse, and it behooves those who are coming across such signs to actually find out what they mean, and not assume.
To claim that expecting people to actually use the common dictionary definition is "co-opting the word" is kind of ridiculous, though.
And Dags, I can't find any "No missionaries" signs either. Besides, based both on this thread and previous experience, I get the feeling some would consider that a challenge. A bit like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't ignorance of the plain meaning. That isn't the plain meaning. Apparently we disagree on what the plain meaning is, but you saying it is the plain meaning does not make it so.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I think "No Solicitors" signs do include missionaries. However, knowing that many people do not, it behooves one to communicate more clearly if the message is important.
Not disagreeing with you in the slightest, Dag.
--
kat -
quote:I there's a difference between trying to get off on a technicality and honestly believing that it doesn't apply to you.
I agree that there's a difference. What I said was that the people arguing on this thread that it didn't apply mostly seem to be arguing the technicality side. They've said things like yeah it probably is meant to apply to me, but since I can't be sure I'd go there anyway. I'm not trying to talk to the people who honestly don't believe it applies. But the the ones who think it probably applies but they're going to try anyway because it doesn't specifically say no missionaries? I think that's pretty lame.
quote: If I put up a "No Solicitors" sign, it would mean "For crying out loud, I'm not going to give you any money." Until this thread, that's what I thought it meant.
And until this thread, I had no idea that some people would consider it not to include missionaries. We both learned something. I take that as a positive.
quote:I don't think it's fair to co-opt the meaning of that sign and say it actually means "Go Away, Everyone Whom I Don't Know." and then blame people for not understanding that's what you want it to mean.
And that's not what I'm trying to do. My last two posts have been directed specifically at people who said "if that's what you meant, you should have gotten sign X instead" like it was a "no duh" moment, when sign X is something that is not commonly available.
To reiterate, I have no problem with people saying they don't think No Solicitors applies to missionaries. I've agreed that the wording isn't clear. If it was important to me, I would have a sign custom made that was more explicit.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH: If I saw a "No Trespassing" sign, I'd stick on the path to the door - no veering off onto the lawn... I'd do that normally, ie. I wouldn't trespass, with or without a sign. However, I don't believe it is trespassing to open a gate on the designated path to the front door of a home. Not unless the gate was locked.
rivka: I would think the Go Away mat were a novelty, not a sign for visitors.
ElJay: I don't know if there are Do Not Disturb signs for home use, or how common they may be. I don't know if I ever came across one. I was a missionary many years ago in a foreign country, and abhorred proselyting.
I believe a missionary should rely on the spirit when determining if they should intrude upon a home or not. I believe they should consider any type of sign that is visible when they make that decision. I believe they should not be held as uncouth, ill-mannered, or unethical to proceed regardless of whether the sign is present. Some missionaries are uncouth, ill-mannered, and behave in unethical ways. Shame on them. However, for those that feel inspired that there is someone in that "no soliciting" house that just might be uplifted by their visit, I feel ashamed that so many hatrackers seem to feel that this is just so wrong.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gnixing: However, for those that feel inspired that there is someone in that "no soliciting" house that just might be uplifted by their visit, I feel ashamed that so many hatrackers seem to feel that this is just so wrong.
I think part of it is the implication that the missionary knows better what the person in the house needs and wants than they do.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't think gnixing is claiming that it is the missionary's judgement the missionary would be following.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that if we grant that the missionary is following God's judgement, the missionary's work is, well, already done. Let us safely assume for the purposes of argument, then, that these missionaries have never been touched by God, on the grounds that if ONE group of missionaries have been, all the other ones certainly have not, leaving us with actual Godly experiences as a rounding error -- and on the grounds, as well, that you can theoretically justify anything if you're willing to grant that it's being done by God's command.
quote:However, I don't believe it is trespassing to open a gate on the designated path to the front door of a home.
Unless God descends from on high to correct the American legal system, though, following this particular "inspiration" could get you in trouble.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that if we grant that the missionary is following God's judgement, the missionary's work is, well, already done.
