Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

    This is a very touchy subject and there are many different avenues of thought relating to it. One thing that bothers me however is that for some reason the idea that an animal being killed (needlessly) is not as bad as the same thing happening to a human.

    All creatures have as much right to life as do humans. Now we're all humans, so obviously human beings generally feel stronger about the death of another human as it's "our" species. However, we have no more of a right to life than does any other creature.

    Yes, we eat meat and use the bodies of animals for other products, but I'm talking about needless death here. Humans are the most dominant species on earth and nature dictates that the strong survive. That's just the way it is. However, the torture and death of animals in relation to sport and entertainment is needless.

    I know a lot of people may disagree or even be offended by my point of view, but I don't see how we as humans are any more "important" or valuable than any animal.

    Vick in my mind is a murderer, just the same as someone who kills another human being. Animals feel fear and pain just like humans.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

      I have so much to write on this issue. My views could be different then some but that's life, right. One I don't understand, and I'm looking at an open mind and am researching, how and why is Race an issue in this case? The whole singing of old Negro Tunes outside the court house is a little much, you would think it was 1950 outside an Atlanta court room of a falsely accused black man. Here we have a guy admitting to guilt in 2007, and accepting a plea deal for a shorten sentence. It is probably the media just wanting to dramatize the situation and have everyone riled up. Second, yes this man killed dogs it is horrible but Humans are superior to animals. I'm not justifying what he done, it's like shooting a deer and not eating it. It is wrong what he did and he should be punished not 8 years but a punishment yes. I keep hearing and reading they "rescued" all of those dogs that were in the home. No they didn't "rescue" them, you can't adopt dogs bred to fight. So you know what that means, 20+ dogs due for lethal injection. So the Doctor sticking the needle in those animals just killed dogs just like Vick did. Again, it's other peoples business but he is killing dogs just like Vick did, the only thing it's socially accepted. If the world is so disapproving of killing Dogs, in every city a dog is being "put to sleep/euthanized" today. My final input is Michael did Kill dogs but, where is all of the Hype about PacMan Jones he had his friend jump out from behind a tree and shoot a bouncer. He literally looked the bouncer in eyes and told him he was to die tonight and he was going to kill him. That is WWWAAYYY worse then killing dogs to me. Vicks deal is big but just not this big, not worth bringing up the racial diversity issue. Again, read this for what it is and don't think i'm defending Vick because I'm not the situation has many holes and is being blown out of portion both through the media and non issue related matter.
      Last edited by BoomBaby31; 08-28-2007, 03:43 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

        BB31: I disagree with some of your opinions regarding the severity of Vick's crime, but that's an opinion and I respect that. We'll have to agree to disagree.

        The hole in your argument is when you say that the veterinarians euthanizing these dogs are doing the same thing as Vick. Totally different. A) They're being put-down because of what was done to them by Vick and his associates, not simply for no reason like Vick. B) Animals are usually euthanized due to injury or suffering and it's done humanely. Vick was taking (most likely) perfectly healthy dogs and making them suffer an agonizing death.

        This rubbish about these dogs being naturally violent - give me a break! Yes they were originally bred to be more aggressive, but if they are brought up in a nurturing, caring manner, they are quite capable of living as pets in society.

        Those dogs were rescued - from a horrible death.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
          . I have a harder time getting past drowning or hanging a dog rather than just shooting it in the head since that is unnecessarily cruel and indicates deriving pleasure from something else's pain. But the simple fact that he viewed dogs as property - something to be owned and used purely for his benefit - doesn't in and of itself make him sub-Human.

          Two very important points here. At this time animals are viewed as property by the law. More importantly is the torture and the sadistic way that Vick
          killed the dogs. DK is right about Vick deriving pleasure from this.
          Studies have shown a link in many serial killers lives of first torturing animals.
          This behavior must be identified early and dealt with via counseling. It
          indicates a deep emotional problem.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            No doubt.

            Watch the video, though. If I ever screw up badly, I hope I can man up in public like Vick did there. He didn't have to do that.

            And I'm not saying he shouldn't still be heavily punished.
            I agree. But I have to think that it's the fear of jail and losing his job that drove him to that sincerity, not a sudden understanding of how cruel his treatment of those dogs was. Whatever, it was a remarkable difference from the stock, pre-written crap apologies most athletes give. Just not sure it's anywhere near enough to begin the process for Vick, he may have gone beyond forgiveness in my mind. Obviously he will get another job and keep a bunch of fans, apparently just because he's black. I mean did I miss where these same groups were outside Donoghy's house protesting in his defense? TD is already out of a job FOR LIFE, no return.



