A single bark absolutely can disturb the neighborhood. Thus your dog can’t bark.

I didn’t say it prohibits it. I said it says keep your dog silent

The sign did both, it said no barking. And excessive barking is prohibited

And yes in the English language

The salaries they list would barely put them over median household income there if they’re the sole earner.

It seems nuts but Fairfax is one of the richest counties in the country. The board of supervisors there getting $130k, that’s comparable to the salary of the governor of Montana. Which may seem odd, but Fairfax is more populous than Montana.

The salaries seem ok in context.

Well everything cost 3X what it did a few years ago and wages are exactly the same(and they were already bad for the last 40 years) so yeah. This is what happens when 100 Billionaires steal the entire wealth of a nation.

Not in the English language, no.

If it were "bark OR disturb the neighborhood," then yes.

But because it's "Do not let your dog bark AND [therefore] disturb the neighborhood," a dog must bark to the point that it disturbs the neighborhood, thus satisfying the conjunction.

A single bark or handful of barks does not constitute a disturbance, therefore the sign does not prohibit it.

What constitutes a disturbance is open to interpretation, but it's pretty obvious that it would be more than just a few barks here and there.

One might even use the word excessive to define it. Like this sign literally did.

Some dogs are assholes and shouldn’t be allowed to disturb other dogs.

Ah so you're definitely around a bunch of real smart, well-adjusted people with everyone's best interest in mind.

“Do not allow your dog to bark and disturb the neighborhood” means keep your dog silent

>It still however says keep your dog silent.

It literally does not.

​

>Ain’t nobody outraged

The entire article is about people who are.

​

>It says do not do x. y will not be tolerated.

x = let your dog bark and disturb the neighborhood (aka, bark excessively)

y = barking excessively

Sounds like a Reno 911 bit.

I don’t believe that no. It still however says keep your dog silent. Ain’t nobody outraged, and your using selective outrage wrong

It says do not do x. y will not be tolerated.

As several people here have already pointed out, and as was mentioned in the article, the permafrost is already melting. This research is being conducted BECAUSE people are concerned about viruses thawing out and becoming infectious again. They're looking to see where the viruses are, what kinds we'd be dealing with, and whether they even would still be viable after so long (as this test determined, the answer is at least sometimes yes, which is good to know!). And the article also specifies it's a virus that only infects amoebas - they specifically chose it because they didn't want to risk reviving anything that could spread to people or animals.

Everyone's so eager to believe scientists don't know what they're doing, I stg. I blame Michael Crichton.

[removed]

And what does the next sentence say?

Let's take the sign in its totality, the way it was meant to be read, and not engage our selective outrage at a single sentence taken out of context. Do you honestly believe that sign is saying owners are in violation if their dog barks a single time?

Imagine how cool masks must be for fugitives and bank robbers.

Nothing wrong with a reminder, especially if it has been an issue in the past.

It does actually. “Do not allow your dog to bark and disturb the neighborhood”

“Kill them now before they are all dead.”

He's persistent.

Eric Adams is so despised by me.

From the article: "As it turned out, Coish only had liability coverage, not collision and comprehensive, so he wasn’t covered for theft and was told he must pay Enterprise Holdings $49,832 for the stolen truck."

Well, yeah, don't use liability insurance on an expensive vehicle. He'd be in the same trouble if he'd caused an accident that totalled his rental.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind rental companies requiring proof of full coverage or forcing their own insurance, but that's just me. It shouldn't be a law or anything.

Yeah really should have put the word “excessive” in the first sentence.

There are at least 3 bars where I live that make adult Capri Suns. The future is now.

I know this comment is in jest, but seriously, if a dog is barking "excessively," as this sign specifically states, that is the owner's responsibility and should be regulated.

No resident should be subjected to excessive noise of any kind. We all love dogs, they're great, but there should be some social cohesion around a dog park to make living there tolerable. An excessively barking dog can be an extremely stressful noise to have to endure all day long.

And something tells me that the residences existed before the dog park. Imagine if an outdoor kennel opened up shop in your backyard one day. That's a living hell.

The sign specifically refers to "excessive" barking and to please be respectful, it does not say anything about keeping your dog silent.

As someone who has had to live next to *excessively* barking dogs, this sign is totally reasonable and I think it's a shame it was taken down.

We used to see people like this in jail all the time. You would be there for like 6 months for weed or something (Ohio back in the day) and you would see the same old rich white guy there every fucking weekend with a new dui. They keep letting him out though