Now I've heard it all!

kerrysgold

"OK-cancel-apply",

Do you actually know anything about dogs from personal experience (bar the "attack") or are you just going by what you've seen/heard/read about in the media?

No dog is automatically aggressive, a dog behaves according to how it has been brought up regardless of breed. You can have a 100% friendly pit bull that has been brought up by a good owner or a savage, dangerous Labrador that has never been trained or socialized! for example.

I grew up playing with, visiting houses that had them, and living with several of the so-called "dangerous" breeds. Never once have any of them shown any aggression, isn't it funny, the only dogs I've had issues with are untrained terriers and labs? the only dog I've ever been bitten by was a terrier!

Why don't you research the history of all the dogs on the "restricted" list.....how many of them were ever actually bred to attack humans? None of them! a few of them were bred to be herding dogs (rottie and gsd) the rest were bred for bull/bear baiting and dogfighting. (savage sports yes but the dogs were still fine with people as obviously they had to be handled!)

I would love to know why staffies in particular are on that list when they are quite possibly one of the mushiest breeds you could meet! any kennel club recommend them as the ideal breed to get if you have children as they love children and playing, they are basically just happy-go-lucky playful dogs.

Our man in Havana

Ask him again in a week.

~Thalia~

Mairt wrote: »

I decided against Portmarnock and brought my daughter down to feed the ducks and swans in the Stardust Memorial Park instead.

Here's a photo of us down there..




FABULOUS photo and Stunning dogsters!

tbh

Bond-007 wrote: »

OK-cancel-apply can take a 1 week break for your outbursts above.

edit: actually, it's none of my business. unsubscribes from Animal and pet issues.

Our man in Havana

For the record, OK-cancel-apply was banned for promoting animal cruelty in a deleted post.

Hellrazer

This is the first time Ive read this thread in full and to be honest I wouldve pm`d ok-cancel-apply after a couple of posts to clarify if he was a troll or not.


Can I ask something of the regulars here.

Can you lot please,please,please use the report post button more often

The mods arent always online but if I see a reported post then Ill try respond as quick as I can to stop crap like this thread continuing.

For the record though Ive never been bitten by a "dangerous" breed but have had plenty of nips off smaller dogs like terriers etc( little person syndrome)

Should these be on the "dangerous" breed list???


Beautiful dogs btw Mairt.

tbh

a troll? Define what you mean by troll?! Let me ask you a direct question.

Do you think that people who call for tighter control of dogs described in legislation as "dangerous breeds" can only (and this is the important bit) hold those views because they want to wind people up?

Calling someone a troll is a serious accusation imo, and you shouldn't do it lightly. Whether or not you agree with ok-cancel-apply is completely irrelevant - they are just as entitled to their view as any other poster, and in fact they spent a lot of time defending and explaining their positions.
What you have here is a dog-fanciers club lads, and fair play, I'm a fan of dogs myself. But at least have the decency to call a spade a spade and make it a private, invite-only forum, cause otherwise people are going to think that this forum is for the polite exchange of views regarding animals and their welfare - god forbid someone would hold a view contrary to the regulars, they'll be abused and then banned for their troubles.

boomerang

I'm sorry, but the poster's views were so outlandish and extreme, I for one assumed he was a troll. You couldn't reason with him. I have never met anyone with such a skewed - and let me say it, uneducated - view of dogs.

By the way, there is no legislation for "dangerous breeds" - there is legislation for "restricted breeds."

The poster was insistent that every dog on that list - not every breed now, but every single individual dog - was a savage, rabid beast intent on maiming children.

That's just RIDICULOUS. How can you reason with that?

tbh

boomerang wrote: »

I'm sorry, but the poster's views were so outlandish and extreme, I for one assumed he was a troll. You couldn't reason with him. I have never met anyone with such a skewed - and let me say it, uneducated - view of dogs.

By the way, there is no legislation for "dangerous breeds" - there is legislation for "restricted breeds."

The poster was insistent that every dog on that list - not every breed now, but every single individual dog - was a savage, rabid beast intent on maiming children.

That's just RIDICULOUS. How can you reason with that?

The poster didn't resort to the name calling and ridiculing that other posters did. Their opinion wasn't that of the majority - no surprise, it's an animals forum - but people didn't bother trying to debate the issue with them. And again, that's fair enough - if you thought he was a troll, ignoring them is the best policy. But that wasn't enough - people who had no interest in discussing the issue weighed in with smart comments and insulting posts, and those people didn't even get warned.

I'm not talking about the validity of the op's argument - it's important to separate that. I'm talking about the way the Op got ganged up on, and then kicked out. It's detrimental to boards.

oh and btw - outlandish and extreme In YOUR Opinion. And like I said, this is an animal forum, so that's to be expected. I think a lot more people would agree with them than not, but that's besides the point. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about taking the forum private. That way, you don't have to listen to any views you don't want to listen to and people like ok-cancel-apply don't get a ****ty deal. Everybody wins

boomerang

tbh, if you go back through the thread you'll find that I *did* try to reason with him, and gave him (or her) links to some balanced information on staffies... which were duly ignored. He maintained that all dogs on the restricted breeds list are bred to attack, kill, maim and intimidate. Even someone without a great interest in dogs would recognise that's garbage.

tbh

certainly not all posters behaved badly, yourself and kerrysgolds posts are examples of how it should be, imo of course. and now I think I better go back to minding my own business, I've had my off-topic say.

lightening

I genuinely thought the poster was taking the piss. Now I have come to the obvious conclusion that he is insane.

I wonder what "social services" (to much coronation st.) though when he called them to say he was on the internet and caught someone who had bull terriers and children? I'd say they appreciated that.

I mean come on... look at his diagram, he is obviously bonkers.

Hellrazer

tbh wrote: »

now I think I better go back to minding my own business, I've had my off-topic say.

Yeah I think thats probably the best course of action to take.


As for my previous post :

The point I was trying to make was that the "report" button should have been used after his first or second post and I would have pm`d the user in question to see if their posts were serious.
Thats all.

lightening

And don't say you didn't get the smallest snicker out of my diagram.

boomerang

Snicker?

Lightening, it was the best laugh I've had in weeks!

lightening

I meant snigger! Thanks boomerang, you always come back soon, thought I was loosing it.

Just read back over the posts.... Nuts.

boomerang

Actually I took snicker to mean snigger - they're pretty much the same thing IMO.

Just showed my dad your diagram and he laughed out loud too!

No disrespect to the poor (banned) soul who thought he was lucky to escape with his life.

Honey-ec

I just tried to read back over this thread to get the background and actually had to give up in disgust after about 4 of his posts.