Pit Bulls. Again and Again and Again......

[bdgr]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You would be right if my position was that pitbulls go into atack mode more often than other breeds. But that is NOT what I’ve been saying. I think one of the tiny breeds would deserve the title. My point is that the that pitbull atttacks more often result in death or near-death horrors. The study you cite did NOT look anything that would shed light on that. If you think so, point to it.

[/quote]

so your position is that a pitbull is more deadly than a dachshund?
Duh…Stop using the word temperment then.

[quote]

Oh boy, you provided a cite—a scientific one at that—and I didn’t, Score 1-0, You win!!! Well, actually, you’re cite is mum on the issue at hand, so it’s still a tie. :rolleyes:

[quote]

It speaks a lot to the issue at hand…there is no argument that a big strong dog is more dangerous than a little fluffy one. The argument is if Pits have a temperment problem. and thats what it addresses.

“Usually”? I hope you’re not making the same mistake Contrapuntal made and think that the only real pit bulls in the world are the ones with papers. Now, I grant that there is confusion with the breed, but that doesn’t mean that pit bulls are innocent victims here. And if other similar breeds are are responsible for similar mayhem, that should be treated similarly. And mind you, I have NOT advocated (and do not) the banning of any breed. A fact you would know if you took the trouble to read the thread that you seem so interested in.
Where the hell did I say that you want to ban anything?

Pit bull is a breed. Staff is a breed as well that similar enough that they could logically be lumped togeather. papers dont enter into it. If a boxer attacks a child the newspaper will read pit bull attack much of the time. So unless you are changing your argument to all short haired muscular mean looking dogs have a temperment problem…then again, you cant seem to decide what your argument is.

You might be right about dogs with “hostile temperments”, whatever you mean by the term. That’s not been a point I’ve attempted to make.

Its what you are saying. Maybe you mean something differant. who kowns.

Tempermament is an important factor in choosing any dog. See here:
Dog Breed Selector A Pets Selector Quiz
Dog Breed Selector A Pets Selector Quiz

Then go to here.

I read the temperament descriptions for Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Saint Bernards, German Shepherds, Mastiffs, and Presas (Canary Dogs), Chows, Boxers, Bulldogs, Akitas, Dobermans, Dogos, and of course the much-feared Golden Retrievers. While the descriptions are all positive, guess which one—and only one—had this as part of it’s breed temperament description?

k…how did they determine this? didn’t find it anywhere on their site. so…again no facts.

Anecdotal evidence is not “worthless”. It just is not as good as other types of evidence. But sometiimes it’s all you have. And the mnore anecdotal evidence you have the more meaningful it becomes.

No, the plural of anecdote is not fact. we have other evidence sparky, it just doesnt agree with your position so you ignore it.

And though they “may not be a pitbull”, they may, right? Unless you’re of the mind that every attack was reported incorrectly, or that you ascribe to **Contrapuntal’s **ridiculously narrow definition of what makes a dog a pit bull.

May be a pitbull shure…they may be a lemur…whats your point.

Again, and I hope for the final time, they did NOT test for the quality of the actual attack, it’s visciousness, intensity or, determination.

I’ve acknowledged that. again and again. And it doesnt enter into it.

Now that’s funny. The guy who mounts his high horse without reading the thread preaching about ignorance. Very funny, in fact. Thanks for the giggle.

I’ve skimmed through it. has nothing to do with your ignornace.

Aslo, has it penetrated you cranium yet that your cite does NOT disprove what I’ve been talking about? If not, there is no further point to discussing this.

Has it penetrated your cranium that you you dont even know what you’re talking about? say pitbulls have a temperment issue…then you say they dont…then you say they do…then you seem to mean something else entirely by temperment. The cite I gave was a temperment test. If you want to redefine temperment you dont get that priveledge. If you want to say pitbulls fight to the death everytime, or that they murder babies…or that they vote republican or contribute to Bin Ladens retirement fund you need to provide a cite from something with some proof.

Well, at least you added the word “significant” this time. So it seems you do think that anecdotal evidence can be more than “worthless” after all. Good. Progress.

In this case..it is worthless.
The fact that you cant conprehend that shows just where you are coming from.

you might say, “the breed was bred to fight.” To which I would repond, “Precisely.” The same way Retrievers were bred to retrieve and Portugeuse Water Dogs were bred to swim.