            You know there are cows killed for meat and then there's bullfighting. Hunters don't typically catch a deer and then force it to fight other deer over and over till they've tired of it and then hang it and then drown it when the hanging goes wrong.

            A good hunter very intentionally wants to take the animal down with one shot and limited pain/fear. Animals aren't people but we do recognize some levels of similarity and try to respect them on that level.

            I mean Leary is right about the double standard but I think most people want to avoid it as much as possible. An animal injured in a physically demanding but not directly violent sport is not the same as forced cage matches to the death. A deer shot and killed instantly during hunting season is not the same either.

            When people hear about the situations at some farms it does bother them. Eating a chicken is fine but there is no reason to torture it beforehand.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 08-29-2007, 02:50 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

              Originally posted by pacerDU View Post
              This is a very touchy subject and there are many different avenues of thought relating to it. One thing that bothers me however is that for some reason the idea that an animal being killed (needlessly) is not as bad as the same thing happening to a human.

              All creatures have as much right to life as do humans. Now we're all humans, so obviously human beings generally feel stronger about the death of another human as it's "our" species. However, we have no more of a right to life than does any other creature.

              Yes, we eat meat and use the bodies of animals for other products, but I'm talking about needless death here. Humans are the most dominant species on earth and nature dictates that the strong survive. That's just the way it is. However, the torture and death of animals in relation to sport and entertainment is needless.

              I know a lot of people may disagree or even be offended by my point of view, but I don't see how we as humans are any more "important" or valuable than any animal.

              Vick in my mind is a murderer, just the same as someone who kills another human being. Animals feel fear and pain just like humans.

              Phooey...and double Phooey

              Do you think a pitbull would care for one second about another creature's
              right to life???

              Try asking a pitbull attack victim, or parent of a child who has been
              attacked, or pet owner who has had their pet killed by a pitbull what
              they might think.

              I'll help you out here. Take a look at these links for a little more info on
              pitbulls, and the devastation their attacks cause:

              http://www.stoppitbullattacks.com/

              http://www.olathepsc.org//default.aspx


              While Vick participated in eliminating pitbulls for the wrong reasons, he still
              unwittingly did society a favor by doing so. He should not have had them
              in the first place.

              It simply amazes me how many folks out here talk about these dogs as if
              they are Aunt Bessie's fluffly little Pomeranian. Pitbulls are different from
              other dogs, and other types of Bull Terriers. They have been specifically
              and intentionally bred for strong tendancies to viciously attack other dogs.
              If they become excited or aggitated, they very often will not differentiate
              between a dog or some other creature.

              If it means saving even one precious innocent child from having
              their face brutally ripped off by a pitbull, then I fully support efforts
              to eradicate this breed of dog by whatever means neccessary.
              Furthermore, I fully support legislation that would criminalize the
              breeding and ownership of pitbulls.

              Want to eliminate the dog fighting? Want to eliminate life-long devastation
              to families caused by pitbull attacks? Then eliminate the pitbull breed.

              Now if anyone wants to disagree with this stance, that is fine with me.
              They can do so until they are blue in the face.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                RamBo_Lamar, totally agree - it's tragic that people have been severely injured or killed by pit-bulls. Those dogs were rightfully put-down. THEY WEREN'T PUT INTO CAGE MATCHES > THEN HUNG > THEN DROWNED.

                What relation dogfighting, or the brutal death of a pitbull has to do with dog attacks on humans beats me. Just because a pitbull is genetically more aggressive, doesn't mean it should be tortured to death.

                BTW, there are many pitbull owners who have no problem with their pets. I'll repeat, I understand that they have aggressive tendencies. Last time I checked, there are a lot of murderers and rapists out there. Does that mean humans are inherently aggressive too?

                Anyway, I'm not going to get into a whole argument on human v pitbull. That's not my intention. I personally believe all creatures have equal right to life and lack of respect for animal life and treatment is completely irresponsible and selfish.
                Last edited by pacerDU; 08-29-2007, 12:54 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                  I wonder if you think all German Shepherd's should be put down then?
                  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...29/1096963.htm

                  Here's a forum linking all kinds of different dog attacks
                  http://www.chako.org/dogblog/forums/8/ShowForum.aspx

                  They're ANIMALS. Plain and simple. You don't watch what your doing around a horse, and they'll kick you. (I've seen it happen.) Should horses be put down because their vicious?

