(You really are tiny!)
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 ...
You know, usually I’m pretty sure what I did to piss someone off, but in this case, I have no clue. You started talking about testicles, and suddenly you are angry and wow. Just wow. I happen to be one of the few people on FR who likes pits. Not sure why you are trying to alienate me. But, whatever.
If anyone else can clue me in to what this poster is on about please give me a FReepmail so I will know how to avoid him in the future I would appreciate it. I really don’t enjoy this kind of stuff.
You know, usually I’m pretty sure what I did to piss someone off, but in this case, I have no clue. You started talking about testicles, and suddenly you are angry and wow. Just wow. I happen to be one of the few people on FR who likes pits. Not sure why you are trying to alienate me. But, whatever.
If anyone else can clue me in to what this poster is on about please give me a FReepmail so I will know how to avoid him in the future I would appreciate it. I really don’t enjoy this kind of stuff.
“Sure. anthropomorphize all you want.”
Nah...just until I need glasses.
Yes, but waxing your palms is painful and expensive... :)
The Taliban is just trying to engage our troops too. I wish them the same luck and the same fate."
Did I just read right?
Did you really compare Eaker to the Taliban, albeit somewhat indirectly?
Really?
You clearly don't know Eaker. He's a true patriot through and through and comparing him to our enemy - well, as we say in Texas, "those are fightin' words."
“Yes, but waxing your palms is painful and expensive... :)”
Huh.
Fight’n words?
Real Texan men know how to speak to a woman in a public forum without resorting to guttural references to said woman’s anatomy for cheap thrills and cheap shots. His sort of talk is for boys or for.... Well, let’s just say... I wonder if perhaps he is from Austin? Now, in San Angelo, we know how a real man is to behave.
*sigh*
400 posts later and she still thinks no one has offered her a ‘counter-point’...What must it be like to live in that head.
I reread the article and made a note of a few things. One, the mastiff is old. Nine for a mastiff is considered old age. It also reminded me of a friend whose roommate was attacked by her mastiff. Of course roommate was stupid enough to try to take a bone from it. But, this was a normally gentle mastiff who had roommate do this before. In the end, it turned out that the mastiff had a brain tumor and was suffering. Which makes me wonder if something similar might be the case here.
(You really are tiny!)
Check out the totally unretouched photo in post# 430!
Likewise!
Does our little friend know that shibumi is the US ambassador to Italy?
LOL!
You had more posts pulled than anyone!
Hell, mine was pulled because of your insignificant breasts. Seems like it is your fault not mine.
You can't change the sign up date n00bie.
I did notice that the Mods had to yell at you a few times for being a nasty stalker. If you missed that I can go back and ping you to them.
>Even then, if they failed to raise it right, failed to teach it, it would have destructive issues, but it would see the children as members of the pack and not as threats.<
Au contraire. An adult dog, especially an adult male dog, would very well see the weaker children as pack members all right. They would see the children as subordinate pack members to be disciplined according to canine cultural norms. Dogs discipline with their teeth and a bite that might not hurt another dog can very well scar a child permanently. In addition, get the wrong dog even as a pup, and you could have an adult dog that sees itself as alpha. At that point an unwitting adult who challenges the animal could very well find him or herself in a world of trouble.
Remember, your entire premise rests on a novice or uneducated dog owner. It takes a certain amount of common sense and dog savvy to raise a dog as a subordinate family member. Obviously, you and your family have done well raising dogs. The clueless among us will not be so fortunate.
Girl, you better be doggone glad that there dawg is a Dobe and not a Jack Russell terrorist. You’d be dead meat! < GG >
Maybe but I started riding when I was 3.
By the time I went from pony to horse at 10, it was all old hat.
Again, in the principle, we agree, but in the context of this article, and in the context that we are COMPARATIVE between, and unknown, untrained and one raised poorly but naively, the risk is lessor for the later and greater for the former. Now, in your most extreme example, assuming the worst possible conditions for the puppy raised, and then simply and Unknown for the adult, sure, the median will favor the unknown adult.
But that is biasing the trial in advance and does not prove anything but that you are good at knowing how to set the standards to produce the outcome of the statistics.
It is not a FAIR sample.
I would therefore submit, that in a truly RANDOM sample, you will have a greater number of adult dogs, given up for good reason, ie, bad behaviors, than you will puppy raised.
Why? Because as we have already discussed, the bad adult dogs HAD to have COME FROM badly raised puppies.
Ergo: The puppy pool of good vs badly raised, greatly favors the owners who KEEP their dogs, as if they did have bad issues, THOSE would be the ones given away.
Your scenario only works in the extremes of the bell curve. The norm, just systematically, reflects that the very reason more adults are given up is due to behavior issues. Thus greater risk.
Now. To my VERY VERY first point: And where we have greatly differed. Most of the usual suspects on this thread, either deny ANY RISK or have AVOIDED discussing the risk. No one, other than the few early on who have been driven off this thread, supported my position, that where children are involved, ANY RISK is too much risk.
Which is why I said NEVER. I am speaking to, these unskilled random folks, we have both been using in our examples.
Which is why I dismissed any and every expert trainer’s personal stories. THEY are the exceptions, not the norm.
For the normal folks, they are better off starting from scratch than, taking, any risk. No matter how slight or diverse are the odds.
Be nice.
I like small breasted wimmins.
Just so long as they ain’t know-it-all mouthy.
And loud. Don’t like loud.
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.