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 ...
Affirmative and observed in this thread with the exception of your posts.
If you graduated college, if you attended one day of law school, you certainly would have learned how to write a cogent argument without resorting to ad hominem. Certainly they would have required at least one class in Logic, Rhetoric, a chapter or two on Semantics as well as how to write for clarity over obfuscation.
Then again perhaps your college overlooked the standards favoring paper diploma distribution instead.
RachelFaith - You are overflowing with grace and class. I wonder if your friends are truly proud of your association?
RachelFaith asked if Eaker's friends are truly proud of their association with him, Eaker pinged his FRiends to answer her question.
Good grief======the troll behaves like an elementary school punk and calls his ‘pals’ over to help gang up on you?
See the above comment.
He even called his Wife. She was the one defending him.
WRONG!! Although I have been following this thread, my first comment was in response to Eaker pinging his FR friends, per your request.
First, I do not self admit any such thing. I have avoided tooting my horn and brought up my extensive experience when it was required for a point. Usually a tangent since my direct point IS one of opinion, as of course are the objections and denials. Since no one has actually expressed a counter point.
Refreshing for those joining late:
FACTS: Family dog mauls child. Dog is adopted adult with an unknown history and was brought into the family within just the last years time.
UNKNOWNS: The level of care provided by the family. The disposition of the dog. The dog's previous experience with children.
My stated opinion which caused guilt, projection, shame and outrage from a dozen "usual suspects" who all know each other and with whom I have had no previous contact:
I would, that is me personally, never, never, never, adopt an adult dog because of the unknowns. I further would not recommend adoption for families with young children. If you are looking for a suitable alternative for an older dog, I support and believe that placing them in a single persons home or with an elderly person is a lessor risk.
That's it. That's the great big controversy which drives grown men to irrational pejoratives of sexual harassment, and grown women to hand wringing overly defensive guilt trips.
Second: You suggest I supply facts. No. I do not need to supply any more "facts" than self evident common sense. A trained animal which was raised in and around said children is safer, by far, than a random unknown and untrained adult animal. Period. If you need some facts outside of your own good sense to refute that, by all means.
No one did. No one has.
I didn't make any demands of others to PROVE their points. It is silly.
All I did, subsequent to making my beliefs known, was point out the simple fact that someone's personal experience with an adult dog in their house being safe, only means that.
If your dog hasn't bit anyone, it only means.. ONLY... MEANS... your dog hasn't bit anyone yet!
It does not mean a damn thing more.
It proves NOTHING.
It is simply your story, so far. Now, next year, you can tell me, "sparky hasn't bit any one yet" and guess what?
It ONLY MEANS "Sparky hasn't bit anyone yet".
It does not mean I am wrong.
It does not mean you are right.
It sure as hell doesn't mean I have small boobs, a low IQ, am only 10 years old or that I have poor debate skills.
On the contrary. Making said accusations and attacks is Prima facie that those making said statements have NO debate skills.
I have tried to make this a debate. I have tried to use logic and reason and examples. To no avail.
This was never going to be a debate, because the author of the post is personally biased and subject to the very conditions we were discussing. Of course, I did not know this at first. And I thought, perhaps some would have a differing point of view. I mean other than "You are wrong, you are stupid, ha ha, are you ten, you have small tits, and bad hair.".
I really didn't set out for that to be the level of debate.
So my opinion remains: Unknown and untrained adult dogs, in general, present a greater risk to children than do known, raise and trained dogs. So far. No one has actually made an reasonable objection to that.
So there we are.
ROFLOL!
Vendome, all I can think to say now is thank you for pinging me. :D
We know how pings work. And the example of school yard bullies is exactly fitting. He pinged you and others because he is a troll and a bully and can’t hold his own with intellect only insults. I have read 4 pages of his posts on FR. Not so much as two paragraphs of debate in months. However, lots of “salty” one liners. Which is why I do not respond to him. I am not any man’s abuse toy. Stand by your man Tammy.
Do you care to address the thread topic? Or do you belong in the kill file? I am only asking to be polite. Since you haven’t actually entered into the topic, yet.
It sure as hell doesn’t mean I have small boobs
But you do.
Where were you trained? Do you have any mode other than attack?
Attacking the people you have chosen to attack on this thread is the behavior of old trolls, not of a Conservative FReeper.
Which is why I do not respond to him.
Go back over this thread . . . you responded quite a lot.
Stand by your man Tammy.The name is Donna, and when he is right, I am right there by his side.
You are a child that has no clue in regard to what this thread is about . . . does not matter what you heard from a friend of a friend, that heard it from some one else.
>And there’s a reason they’re old. They’ve been good, Ms. Faith, they have obeyed their masters, they don’t pee or defecate on the floor, they don’t bite, all those qualities that are desirable.<
Thank you. Dogs end up needing to rehomed for a lot of reasons. Some end up homeless because their owner died, or due to divorce. Lots of others end up needing a new family because the people who got them as pups decided one day they were tired of their pet. Not fault of the unlucky dog. These dogs make perfectly good pets in the hands of responsible folk.
