tommyc_37 wrote:

Just to be clear ... your view is that no man should sit as long as any healthy, able women do not have a seat? Or are you referring to pregnant/elderly/disabled women only?

jcdd wrote:
Was recently on the train from WTC to grove. I saw an obviously pregnant woman (we are talking belly out to HERE) that was left to stand during the ride. Not one person offered her a seat. Saw plenty of 20somethings sitting in their seats playing video games on their cell phones though, as well as business men and women sitting around completely oblivious. I would have offered a seat but I was standing too.

I feel like we have lost a lot of common decency and manners in this City area. People complain that city dwellers are rude and inconsiderate and sometimes we sure do live up to our reputation.

Wow, just wow. People are now sympathetic to Ms. Kolb. Take a look at the photo of the baby that was hurt by the dogs: http://photos.nj.com/jersey-journal/2011/07/susan_kolb_85.html There was another photo of another victim's, Jonathan Rodriguez, arms and legs, that were torn pretty bad by the dogs. I know, I saw the picture. I wish I could post that picture but it is in the www.nj.com archives. That would certainly be all the proof you need to show that these dogs are vicious and should have been put down. It is also undisputed that all of the victims went to the hospital. Furthermore, even if these attacks were exxagerated, this woman was ordered to send the dogs out of state before. She violated the court order and didn't send the dogs away! She didn't pay the fines either. She thumbed her nose at the court, and still got away with it, with almost no punishment. How can the court possibly justify giving the dogs back to her, when she didn't do what she was ordered to do before? Where is justice? If those ridiculous Occupy Wall Street people want to make themselves useful, they should be protesting this. My hearts go out to all of the victims and their families. I wonder how they are feeling right now. If I was one of them I probably would have been arrested for storming the court house right now.

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
After perusing this thread back to the beginning I am really starting to doubt that these dogs crimes were as horrible as originally claimed. Some posters materialized and then were quickly gone after making outrageous claims. I just question whether they were just angling for a lawsuit or if these "attacks" were as bad as claimed. These dogs are huge and this woman is obviously over-matched but I really believe that if these dogs wanted you dead you'd be dead. If these dogs were really as vicious as claimed would the legal system really kick this problem down the road for another municipality to deal with? The more I read the accounts the more I see people just being knocked over and injured by their falls etc. Not that those things should be acceptable but the whole case seems less and less sinister. I have been jumped on and slightly injured by boisterous dogs but I would hardly consider it an attack. Honestly, I hope I am not wrong since these dogs are back and living amongst us.

Tell that to the three different people (including a baby) who the dogs mauled. Take a look at the pictures of their injuries they submitted to the court - you can find them at the various stories on www.nj.com. The peoples' arms and legs look just awful and badly chewed up. I wouldn't feel safe with those dogs around with their extremely irresponsible owner, and now that they are back in the hands of the owner, I don't feel safe unless there is absolute proof that they aren't in Jersey City and will never be back in Jersey City. Whoever this woman is, she has no business owning ANY dog. As far as lawsuits go, this woman, while somewhat comfortable didn't have deep pockets and a lot of assets to go after and the victims surely knew that. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't be after money either - a satisfactory settlement would be that the dogs get put down AND the woman never allowed to own a dog again (granted the latter item would be difficult to enforce). I don't know who to be more outraged at - Ms. Kolb or the judge that allowed her to have the dogs back. She did have a very good, Harvard educated lawyer representing her, so I guess that's why she was able to get off relatively easy and have the dogs back.

aoao wrote:

Have you guys ever taken the path train? I've seen Indian FOBs literally outrun pregnant women and the elderly to grab a seat.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

downright wrote:
That building is a disgusting dilapidated mess. Why in the world would it be considered a landmark?

Got me. I used to live a few doors from that place, and both old-timers and new transplants have complained about its various issues for years. A former neighbor once asked Dan Wrieden if that place would ever be torn down, and Dan got all outraged at the suggestion and pointed to the upstairs window and roofline, prattling some gibberish about "classic Victorian architecture." My neighbor had a hard time keeping a neutral expression during that pedantic diatribe.

hamiltonpkmom wrote:
"Can't even tell you the difference in class in the clientele in NYC than that in Jersey. So don't worry, it's just a matter of time before we close the jersey store. " Nicely put by the owner of the Taqueria.

As a parent myself, I agree, no one should stoop to calling someone's kid by names. But I think the response by the owner, and his padding back his words, is more deplorable.

Please keep your words and do close the Jersey Store. Residents of Jersey, your lower class clientele, we have to be an absolute idiots to spend our money on an establishment where the owner is shows such a disregard for the town that enriched him. So I encourage people to spend their hard earned dollars elsewhere to support other eateries that are actually grateful and kind to their clienteles.

Shame on you Taqueria.

corybraiterman wrote:
Jersey City inspections at its finest.

Dear friends, We were very close to being ready to open but we were told to add some additional sprinklers. Consequently, our architectural plans and calculations need to be re-drawn and then approved by the city, which takes time. Hope to resolve this setback soon.

Barcade

Zick wrote:
45,000 entries on this subject and it's still an issue.

People need to take responsibility for pet ownership and pride in their community.

I would like to know how many of the violators of this city ordnance have their dogs licensed.

Amy wrote:
As for the basketball court, there's a volunteer park cleanup group that cleans up the park every day except during the winter. I assume we're going to start up again soon. Why don't you sign up? But you can really clean up dog pee, can you?

Sutherland wrote:
All violations of park rules and regulations should be addressed. But just because one group of people violate some rules doesn't justify nor give license to another group violating another set of rules. It's an absurd proposition. Quote:

downright wrote:
To everyone who has something to say about the occasional off leash dog...go take a look at the basketball court right now. It is a sight to be seen.

hitchcock wrote:
I've thought about going here many times, and at least one of my neighbors loves it. But I'm too grossed out by the sidewalk out front -- either it's slick with oil, or the garbage outside stinks, or, as has been the case for the past week or so, it just smells like rancid cooking oil outside. That's a dealbreaker for me.

They at least cleaned up the oil slick that occurred sometime during/after the rash of snowstorms we had in January.

BassFace wrote:
I see nobody agrees with my previous post about parents having any responsibility in this situation. We are living in very sad times.