Posted on 09/10/2010 12:01:58 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs
A TERRITORY girl is lucky to be alive after she was mauled by a savage dog.
Seven-year-old Meg Croton and her brother Connor, 9, had been feeding their family's dog - an eight-year-old mastiff cross - in their Humpty Doo back yard when the girl was attacked by the vicious hound.
"I tripped on a rock and fell, and I think I kicked his leg," Meg recalled the attack. "And then it hurt very badly and he was on top of me and ripped on my head. "But my brother saved my life."
(Excerpt) Read more at ntnews.com.au ...
WOW.
You are overflowing with grace and class. I wonder if your friends are truly proud of your association?
First things first, absolutely. Pinging someone that you're talking about is courteous, not trolling. Having a side conversation with me while I'm arguing with you is also not trolling. Eaker tried to engage you, you refused. Not particularly courteous, but it's up to you. The 'age' thing was not belittling, I was making allowances for what I percieve to be your youth and/or lack of experience. I said things I cringe to think of when I was younger, and it would have been nice if someone had taken into account I was only a dumb kid at the time. I'm not saying that you are dumb, by the way, just that I was. Saying that my mathematical and reading comprehension 'suck' is juvenile and defensive, but I've had worse.
And as I said, I understand now, based on your revelation, WHY you reacted to me... you HAVE put your own children at greater risk, at least from my point of view, and you do NOT want to hear or accept that information. So you reject it forcefully. I know how that works. So, we are done, what I have shared and said is here for all to read and make up their own minds with regard to its validity.
You're right, I don't want to hear your point of view that I am putting my kids in danger. It's no more valid than my point of view which is that I'm not. In fact, it's quite a bit less valid because you know nothing about me or the dog in question other than what I've told you. You didn't even bother to read my profile page before you started schooling me about my complete lack of children (har!).
Seriously? YOU think my generic statement that it is RISKY to place your children with an unknown animal is "sweeping" and that I will have to "eat" those words?
Now why do you have to be so rude about my prayers? I thanked you for yours, assuming(hoping?) that they were well-intentioned. The fact is we're not talking about an unknown dog, we're talking about a dog I've had for years. I say he's safe, based on my training and observation of his behavior, and you say he's not based on...what, exactly? Your opinion? You haven't even suggested you've had a bad experience with an adult dog. In fact, you point out the fact that you have placed many older dogs in the homes of elderly people. What, do you want someone's granny to get eaten? If you were intellectually honest you'd insist that all unwanted adult dogs should be put to sleep as potentially dangerous beasts...Instead, you foist them off on Nana.
How? There is NO condition on earth whereby I can be INVALIDATED.
Unless someone asks you to back up your assertion with something other than your personal beliefs...Then you do kind of lose, because you can't do it. You have dismissed the plausability of everyone else's personal experience, then ask us to accept your unquestioningly. You're operating solely under the influences of what you believe, not what you can prove.
That is simple logic. I do not have to BE right or PROVE being right to hold a position which is risk avoiding. Do you see this? Can you depersonalize it, and see it, from dispassionate logic?
Absolutely. And if you had said something along the lines of "I would never have a pre-owned dog because you just never know..." I wouldn't have objected to it. But when you start making assertions that I am somehow being a negligent mother because I act differently than you would, well, I kind of have to get involved.
Just giving you good advice little girl.
You have proven that you are weak in all things cerebral.
Ooh me, me! I’m proud to be associated with him!
Eaker, I should warn you, I’m a horrible suck-up. :-)
I think Eaker is an ass.
Hola!
That’s my spanish word for the month. I figure in 300 years, I’ll be fluent.
Yeah, but you're biased.
Did I say you were a troll? Again what is with the martyrdom? I said Eaker was a troll. Or do you think his comments about my breasts are fine and well civil? You may have to be more careful about the online dogs with which you lay.
Saying that my mathematical and reading comprehension 'suck' is juvenile and defensive, but I've had worse.
They do. I said I was in 4H and that is was 13 to 15 years ago. As I said, if you think I am 17, you then think I was 2 in High School or there is an error in your reading or math skills. But know, that had you NOT chosen to make a post regarding my age, you could not have made the error of which I spoke. So, if my retort was defensive, it was DEFENSE IVE not offensive.
