questions and answers

neighbor's dog out on its own without a leash on august 13, from 4:57 p.m. to 5:26 p.m.

dog owners' questions/statements*

*bakit, nakagat ka ba?
- did the dog bite you?

the law does not require someone to be bitten before unleashed dogs become an offense.

= = = = =

*bakit, na-allergy ka ba?
- did you contract an allergy?

the law does not require someone to contract an allergy before unleashed dogs become an offense.

= = = = =

*(aug) 13 (video) 'yan.  ang hinahanap namin (aug) 14.
- that video's (aug) 13.  we're looking for (aug) 14.

their dog out without a leash (and peeing) on august 13 is an offense in itself.

background:
august 13 i saw in the security cam that the neighbor's dog was in our property then it moved to the neighbor's fence right beside our entrance and peed at 5:25 p.m.

when i went to my mom's house morning of august 14, i told her to tell the neighbor to splash water where the dog peed, the one near the doormats.  i said have them splash water on the doormats, too.  (their dog roams and even lingers in that area.)

the neighbor's dogs also pee in other parts of our property, as in, within our property line, so i specified doormat for this instance.

the neighbor says what my mom messaged them was that the dog peed this morning (aug 14) so splash water on the doormats.  something got lost in the transmission 🤭

in reply, the neighbor asked for a video. 👏  

i'm the one who has the clips so i showed the neighbor.  i was referring to august 13 when i told my mom so that's what i showed them.

they want the 14th.

uhm, pet owner, your dog should not be out without a leash regardless of date.  the august 13 incident does not cease to be an offense just because it is not august 14.

= = = = =

*hindi naman sa doormat ninyo umihi, kina <neighbor>.
- it didn't pee on your doormat, (it peed) on <neighbor>'s.

just being on our doormat is offense enough.  the dog does not have to do anything else.

= = = = =

*sina <neighbor 1> nga may mga bata, nagpupunta din du'n 'yung aso, mas lalong dapat siyang mag-reklamo pero hindi nag-re-reklamo.

dogs out without a leash do not cease to be an offense just because only <neighbor1> and not <neighbor2> complains.

= = = = =

bonus round:

me to the neighbor (on other dates) :

bakit mo in-offer 'yung credit card ko sa iba, tatlong beses, kahit sinabihan ka nang huwag mo gagawin?
- why did you offer my credit card for use by others, three times, even if you've been told not to do so?

her 'answers.'
1.  wala kaming utang sa 'yo.
- we don't owe you money.

me:
i'm not asking whether you owe me money.  i'm asking why you offered my credit card for use by others, three times (!), even if i've told you not to do so.
(two of the people she offered it to, i don't even know.)

if it happened just once, i could consider it a lapse and maybe let it pass.  but three times?  that is not a lapse anymore, more so after having been told not to do it.

let's be lenient and say you did it the first time because i did not tell you not to.

but c'mon, why would it enter my mind to tell anyone not to offer my credit card for use by others?

if, by some stroke of genius, the thought did cross my mind and i suddenly told someone not to offer my credit card for use by others, how do you think that person would react?

i'm thinking he'd blurt out, "why would i do that?!"

a normal reaction.

learn.

2.  ang tagal na nu'n.
- it's been so long.

me:
it wasn't long the first time i asked.

as long as you don't address the question, it will continue being asked.