Great danes were bred to hunt wild boar, IIRC. So what.

Maybe this will be the final time: The test you keep citiing—the best test done so far or not—does NOT test for what I’ve been describing. If you think it does, show where.

You dont seem to understand what you’ve been describing.

And I’ll just remind you that only one dog in my cite earned this:

That’s right the Pit Bull. Yoy may wasnt to ask yourself why. Is there really no basis in fact and it all is the product of some vast anti-pitbull conspiracy? :eek:

no, its a product of people repeating urban legends, and you have shown no factual basis for anyone to believe otherwise. They give no basis for that statement.

[wonky]

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Contrapuntal, didn’t you figure out in post 317 that the best thing you can do for your side of the argument is to shut the fuck up?
[/QUOTE]

And let the idiot’s posts stand unchallenged? Bullshit.

[CarnalK]

Yeah, because only brave Contrapuntal is here to defend the poor pit bulls. :rolleyes:

[wonky]

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Yeah, because only brave Contrapuntal is here to defend the poor pit bulls. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

Contrapuntal got into a side argument with another poster. That has nothing to do with his refutation of magellan’s astonishing idiocy.

Personally, I think refuting said astonishing idiocy has reached wrestling-with-pig status. All this thread needs is Thomas Jefferson’s Koran to make it complete.

[bdgr]

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Contrapuntal got into a side argument with another poster. That has nothing to do with his refutation of magellan’s astonishing idiocy.

Personally, I think refuting said astonishing idiocy has reached wrestling-with-pig status. All this thread needs is Thomas Jefferson’s Koran to make it complete.
[/QUOTE]

well..magellan01 is not going to have thier mind changed for sure. they have an unfounded mistrust of the breed and to support that gut instinct have scrambled to cobble togeather anything they can to support that feeling. Colbert would be proud.

[wonky]

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Colbert would be proud.
[/QUOTE]

Pit Bears. Again and Again and Again…

[bdgr]

Damn…hit submit too soon.

but its because people spew tis kind of misinformation that it makes it so hard to kill an urban legend. You have to stand up to it wherever you find it.

[bdgr]

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Pit Bears. Again and Again and Again…
[/QUOTE]

LMAO

[Contrapuntal]

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Contrapuntal, didn’t you figure out in post 317 that the best thing you can do for your side of the argument is to shut the fuck up?
[/QUOTE]
If you cannot separate my argument from your opinion of me, or from my occasional bad behavior, perhaps you would be better served by following your own advice. Leading by example and all.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
BBBZZZZZZT! Never said that.
[/QUOTE]

Never said you “said” it. You used that beleif in your argument twice. Once with me, which I pointed out when it happned, and then with pravnik, who also pointed it out and corrected you. Do you not realize that? :smack: I suggest you go back and review. How ever many times you feel necessary.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Wow. Just Wow. That may be the most egregious case of cherry-picking ever. Just a sampling of what your cite states that you, perhaps, found inconvenient. Emphasis added.
[/QUOTE]

Except for one thing, oh He Of Poor Reading Comprehension. I included this when I cited that one line:

While the descriptions are all positive, guess which one—and only one—had this as part of it’s breed temperament description?

I even bolded “all”, as in ALL breeds. “All”, when referring to dog breeds includes pit bulls. Is this truly news to you?

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Did you get the part where it has an uncanny ability to tell the bad guys from the good guys? Why in hell are you citing defending ones family to the death as a bad quality? Do you think that these alleged attacks by pit bulls on random 5 year olds are in defense of family? Or is it more likely that an unproperly socialized dog was not under proper control?
[/QUOTE]

No, I read it all. That is why I said they had good things to say about ALL breeds. See how that works? And I never said, or implied that the propensity to fight to the death is a bad thing in and of itself. If the dog is protecting you from a bear or a Presa or other serious threat it’s probably a good thing. If the dog goes after a kid—like dogs of every breed have done and will do—it’s a quality you wish wasn’t there. You’re free to disagree with that if you’d like.

