I'll restate my point - We pay for kids because they are our future. In a message dated 1/1/2004 4:43:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If childless people weren't being forced to pay > for the education AND recreation of other peoples kids > that suggestion might make some logical sense. > > But as things stand now, it makes no sense on any level. > > And there is a large percentage of people that have > kids and dogs and think teaching their kids that respect > for animals is an important part of growing up. > > WRZ > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [UC] AKC's take on enforcing leash laws in parks > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:39:27 -0500 > > Maybe we can get dog owners who prefer dogs to kids to sign waivers saying > that other peoples kids won't have to tend to their needs in their old age. > > It's only a joke. > > bga > > > In a message dated 12/29/2003 10:10:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > You can't compare their situation with Philadelphias'. > > Philadelphia is spending 100% of their recreation > > budget on the needs of people with children > > and everyone else can go to hell. > > > > WRZ > ---- ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
