Posted on 12/14/2012 5:46:12 AM PST by george76
Oh, it was the neighbor? Oh, geez. I didn’t read carefully because I knew I had to get moving and get ready for work.
The article wasn’t all that well written, but it strongly appears that it was a neighbor who was killed.
It is not just the fatal dog attacks, but the hundreds of injury attacks caused by pit bulls each year.
I am always amazed at the number of pit bull owners who say the dog never acted that way before. They cannot understand what caused them to go off.
It has gotten to the point that pit bulls cannot be treated as pets anymore, but like unpredictable wild animals.
>>Miss Chet. He was right on about pit bulls<<
Yes he was.
I hear tell he went ape-nuts and told off JR — something about Palin or Guliani or something like that?
I ping his ghost when I see these pit bull stories. Pits can be great with a LOT of attention but out of the box they are aggressive since that is how they were created (the “pit bull enzyme” is an urban myth).
Love beads & dope...LOL. Should I take insult, or just laugh?
I figured I’d get a frenzied ad hominum response. Thanks for not disappointing me.
I’ve seen all that. I find it somewhat perplexing that the same agenda driven “journalists” (I use the term journalist very loosely) that are shoveling out crap on global warming, guns and crimes stats, evil conservatives, arsenic, ozone holes, et al, are suddenly right on the money when they write about pit bulls.
Lies, damn lies...and statistics.
Had a case in Louisville a while back that blamed pit bulls for an incident. Turns out the dumb ass “reporter” never talked to anyone involved, nor did he see the offending dog. He picked up a couple of basic stats like time and location from no one knows where and proceeded to make up the rest. When cornered on that, he admitted that he had heard “somewhere” that it was a pit bull. There was no correction or retraction published. Lot of that going on.
Just more proof that people will believe anyone if that person tells them what they want to hear.
1) large and aggressive breed of dog? Yes.
2) multiple dogs? Yes.
3) off leash/out of the yard - out of control? Yes.
4) prior reports of violent behavior? Yes.
5) unrealistic expectation of passivity by owner (often despite #4)? Not reported - but likely.
You think love bead and dope is ad hominem? LOL thats just from your handle - what the ‘60 was known for. Everyone has heard all of your BS from pit bull apologists before. read the link in post 45 - every excuse every time You and you ilk can blather about how wonderful and loving these nasty vile animals are - until they eat your face off
Yada, yada, yada.
It’s boring and fascinating at the same time to watch the hysteria in these “pit bull” threads. Never fails & it never varies.
These threads aren’t discussions or debates. They are a bunch of monkeys throwing their feces at each other.
Laughably, I’m not a apologist for pit bulls or dogs in general. I just throw a few facts and opinions into the mix and watch the anti pit bull crowd go bonkers. Most of my gripe is with dog owners, who are the root of pretty much all dog related problems.
BTW, one reason I like my handle is because when someone gets pissed at me, it’s a guarantee they make snarky hippie comments. He he. Like what I did (work hard & party hard) or didn’t do (get all that nookie that was supposedly so available) in the 60s has anything to do with dogs.
Again I point out that many people here regularly rip the bias and (lack of) quality reporting in the media, and justifiably so. Yet when it comes to some topics all critical thinking is abandoned. My example of the reporter in Louisville that made up most of the printed story on a dog “attack” was completely accurate. Critical thinking would suggest that we question the accuracy of all “reporting”, not just on dog attacks. Do you seriously think that moron reporter is any better at his job when covering other subjects?
Some years ago, long story I will make short, the Tampa Tribune published an AIDS related piece that was so inaccurate it would have been laughable had it not been so dangerous. When I talked to the reporter who had reported as the gospel all sorts of bogus CDC numbers that the speaker just made up, I asked if she had verified any of them. Nope, said she, I’m sure he was telling the truth. I obtained the real CDC info which was almost 180 degrees opposite what she published and made her verify that I was correct & she was not (she called me a liar at first). She and the paper refused to print any sort of followup correction or even a BS clarification. My point? More consistent skepticism of our so called information services is in order. Especially when it conveniently supports our views.
Most news stories are poorly researched and written. Quality followups are extremely rare. We get presented 10% of the facts, those often inaccurate, and everyone is off and running.
I’m done, need sleep.
Wrong you just throw in your half assed opinions and like most of the hyperventilating dog lovers who post on FR dog threads never bother to actually look at the facts and statistics. You should try looking at the facts about pit bulls sometime
Is this the attitude and language you use in a person to person discussion when you disagree with them? If you have any friends, they are more tolerant than I.
Nothing but a string of foul mouthed insults is all that you seem capable of spewing.
The only point you have made clear in this exchange is your juvenile inability to actually respond to any points of discussion in a half civil manner.
You don’t win arguments by shouting people down with insults. You simply make them go away. If that is what you consider success, you have achieved it.
Goodbye.
Liar - show me one "foul mouthed insult"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.