[CarnalK]

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
If you cannot separate my argument from your opinion of me, or from my occasional bad behavior, perhaps you would be better served by following your own advice. Leading by example and all.
[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? Have we interacted before? I ask because I was unaware that I had an opinion of you. I was clearly commenting on your actual words in this here thread. Post 317 shows you lamented your jerkiness and hoped maeglin would consider other posters arguing your side instead. Then you come at him again 4 posts later. Then with the “Bzzzzt!”

@Contrapuntal

I urge you to igore my jerkishness, if you can, and consider the more reasonable posters who have argued the same position as I.

Upon reflection, I was wrong to phrase my question in such a provactive and accusatory manner. I was being a jerk. Please accept my apology if you can; if you cannot, I understand, but nevertheless, please don’t let my behavior influence your thoughts about the matter at hand.

That state of enlightenment didn’t last too frigging long there, did it? Pretty hilarious, actually.

[wonky]

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
What are you talking about? Have we interacted before? I ask because I was unaware that I had an opinion of you. I was clearly commenting on your actual words in this here thread. Post 317 shows you lamented your jerkiness and hoped maeglin would consider other posters arguing your side instead. Then you come at him again 4 posts later. Then with the “Bzzzzt!”

That state of enlightenment didn’t last too frigging long there, did it? Pretty hilarious, actually.
[/QUOTE]

Maeglin and magellan are two different people.

[CarnalK]

Hmm, I actually meant to edit that because I got some posters mixed up but my point remains, Contrapuntal, that you are coming off a bit on the jerkoff side with your side argument with Maeglin and trying to chase down this pedantic argument with magellan01.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=bdgr]
so your position is that a pitbull is more deadly than a dachshund?
Duh…Stop using the word temperment then.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand this post at all, except for the question. So, which word would you suggest?

[QUOTE=bdgr]
It speaks a lot to the issue at hand…there is no argument that a big strong dog is more dangerous than a little fluffy one. The argument is if Pits have a temperment problem. and thats what it addresses.
[/QUOTE]

And it doesn’t look at temperamnet once it actually attacks. Why is this so hard for you to accept. They never let the dog near engaging in an actual attack. For the final time, point out where this was tested. Otherwise I will ignore it from here on out.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Pit bull is a breed. Staff is a breed as well that similar enough that they could logically be lumped togeather. papers dont enter into it. If a boxer attacks a child the newspaper will read pit bull attack much of the time. So unless you are changing your argument to all short haired muscular mean looking dogs have a temperment problem…then again, you cant seem to decide what your argument is.
[/QUOTE]

As I’ve said repeatedly, any dog that has the track record that pit bulls do should be handled differently. We’ve been talking about pit bulls. If you want to say the Staffs should be included, I would support you. Along with other dogs of similar reputation.

What, exactly, is the big deal? I’m not in favor of killing them, nor even banning them. Again, my position that started this: in counter to Contrapuntal, "it’s the fault of the owner AND the dog. That “and” is the point of contention. Which you would know if you read the thread. Do you agree with Contrapuntal that “it is the owner not the dog”?

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Its what you are saying. Maybe you mean something differant. who kowns.
[/QUOTE]

Show me where I said that.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
k…how did they determine this? didn’t find it anywhere on their site. so…again no facts.
[/QUOTE]

You cracked the conspiracy. Years ago some “supposed” dog lovers put together a website with lots of information on various breeds, all so they could slide that one sentence into the Pit Bull temperament discription to be found years later by someone like me arguing on a message board.

The jig iss up! You have revealerd my evil plan. Yes, I am Dr. Loveless.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
No, the plural of anecdote is not fact. we have other evidence sparky, it just doesnt agree with your position so you ignore it.
[/QUOTE]

Show me the evidence. I like evidence. Your cite, as you should realize by now, is mum on what I’ve been discussing. You can insist otherwise, to your own embarrassment.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
May be a pitbull shure…they may be a lemur…whats your point.
[/QUOTE]

I was simply drawing attention to your use of the word “may”. Some attacks may not have been done by what were in fact pit bulls. Some were, unless you think all reports are in error.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
I’ve acknowledged that. again and again. And it doesnt enter into it.
[/QUOTE]

Then what is the evidence you keep speaking of?