I have taken back a number of adult dogs I sold as pups. They all acclimated to our household and none proved dangerous in any way whatsoever.
So says Johny Come Lately who has not even entered the debate or even read the thread but who posted how “thrilled” he was to get pinged to come over here.
It is you love of children? You want to protect them from bad dogs? Or your love of dogs? And you think they can do no wrong? What?
Express an opinion on the topic. That is what I have said to you. Twice. There will not be a third. You seem to be out on the town looking for a fight. You won’t find it here. I have no time for it. Take an issue with the substance of the thread or take a hike along with your buddies to whatever rock you were under before you came here all giddy for action.
This thread is dead and I only replied to 50mm because he actually posted something besides a one liner.
First, if you’d actually read my posts, you would see that clearly on no less than four separate posts I have expressed this same exact sentiment.
Adult dogs, are fine for single persons and the elderly. They are not ideally suited, when UNKNOWN, for young children.
You sir, clearly, having sold the pups, then taken them back, are excluded from the topic which I addressed, because you KNOW the dogs and their situation.
Lastly, and this is only the secondary element, is that your experience is simply that: Your experience.
It neither proves it will be true for all dogs or any other dogs. Each case is unique in and to itself.
These are my points. My only points.
Good luck storming the castle Dude. You have some serious direction issues. It appears that you were headed to your home here:
Then apparently you got lost and ended up on Free Republic.
There's no troll like an Old Troll so please hang on a second. I've got popcorn cooking on the stove because I don't want to run out.
>Lastly, and this is only the secondary element, is that your experience is simply that: Your experience.<
Well, since my experience is only 42 years of dog training and teaching others to train their dogs, I defer to your superiority.
And as far as your posts, the one to which I replied has nothing to do with unknown dogs being suited for children, which, depending on the dog and evaluation by a skilled trainer/behaviorist, may or may not be the case. You, my dear, warned in your post to never, ever ever ever, ad nauseum, adopt an adult dog.
You posted:
>This will piss off the Animal wackos, but NEVER, Never, never, never, never, adopt an adult dog.
Ever. You do not know what behaviors, triggers, emotional baggage the animal carries. Or if it will turn at something totally off the mark.
If you want a pet: get a baby animal. A puppy, kitten, chick, whatever. Raise it, train it, care for and nurture it. And do NOT have a pet BEFORE you have children.
Your doggy loves YOU and will see the new “pets” aka your children, and lessor animals in the “pack” and will attempt to dominate them, forcing them to submission. And human children have NO PACK instinct, they will do the human thing: RESIST.
You might as well TRAIN you dog to attack and kill your children as at least then you won’t be shocked when it happens. /s<
In case you haven't noticed, this is not your thread and this being a Conservative Forum, this is certainly not your forum. It is not your call to make demands on anyone here yet you have demanded that everyone agree with you.
When anyone has questioned or disagreed with your grandiose pomposity, you have then made personal attacks against Conservative and good natured FReepers.
You owe LongElegantLegs, Eaker, TheMom and all whom you have lambasted, an immediate and contrite apology.
So, for the record, in your expert opinion:
An unknown, untrained adult dog is an equal risk for the average random family off the street, with young children, to adopt, when compared to adopting a puppy and raising it directly with the same family in this question.
You equate them? Equally? No bias?
You would reject my suggestion that there is a greater risk, a significant risk, a risk worthy of strong reconsideration, from the former to the later?
I guess you will have to forgive me, if I find that incomprehensible.
Would you go so far as to blame this attack on the child? She obviously did something far over and above the norm to “cause” this attack upon herself?
I saw a few folks go that route. Just asking for a marker on your range please.
For the record, I reject it in totality. If a dog attacks a child, it is to be put down. A nip is not an attack, just in case one may be tempted to believe I suggest such.
This record, from all available data, would be an attack.
So, instead of just telling me the generic “I am wrong”. Please, some specifics. A few answers to the questions above?
Thanks.
Nuts!
Thank you. Dogs end up needing to rehomed for a lot of reasons. Some end up homeless because their owner died, or due to divorce. Lots of others end up needing a new family because the people who got them as pups decided one day they were tired of their pet. Not fault of the unlucky dog. These dogs make perfectly good pets in the hands of responsible folk.
Note the second to last word in my quote above. Responsible. That assumes the people would have the sense to choose the pet wisely and to supervise any interaction between Phydeaux and children.
You, my sweet, told the rest of us to NEVER NEVER NEVER, etc., etc., etc. adopt any canine that is not a puppy. NEVER!!!!!!!! I simply disagree, as do any number of dog experts, such as Ian Dunbar, Jean Donaldson, and for that matter, Cesar Milan.
LOL
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.
