Bullshit, troll.
Oh for fuck’s sake. You mean “bitch”, right?
Come now sirrah! Dost thou also call a maid a wench or shrew? Fie upon thee, scullion!
But it does prevent calluses.
Because he’s a troll and that sort of tactic inspires the credulous among us to respond.
The more important question raised by this thread is: “What’s for dinner?”
I had a Subway melt because there’s a Subway near my vet’s office. I was picking up my dog and didn’t want to leave her in the car while I went shopping, so I said to myself “hey, Subway!” I said it to her too but she didn’t seem to know what I meant.
It was pretty good but not really great. All in all I’d go again in the same situation. The dog is feeling much better.
Good to know your dog is feeling better. What was wrong?
On a related note, does anyone know of a dachshund in need of a home? Asking for a friend.
I just found her abandoned and living in the street a couple of days ago so it was a big checkup for whatever she needs.
I was afraid she had heartworm because she has a cough that sounds very much like a dog who does. But she doesn’t so that was a relief. She has 2 different tick-borne diseases but both are treatable with antibiotics and steroids, and a probable throat infection causing the cough - also treatable with antibiotics. She also has a flea allergy so she had been scratching herself raw. Otherwise though, the vet says she is in amazingly good shape under the circumstances and should fully recover with time and care.
This rescue makes number four. My inn is full! (besides the fact that I don’t live in the US) But I hope you find her a home soon.
Missed edit but on a re-read I see you’re asking for anyone with a Dachshund who needs a home. Somehow I read that as anyone who has a home for a Dachshund who needs one.
I could find you 10 tomorrow if your friend will pick them up in Mexico. 
- True and possibly.
- True
- True
- True
Your conclusion: false. Somehow you can have managed to come to the wrong conclusion despite getting the main points right. That takes some doing.
Which incidentally shows just why for the example in the OP, punching her is a bad idea.
3 is false: “justified in using any force they deemed necessary to gain access” (emphasis mine) is ill-informed. Reasonable force would be allowed, of course.
Crazyhorse, you are good people for taking care of that formerly homeless dog. 
I recall reading an article stating that people accidentally get killed in fistfights all the time. One solid blow with unintended consequences and it’s over.
The OPer comes across as looking for reasons to hate women. Did Derek move above the 67[sup]th[/sup] parallel?
Can you show your work? For example, in the latest description of the event, there are no threats, just shouted insults. How can that be assault?
Of course he is. And in this thread he’s ignoring everyone’s good advice to continue to insist that he can punch a woman because REASONS.
Lots of anger there, not a lot of intelligence or reason.
I believe that getting in his way and preventing him from passing by is enough of a threat of unwanted touching to qualify as assault under the Canadian law referenced earlier in the thread.
Now, now. I think he already hates women. Now he’s looking for excuses to hit them publicly.
[Moderating]
That’s a bit close to threatening harm on another poster. Back off a bit.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Five pages in and only a very few people recognize the childish toxic fog this thread generates, out of one quasi-male’s infantile inability to relate with women at a post-pubescent level, and refuse to validate it with argument. To make it clear: if you think you’re expected to fuck women, and you can’t, you want to hit them. If by law you’re prevented from doing that, you go on message boards and try to find validation for your wish to hit them, which sublimates your never-to-be-fulfilled wish to fuck them. If you don’t get even that satisfaction, you retreat to a fantasy that says you are right all along. Then you either retreat into your inadequate pornography-enhanced fantasy life forever, or you become an actual rapist, which includes all those inadequate men who assault women in any way (like punching them in the face) while subscribing to the above delusions.
265 (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other
person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
Standing in front of a doorway sure doesn’t sound like the application of force, nor the threat of same. Is there caselaw, etc you can cite that backs up your interpretation?
I’d like to add that Canada has a statute that covers the protestors’ conduct, but it isn’t assault, and doesn’t justify violence against the protectors:
Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.
175 (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.