[QUOTE=bdgr]
I’ve skimmed through it.
[/QUOTE]

What a remarkable utterance. You’re holding onto some point (I’m not sure which) like a pit bull , but you don’t bother to read the thread, you just skim it. I would ask you to read it, as I think your skimming may have something to do with some of our disagreement. Perhaps it would help us focus better on specifically where our disagreement lies.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Has it penetrated your cranium that you you dont even know what you’re talking about? say pitbulls have a temperment issue…then you say they dont…then you say they do…then you seem to mean something else entirely by temperment. The cite I gave was a temperment test. If you want to redefine temperment you dont get that priveledge. If you want to say pitbulls fight to the death everytime, or that they murder babies…or that they vote republican or contribute to Bin Ladens retirement fund you need to provide a cite from something with some proof.
[/QUOTE]

The proof is that Pits are repsonsible for killing people. Dogs of similar stature—even much larger or stronger—not so much.

The phrase I’ve used, which I think is a good one is “baseline temperment”. By that I mean those attitudinal attributes that are part of the breed. I think you might be confused with my position that you think that a bred attribute cannot be made moot by training.

By that I mean that while Pits have an innate tendency to be more viscious once an attack is begun, good training and vigilant ownership can avoid that dog ever being put in that position, and the dog can spend its entire life as nothing but a lovable pet. Does that help?

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Great danes were bred to hunt wild boar, IIRC. So what.
[/QUOTE]

The point is that we should understand that dogs that we take into our homes have been bred for various things. We should not be surprised that dogs that were bred for fighting might have some inbred attributes that might not be great for ownership, particularly with small children around. This is just a fact. How you can deny this is beyond me. It’s like arguing that retrievers aren’t better retrievers than Pits. Or that water dogs aren’t better swimmers.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
no, its a product of people repeating urban legends, and you have shown no factual basis for anyone to believe otherwise. They give no basis for that statement.
[/QUOTE]

I can see how you can argue that not all these attacks are by actual Pit Bulls. But are you also arguing than none of these attacks are by Pit Bulls? Is it all legend?

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
And let the idiot’s posts stand unchallenged? Bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

My goodness it’s the self-poclaimed goddess. Yeah, I thought I smelled fish. Thank you once again for a contribution of oyur usual caliber.

[bdgr]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I don’t understand this post at all, except for the question. So, which word would you suggest?

[/quote]

I don’t know…tenaciousness maybe? Urban legend? Nonsese? Probably a combination of those

And it doesn’t look at temperamnet once it actually attacks. Why is this so hard for you to accept. They never let the dog near engaging in an actual attack. For the final time, point out where this was tested. Otherwise I will ignore it from here on out.

Because temperment isn’t really in play once the attack happens. Why cont you understand that simple concept?

Ignore it. You seem to ignore any facts that dont fit your dog world view anyway, why should this be any differant.

[quote]

As I’ve said repeatedly, any dog that has the track record that pit bulls do should be handled differently. We’ve been talking about pit bulls. If you want to say the Staffs should be included, I would support you. Along with other dogs of similar reputation.

[quote]

You’ve said a lot of silly things…that doesnt make it so, and you have failed to prove this track record you go on about.

What, exactly, is the big deal? I’m not in favor of killing them, nor even banning them. Again, my position that started this: in counter to Contrapuntal, "it’s the fault of the owner AND the dog. That “and” is the point of contention. Which you would know if you read the thread. Do you agree with Contrapuntal that “it is the owner not the dog”?

I’ve read the thread…

Maybe you should find another board, if you dont see what the big deal is about spreading ignorance. Its people like you who ignore factual arguments ins favor of emotion gut instincts that get dogs killed and owners harrased. I DON"T GIVE A RATS ASS if you think they should be killed or not, your ignorance is part of the greater problem.

[quote]

Show me where I said that.
all over the place. You said they had a temperment problem. You mave have meant that they had bad breath by that coment, because you dont understand what temperment means. Its not my job to read your mind and figure out what you really meant.

You cracked the conspiracy. Years ago some “supposed” dog lovers put together a website with lots of information on various breeds, all so they could slide that one sentence into the Pit Bull temperament discription to be found years later by someone like me arguing on a message board.

The jig iss up! You have revealerd my evil plan. Yes, I am Dr. Loveless.

No, you are a dumbass. Its not a conspiracty, it is peopel posting information to a website that they heard some where. It happens all the time, the internet is full of it. If you dont understand that simple concept. Guess what? The moon landing was real even though some sites say it isn’t. Psychic healing doesnt work either. Lots of misinformation on well meaning sites.