What? That doesn't make sense. Why would the missionary's work be done? Being inspired to help someone doesn't mean that actually helping the person is unnecesary.
For the last part, you're cherry-picking.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am still trying to understand where individuals draw the line, and where they do not. I wanted to ask for how one would think about prosetylizing in the following situations, but I don't want it to seem a setup. Really, I do want to understand the "why" much more than the "whether," and I'll read answers as sincere and well-intentioned.
And I know that these encounters are (for many, if not all) subject to "promptings of the spirit" or God. I'm more curious about what you would do and why if you did not feel a strong prompting either way.
If you are or have been a missionary, would you generally approach people to witness to them in these circumstances (and why or why not)?
1. You are sitting on a commuter public bus, and it is rush hour (the time when most people are getting off of work). There is a guy in a suit who looks rather beat, sitting slumped over against the wall of the bus, snoring softly. Do you go wake him [if there is nobody else available to witness to]?
2. A man who appears to be a meditating Buddhist monk (shaved head, saffron robe, in lotus position, eyes closed) is across the small park from you as you are on your walk, sitting tucked away in a quiet corner. In the five minutes it takes you to get over to him, he hasn't moved a muscle or opened his eyes. Do you go up to him and initiate a conversation for witnessing?
3. You are at an airport or bus station, and a woman who appears to be a young mother seems to be having trouble breast-feeding. She is doing it under a baby-blanket, so no skin is exposed, but you can hear the baby fussing as she continues to move him around under the blanket. Do you go over during this period of time and bear your testimony to her?
I know these are kind of specific situtations, but they are the sorts of situations I can be pretty sure I would feel a distinct obligation not to interrupt someone. However, I can appreciate that for a missionary who feels called by God to witness, these situations may not bring with them the same associated assumptions they bring to me.
How does this work? What do you think about to decide what to do? [How does that thought process go, or is it maybe necessary to avoid thinking about it and just do it, for the sake of the message and somebody's eternal soul?]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Tom - I don't understand your remarks either.
I may not believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired by God - but that doesn't mean that they don't believe that they can receive inspiration. If they feel inspired by God, I believe that they are deferring to God's judgement and not their own.
As for your opinion of the American legal system... I may not be a lawyer, but I believe that what I said is correct according to our legal system. If you know that it is not - please show me evidence. I won't argue about the law.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've street-contacted, and generally we talked to people who looked approachable and/or receptive. If someone was sleeping, no unless I was told to. If someone was, say, crying, I probably would approach, but to make sure they were okay and if there anything I could do. If someone is trying to corral or deal with children, probably not. If everything was peaceful with the kid(s), maybe. Probably.
For the last, if the mother was struggling, almost certainly not. If the mother was breast-feeding and everything seemed fine and she was looking around her, then yeah, I probably would.
I was never in that situation, though. I served in the Midwest - mothers don't breastfeed in public there. *suppresses desire to post razzing smiley in fear of it being misunderstood*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
1) No. I would never purposely disturb someone that is obviously sleeping.
2) I would probably leave the Monk alone. However, I may also be very interested in his behavior - as I have never conversed with a Monk. I may in that situation sit down and wait until he has finished.
3) No. I would never feel comfortable chatting with a woman who is breastfeeding a child - religious or otherwise. Aside from my own wife.
Now - my answers would hopefully be different if I did feel the spirit prompting me, and I would never criticise someone for following those promptings if they felt them. But then, I personally would probably ignore those particular promptings and be ashamed of myself for doing so.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina [and Scott and gnixing!], thanks for the quick reply. I really appreciate your willingness to take me on good faith! (Every time I reread that post, it comes off in my head as a "What about then? Huh? Huh? Well what if the train exploded and a toilet landed on your head? Huh? What would you do then? Gotcha there, didn't I?" kind of thing, although that's as far as possible from what I intend.)
What I'm really most interested in is the "why" not the "whether," though (although the latter is interesting in its own right, too -- just that my cognitive dissonance is with the former, and we all know it's all about me ).