You're right, I don't want to hear your point of view that I am putting my kids in danger.
Well, at least there is one thing of which we agree.
The rest of your rant about foisting dogs off on Nana is ridiculous and absurd and I will not dignify it with further commentary. My remarks previously are sufficient.
You have dismissed the plausability (sic) of everyone else's personal experience, then ask us to accept your unquestioningly.
No. Not true. I only STATED my opinion and YOU began our exchange with sarcasm. Keep this in mind. I made only an open and honest statement of my beliefs, and YOU because of your choices, felt threatened, felt I was speaking to and about you. Now, the attorney in me would suggest this is motive of guilt, but I did not go there, until now, as you attempt to paint this as something I began. I did not. I will finish it, I will not let it be. Damn straight. But you and your sarcasm started it and Eak made it sexist and dirty and nasty and I have avoided engaging in his antics, while you defend him and say he is "just trying to engage me".
The Taliban is just trying to engage our troops too. I wish them the same luck and the same fate.
Rachel:
You are slack jawed know it all and really, you don’t.
The position of the owner makes the difference in a good dog or bad dog.
I will second Eaker’s position:
You are a thin lipped, mealy mouthed, mousy haired broad.
LOL
Girl you are funny!
Are you sure you aren't ten?
I am glad to see that your arrival has raised the level of discourse from my breast size to my lips and hair quality. Those remarks reveal the depth of your character.
Salty? No. His posts speak for themselves. You may defend his style and it’s reflection upon the quality and character of this site or you may rebuke it. I am sure you are aware of the results of neutrality when it comes to moral excuse.
Yes, and I was explaining to you why his behavior wasn't trolling.
Or do you think his comments about my breasts are fine and well civil?
Must...refrain...from...commenting...
They do. I said I was in 4H and that is was 13 to 15 years ago. As I said, if you think I am 17, you then think I was 2 in High School or there is an error in your reading or math skills. But know, that had you NOT chosen to make a post regarding my age, you could not have made the error of which I spoke.
I don't know diddly squat about 4H. I don't know how old you have to be to get involved in it. I was making my assumptions based on the first year you gave (1995) and your expressed intentions regarding aquiring another dog. In my theoretical marriage scenario, I based the age of 33 on the assumption that you would have to be at least 18 to be married at the time you bought the first dog. I based the age of 17 on your demeanor and logic. I'm also trying to eat ribs one-handed while I hold a baby in the other and argue with you. Cut me some slack.
Well, at least there is one thing of which we agree. The rest of your rant about foisting dogs off on Nana is ridiculous and absurd and I will not dignify it with further commentary. My remarks previously are sufficient.
I'm sure they are.
No. Not true. I only STATED my opinion and YOU began our exchange with sarcasm. Keep this in mind. I made only an open and honest statement of my beliefs, and YOU because of your choices, felt threatened, felt I was speaking to and about you.
You stated that one must never, never, never, never, never, bring an adult dog into the home, and that one must NOT have a pet before one has children. Doing so is tantamount to TRAINING your dog to attack and kill your own children. These are your words. You cast out that net, and I'm the one you dragged in. Me. You're saying that I might just as well have TRAINED my dogs to kill and eat my children. Do you really expect me not to respond to that?
Damn straight. But you and your sarcasm started it and Eak made it sexist and dirty and nasty and I have avoided engaging in his antics, while you defend him and say he is "just trying to engage me".
Oh, well, sarcasm, yeah! That's a whole other ballgame! If we start letting people respond to ill-informed and presumptous opinions with sarcasm, why, that'll be the end of us! Cats living with dogs, total anarchy! God forbid! Eaker wasn't being 'sexist and dirty and nasty' until the very end, and really if you can't accept the idea dumb people with big breasts get promoted, well, I think the terrorists have already won. Really.
KNOCK IT OFF!
Must...refrain...from...commenting...
Didn't read any further. You have made your character clear enough. I feel pity for your children.
Okay.
Thanks.
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.