                  OH! I know! We should kill all squirrels next.
                  http://www.nbc11.com/news/9946298/de...s=bay&psp=news
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                    Apparently, Ron Artest wants to reach out to Mike Vick.

                    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2995888

                    I think Michael Vick is in a heap of trouble if he takes some advice from Artest.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                      Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                      Phooey...and double Phooey

                      Do you think a pitbull would care for one second about another creature's
                      right to life???

                      Try asking a pitbull attack victim, or parent of a child who has been
                      attacked, or pet owner who has had their pet killed by a pitbull what
                      they might think.

                      I'll help you out here. Take a look at these links for a little more info on
                      pitbulls, and the devastation their attacks cause:

                      http://www.stoppitbullattacks.com/

                      http://www.olathepsc.org//default.aspx


                      While Vick participated in eliminating pitbulls for the wrong reasons, he still
                      unwittingly did society a favor by doing so. He should not have had them
                      in the first place.

                      It simply amazes me how many folks out here talk about these dogs as if
                      they are Aunt Bessie's fluffly little Pomeranian. Pitbulls are different from
                      other dogs, and other types of Bull Terriers. They have been specifically
                      and intentionally bred for strong tendancies to viciously attack other dogs.
                      If they become excited or aggitated, they very often will not differentiate
                      between a dog or some other creature.

                      If it means saving even one precious innocent child from having
                      their face brutally ripped off by a pitbull, then I fully support efforts
                      to eradicate this breed of dog by whatever means neccessary.
                      Furthermore, I fully support legislation that would criminalize the
                      breeding and ownership of pitbulls.

                      Want to eliminate the dog fighting? Want to eliminate life-long devastation
                      to families caused by pitbull attacks? Then eliminate the pitbull breed.

                      Now if anyone wants to disagree with this stance, that is fine with me.
                      They can do so until they are blue in the face.
                      I believe the dog breed with the most reported attacks is a labrador retriever.

                      There is no such thing as a "pitbull breed", as you state.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I wonder if you think all German Shepherd's should be put down then?

                        Here's a forum linking all kinds of different dog attacks

                        They're ANIMALS. Plain and simple. You don't watch what your doing around a horse, and they'll kick you. (I've seen it happen.) Should horses be put down because their vicious?

                        OH! I know! We should kill all squirrels next.


                        I am discussing PITBULLs only here. And I'm glad you included the rolling
                        eye's icon after the horse comment to save me from having to. Should
                        have put one after the squirrels comment too.

                        I figured my post would generate some ridiculous comments, but they most
                        certainly do not sway my original stance.

                        And Stryder, you need to check your facts before stating the pitbull is
                        not a breed. I challenge your assertion that it is not.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pitbull_Terrier

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                          Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                          I am discussing PITBULLs only here. And I'm glad you included the rolling
                          eye's icon after the horse comment to save me from having to. Should
                          have put one after the squirrels comment too.

                          I figured my post would generate some ridiculous comments, but they most
                          certainly do not sway my original stance.

                          And Stryder, you need to check your facts before stating the pitbull is
                          not a breed. I challenge your assertion that it is not.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pitbull_Terrier

                          The "Breed" of dog you link to is not recognized by the AKC. The UKC is the only major kennel club to recognize this "breed". The "pit bull" generalization is not one specific breed of dogs. It encompasses several true breeds.

                          http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAtt...ification.html

                          I would go on the AKC's view of things.
                          Last edited by Stryder; 08-30-2007, 10:05 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Vick admits dog killing, conspiracy

                            Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                            I am discussing PITBULLs only here. And I'm glad you included the rolling
                            eye's icon after the horse comment to save me from having to. Should
                            have put one after the squirrels comment too.

                            I figured my post would generate some ridiculous comments, but they most
                            certainly do not sway my original stance.

                            And Stryder, you need to check your facts before stating the pitbull is
                            not a breed. I challenge your assertion that it is not.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pitbull_Terrier
                            A rediculous post requires a rediculous reply.

                            Just because you think their vicious doesn't mean you have the right to kill them all. There are thousands upon thousands of people who have pitbulls and such dogs you deem unworthy to live, that love them very much.

                            My post only shows that these attacks are common among ANY wild or even domesticated animal. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE ANIMALS! They don't have the thought/logical processes we do, nor the self restraint. They have instincts and act upon those instincts.

                            I was attacked by my dog when I was two. I recieved 20+ stitches across my face going from my left cheek to just under my right eye. Another 1/2 inch up, and I could have lost my eye or severely damaged it. Yet, I loved that dog until he died 6 years later.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X