Show me the evidence. I like evidence. Your cite, as you should realize by now, is mum on what I’ve been discussing. You can insist otherwise, to your own embarrassment.

No, its everything on what you have been discussing. You maybe think you have been discussing something entirely differant. NOW THATS embarrasing. Maybe you shouldn’t run your neck when you dont have a clue as to what the big words mean.

[quote]

I was simply drawing attention to your use of the word “may”. Some attacks may not have been done by what were in fact pit bulls. Some were, unless you think all reports are in error.
[/uote]
Yes, pit bulls have bitten some people before and it has probably been reported in the news correctly at least once. But since most people cant tell a pit from a boxer, those reports are worthless for the purpose of this debate.

Then what is the evidence you keep speaking of?

The temperment tests. We are talking about temperment, despite your desperate attempts to redifine the argument to save face.

The proof is that Pits are repsonsible for killing people. Dogs of similar stature—even much larger or stronger—not so much.

Cite? I thought so.

The phrase I’ve used, which I think is a good one is “baseline temperment”. By that I mean those attitudinal attributes that are part of the breed. I think you might be confused with my position that you think that a bred attribute cannot be made moot by training.

If it can be made moot by the training, then it is the fault of the trainer. What part of this is confusing you…other than what the words mean.

By that I mean that while Pits have an innate tendency to be more viscious once an attack is begun, good training and vigilant ownership can avoid that dog ever being put in that position, and the dog can spend its entire life as nothing but a lovable pet. Does that help?

Yes…it helps show that you in deed havent a clue what temperment means. It has nothing to do with how good they are at attacking and everything to do with avoiding the attack to begin with. Once the attack begins, temperment is no longer a factor.

The point is that we should understand that dogs that we take into our homes have been bred for various things. We should not be surprised that dogs that were bred for fighting might have some inbred attributes that might not be great for ownership, particularly with small children around. This is just a fact. How you can deny this is beyond me. It’s like arguing that retrievers aren’t better retrievers than Pits. Or that water dogs aren’t better swimmers.

How I can deny it is that there is no proof of it at all. In fact, every expert in the field says that pits are great with kids and when properly trained and socialized are not dangerous to small children. Facts verses emotion and gut instinct. Fighting ignorance…its right there in the masthead.

I can see how you can argue that not all these attacks are by actual Pit Bulls. But are you also arguing than none of these attacks are by Pit Bulls? Is it all legend?

I never said that. Any large dog that is mistreated or ill trained can attack and cause a lot of damage. And I’ve said that repeatedly but you seemed to have missed that.

[magellan01]

[QUOTE=bdgr]
I don’t know…tenaciousness maybe? Urban legend? Nonsese? Probably a combination of those
[/QUOTE]

What some of us refer to as tenacity would be a quality that would fall under temperament. I’m beginning to see why this discussion is so painful.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Because temperment isn’t really in play once the attack happens.
[/QUOTE]

No you’re just standing on the mountain top advertising your stupidity. I was giving you too much credit. Get down.

Many dogs have different styles of attack and they differ in ferocity or assertiveness. Dogs used for hunting or fighting retain many of the characteristics from the training that made them good breeds for those tasks.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Maybe you should find another board, if you dont see what the big deal is about spreading ignorance. Its people like you who ignore factual arguments ins favor of emotion gut instincts that get dogs killed and owners harrased. I DON"T GIVE A RATS ASS if you think they should be killed or not, your ignorance is part of the greater problem.
[/QUOTE]

Wow. A Pompous Ignoramous. Haven’t seen one of those in a while. What you evidently fail to see is that you have provided no evidence to counter my point. The evidence you supplied does NOT address it. So feel free to continue to express yourself so ignorantly. You can start by explaining what this “greater problem” is.

