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.