Why wouldn't you have born your testimony to those people at those times, especially if that might have been the only contact you (or another person of the LDS faith) would have had with them? Why wouldn't the message of eternal salvation have trumped the temporal earthly concerns?
(I know these are hard questions. I'm grateful for any insight anyone can give me here.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What? That doesn't make sense. Why would the missionary's work be done? Being inspired to help someone doesn't mean that actually helping the person is unnecesary.
Specifically, if we grant that the missionary is inspired by God, it is unnecessary to send missionaries to us.
quote:If they feel inspired by God, I believe that they are deferring to God's judgement and not their own.
How far would you take this logic?
quote:I may not be a lawyer, but I believe that what I said is correct according to our legal system. If you know that it is not - please show me evidence. I won't argue about the law.
While walkways are normally considered "open," there's quite a lot of law out there that says that a closed entry in conjunction with a posted sign denying entry (or other posted access restriction) creates the expectation of privacy. That said, I found at least one ruling that said a mail carrier had every legal right to walk up to a house to deliver mail despite these precautions, but that same ruling indicated that a regular citizen would not have this "right." Opening the gate and entering in violation of the sign would, at the very least, seem to create considerable potential for problems.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Because you specifically asked that we respond to a situation where we did not feel a strong prompting. I feel that unless a missionary is in tune with the spirit - most of the time they are out of line, and sharing their testimony would be inappropriate.
If this were a discussion about whether or not these actions were okay for someone who does not feel the spirit guiding them - I would probably be on the other side of the fence.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of my difficulty in making sense of how this works is that when I was religious, my religious culture was not one that had emphasis on bearing testimony. And now that I am not religious, I don't have a deeply compelling reason to engage others in that way.
I also have a very literal mindset, a'la Porter. For example, when my husband -- the genteel, reserved, quite proper and discreet Canadian -- asked if he could come in the bathroom while I was in there, I looked at the door, saw it was unlocked, and said, "Yes, you can come in." It wasn't until the door was already open before I had time to finish " ... but I'd rather you didn't just yet." It was a scar to his psyche that has yet to heal.
I think if I were told or otherwise came to believe that I was responsible in the way your missionaries seem to be, I wouldn't be able to differentiate when and where to stop. This seems to make it extremely difficult for understanding how that system works in practice. I think my mindset would be "eternal salvation --> must talk to everybody," so when someone calls on the former but not the latter in a discussion, my head starts spinning.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm generally against eating the brains of the living, too, except when someone feels the spirit of God telling them to do it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm generally against eating the brains of the living, too, except when someone feels the spirit of God telling them to do it.
quote:Originally posted by gnixing: Why? Because you specifically asked that we respond to a situation where we did not feel a strong prompting. I feel that unless a missionary is in tune with the spirit - most of the time they are out of line, and sharing their testimony would be inappropriate.
If this were a discussion about whether or not these actions were okay for someone who does not feel the spirit guiding them - I would probably be on the other side of the fence.
So ... (and I'm trying to understand, not trap you) .. if I understand you clearly, then you are saying that you only witnessed to people for whom you had a strong prompting? That when you went door-to-door, you felt a specific call for each particular door? There weren't any times when you felt rather tired and out of sorts, but you decided you needed to be out there doing the missionary work anyway, even if your heart wasn't in it that day? It was a sort of constant "burning in the breast" for you, across the (2?) years of missionary work? (This is foreign to me, but if you say this is true for you, I will certainly take it on faith.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why wouldn't you have born your testimony to those people at those times, especially if that might have been the only contact you (or another person of the LDS faith) would have had with them? Why wouldn't the message of eternal salvation have trumped the temporal earthly concerns?
It's not polite. Being impolite shows a lack of respect for the person, which I wouldn't want to do either as a person or as a missionary.
It also generally wouldn't work. When someone is in the middle of something that is clearly an immediate need and taking all of their attention, it most likely would not be a good time for them to talk.
quote:Specifically, if we grant that the missionary is inspired by God, it is unnecessary to send missionaries to us.