[QUOTE=bdgr]

Show me where I said that.
all over the place. You said they had a temperment problem. You mave have meant that they had bad breath by that coment, because you dont understand what temperment means. Its not my job to read your mind and figure out what you really meant.
[/QUOTE]

Okay, now I can see that your both stupid and drunk. Try paying a little more attention to the coding (and spelling, too, if you don’t mind) so readers can see the amount of brilliance in your thoughts.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
No, you are a dumbass. Its not a conspiracty, it is peopel posting information to a website that they heard some where. It happens all the time, the internet is full of it. If you dont understand that simple concept. Guess what? The moon landing was real even though some sites say it isn’t. Psychic healing doesnt work either. Lots of misinformation on well meaning sites.
[/QUOTE]

Aha! But can you prooooooove it’s not a conspiracy? Yeah…I didn’t think so. And what is this moon landing you speak of?

[QUOTE=bdgr]
No, its everything on what you have been discussing. You maybe think you have been discussing something entirely differant. NOW THATS embarrasing. Maybe you shouldn’t run your neck when you dont have a clue as to what the big words mean.
[/QUOTE]

PLEASE tell me english is not your first language. If it is not, I’ll commend you on the job you’ve done. (Sloppy coding aside.) If it is your first language, sue your school district.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
The temperment tests.
[/QUOTE]

No. I already told you that I would not repeat myself and tell you for the umpteenth time that your precious cite is mum on the aspects of temperment I’ve been discussing, so I won’t repeat myself. Again.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]

You might find this interesting reading.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
If it can be made moot by the training, then it is the fault of the trainer. What part of this is confusing you…other than what the words mean.
[/QUOTE]

I would actually like to agree with you here, but the real world prevents me from doing so. Innate traits can be made moot, but they cannot be erased completely. I think it safe to say that dog owners of all breeds will, from time to time, be less vigilant than they should. When that happens with most dogs, a bite happens. When it happens with Pits, the result can be much more serious.

But IF you read the thread you will see that the only steps I want to take are with the owners. I would like to see prospective owners of Pits, Presas, etc., have to sign a statement accepting a higher degree of responsibility than other dogs. So, are you with me?

[QUOTE=bdgr]
Yes…it helps show that you in deed havent a clue what temperment means. It has nothing to do with how good they are at attacking and everything to do with avoiding the attack to begin with. Once the attack begins, temperment is no longer a factor.
[/QUOTE]

Yup. Your making the same type of mistake as Contrapuntal did. The word temperament does not mean only what your cite says it means, or what you say it means. Before you came into this discussion I was using the word. I was asked to define it, and did. I even asked you if you would prefer another word, as I am more interested in the concept than the word. You were amazingly unhelpful in that regard. So I’ll continue to use it.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
How I can deny it is that there is no proof of it at all. In fact, every expert in the field says that pits are great with kids and when properly trained and socialized are not dangerous to small children. Facts verses emotion and gut instinct. Fighting ignorance…its right there in the masthead.
[/QUOTE]

I think people who have been killed by Pits and other dogs qualify as facts. Sorry if you don’t.

You know, some people, people like you, come on to the SDMB and because of the tagline think that whatever they type is not ignorant. As you have amply demonstrated time and again, that it not the case.

I think it best we agree to disagree. I’ll go on to discussions that track logically and you can go back to trying to get to the worm.

Win—win!

[bdgr]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
What some of us refer to as tenacity would be a quality that would fall under temperament. I’m beginning to see why this discussion is so painful.
[\quote]
If its so painful for you, maybe you should stop and go discuss something that you understand. Run along now.

No you’re just standing on the mountain top advertising your stupidity. I was giving you too much credit. Get down.

In other words…you still dont understand.

Many dogs have different styles of attack and they differ in ferocity or assertiveness.

Could be. Cite? Again? ah…you still have nothing.

Dogs used for hunting or fighting retain many of the characteristics from the training that made them good breeds for those tasks.

so what. That might be true, probably is, but you’re saying so doesnt make it so.

Wow. A Pompous Ignoramous. Haven’t seen one of those in a while. What you evidently fail to see is that you have provided no evidence to counter my point. The evidence you supplied does NOT address it. So feel free to continue to express yourself so ignorantly. You can start by explaining what this “greater problem” is.

They took away your mirror eh? Probably for the best…you might hurt yourself.

I’ve provided plenty of evidence, but you lack the intellect to understand it.

Greater problem is the cities that are banning pitbulls and killing peoples pets because they believe morons like you who talk out of their ass.

Okay, now I can see that your both stupid and drunk. Try paying a little more attention to the coding (and spelling, too, if you don’t mind) so readers can see the amount of brilliance in your thoughts.

You got me. I dont care enough about your stupidity to worry about my coding. I’ve got other things more important to do. Everyone understands me just fine though…maybe you just dont understand the words? You seem to have a problem in that area.

Aha! But can you prooooooove it’s not a conspiracy? Yeah…I didn’t think so. And what is this moon landing you speak of?

You’re the one who brought up the conspiracy nonsense. I’m not suprised you are ignorant in other areas.

PLEASE tell me english is not your first language. If it is not, I’ll commend you on the job you’ve done. (Sloppy coding aside.) If it is your first language, sue your school district.

please tell me you arent so stupid you couldn’t even understand THAT…

No. I already told you that I would not repeat myself and tell you for the umpteenth time that your precious cite is mum on the aspects of temperment I’ve been discussing, so I won’t repeat myself. Again.

please dont, you are embarrasing yourself every time you repeat that nonsense. You can stamp your feet and insist that it is “mum” all you want to…you arent entitled to make that decision…and you lack the capacity to. Your insistance does not make it so.

You might find this interesting reading.

Yes…I read it. Nothing there. Not one shred of evidence to support you lunacy.

I would actually like to agree with you here, but the real world prevents me from doing so.

What color is the sky in YOUR world…I’m sure its differant than the rest of ours. Does spock have a beard in your world?

Innate traits can be made moot, but they cannot be erased completely. I think it safe to say that dog owners of all breeds will, from time to time, be less vigilant than they should. When that happens with most dogs, a bite happens. When it happens with Pits, the result can be much more serious.

Cite? I know…You dont have one. You’ll ignore this request like every other one because you are talking out of your ass.

But IF you read the thread

I said I did in the post you are quoting. Work on those read comprehension skills sparky.

you will see that the only steps I want to take are with the owners. I would like to see prospective owners of Pits, Presas, etc., have to sign a statement accepting a higher degree of responsibility than other dogs. So, are you with me?

No, I’m not with you in any sense of the word. I do understand what you are trying to say, but its silly.

Yup. Your making the same type of mistake as Contrapuntal did. The word temperament does not mean only what your cite says it means, or what you say it means. Before you came into this discussion I was using the word. I was asked to define it, and did. I even asked you if you would prefer another word, as I am more interested in the concept than the word. You were amazingly unhelpful in that regard. So I’ll continue to use it.

I’m going to redefine temperment to mean toaster oven. And therefore pitbulls dont usually have a temperment at all…and most wouldnt know how to plug it in if they did. Continue to mis-use it if you wish…I doubt anyones oppinion could be lower of you at this point.

I think people who have been killed by Pits and other dogs qualify as facts. Sorry if you don’t.

Fact would be if you could show a reliable cite showing that well trained and adjusted pits have killed more people than other dogs of their size/strength. Sorry if you cant comprehend this.

You know, some people, people like you, come on to the SDMB and because of the tagline think that whatever they type is not ignorant. As you have amply demonstrated time and again, that it not the case.

and some people like you come in here and and just spew ignorance hoping no one will call them on it. You have demonstrated that perfectly.

I think it best we agree to disagree. I’ll go on to discussions that track logically and you can go back to trying to get to the worm.

Win—win!

You just run along and wallow in ignorance sparky. But when you try to spread it here, dont expect to not get called on it.

[magellan01]

Sigh.

BDGR, now that it is the New Year, I will perform my first act of charity and leave you to your nonsensical rantings. I just hightlight this particularly worthy gem for posterity.

[QUOTE=bdgr]
That might be true, probably is, but you’re saying so doesnt make it so.

[/QUOTE]

Good luck in '07. May you find a worm at the bottom of every bottle and that your toothbrush tickles your ass every time you brush your teeth.

[bdgr]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Sigh.

BDGR, now that it is the New Year, I will perform my first act of charity and leave you to your nonsensical rantings. I just hightlight this particularly worthy gem for posterity.
Good luck in '07. May you find a worm at the bottom of every bottle and that your toothbrush tickles your ass every time you brush your teeth.
[/QUOTE]

What? You’re still here? I thought you had found a discussion that didn’t require facts and you were going to go play there. But you’re back. I see you still think all the big words are non-sensical. I guess it is non-sensical to someone of your…specialness.. Hope you can figure it out some day.