That's not true. That's assigning only one purpose to a missionary or spiritual experiences in general. There are lots of other reasons the Lord might inspire a missionary to talk to someone.
You can take anything to the point of ridiculousness. Because something can be stretched or taken to the point of ridiculousness does not mean it is ridiculous in all instances.
posted
Tom: That's why people need Beware Dog signs.
Anyone who opens an unlocked gate with such a sign is just asking for trouble.
Regarding your question about deferring to inspiration felt from God, how far would I take that logic? I would allow it to go as far as the law is respected and nobody is in danger. That said - there is precedence in scripture where inspiration led to a man being separated from his head. Where to draw the line? I don't know. I try to personally stay as far from the line as possible without completely discarding what I believe to be inspiration from God.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's not polite. Being impolite shows both a lack of respect for the person, which I wouldn't want to do either as a person or as a missionary.
It also generally wouldn't work. When someone is in the middle of something that is clearly an immediate need and taking all of their attention, it most likely would not be a good time for them to talk.
kat, I have to go work on my day job, but I'll mull and come back. Thanks.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: I wish I could say I was a perfect missionary. I wasn't. There were times when I probably was out of line.
But I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell me so, except myself.
edit: Just to add - I don't believe I ever broke any laws on my mission. If I had done so - then I would be comfortable with someone telling me I was out of line.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I would welcome missionaries into my home. If it's a bad time, I can just ask them politely to come back later. Most missionaries I've ever known or talked to would listen tot hat kind of request.
I've always liked listening to other people's religious views. Listening never hurt anyone. As long as they're polite about their approach, they're welcome to talk to me. Now, if someone were telling me continuously I was going to burn in hell, or that my children or my family were the worst of the sinners, then I might ask them to leave. It's their job to talk to people, so as long as they're polite about it, I'll let them do their job. Mutual respect, eh?
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gnixing: [QB] Tom: That's why people need Beware Dog signs.
Anyone who opens an unlocked gate with such a sign is just asking for trouble.
Not that I want to keep shifting this conversation to Taiwan but SORRY!
In Taiwan they use dogs as de facto door bells. I AM SERIOUS. They will buy a dog, put it in a 5 by 4 cage (sometimes smaller if the dog is smaller and just leave it there. They feed it and give it water, but thats about it. After awhile the dogs go literally insane but still retain a fear and respect for their masters. They hate anything else that moves.
I came from an upbringing where strange dogs are friendly and are no danger. I saw a black lab on a scooter and go excited because I used to have one growing up, I waltzed up and tried to pet it, and SNAP he bit me. It hurt a bit, but it was definately more of a warning bite then a savage attack.
It was then I learned to let dogs smell me before petting them, but I still retain a bit of uneasiness towards to the friendliest of dogs to this day. Some of the dogs in Taiwan will smell your hand and THEN snap at you. If they are in a cage just dont' even try, they want nothing more then to bite you hand off.
The moment you come into view they start barking very loudly at you thus alerting the house tenants that they have visitors.
Dogs in Taiwan are the meanest dogs I have ever seen, bar none.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you have a mistaken view of the American legal system in this regard.
It depends on what you consider "reasonable force." I've already found a few things that indicate that you don't need to speak to someone to expel them from your property once they've ignored both physical barriers and posted signs. You can't set up traps for them, but you can force them off your lot manually in any "reasonable" way after that.
Specifically, everything I've found says that a closed gate extends curtilage and creates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Has this since been reversed?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: In Taiwan they use dogs as de facto door bells. I AM SERIOUS. They will buy a dog, put it in a 5 by 4 cage (sometimes smaller if the dog is smaller and just leave it there. They feed it and give it water, but thats about it. After awhile the dogs go literally insane but still retain a fear and respect for their masters. They hate anything else that moves.
That seems pretty horrible to me.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
gnixing, I do mean this in the nicest possible way, but if you are ever in the slighest doubt as to whether you should approach my door, don't. Please.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
