Pit bull terriers attack, critically injure 3 year old in Fort Worth

Fort Worth Star Telegram ^ | May 15, 2008 | Susan Tallant

[Francisco]

I thought jec41 had the best post regarding the question you raised.

"I will be 64 in August of this year and spent a great deal of my time around Pits when I was young. In addition I knew quite a few pit breeders that started in the late 1800'S and early 1900,s. My Grandfather was born in 1889 and died at 83 (1972). He had Pits most of his life. It is ignorant to say that these people mistreated their dogs. Champion Pits were very expensive and could run as much as $500.00 in the 20's. I assure you that that was a large amount of money even in the 1950's and you would be a fool to jeopardize your investment. Also if I remember correctly I believe the UKC is the oldest kennel club in America and the pit bull dog was the first breed registered. At the time all champions were pit tested. Many of those dogs would not even win a ribbon to day because they had more of a splayed or turned out foot for balance in the pit. these dogs were graded Champions not because of their looks but because of their exploits. If you look at the old show pictures you will not see any of these dogs in a ring with other show dogs. They were shown separately because they did not tolerate other dogs. I seem to remember that Pits were banned from the UKC for a time because of an outcry from other breed owners who felt that they were too vicious. The truth is that their dogs were bred for show only and they could not match the overall charismatics (strength ,courage and speed) of the pit. Pit breeders also guarded their lines very closely and kept stringent records for themselves, however when selling it was worse than horse trading. Unless you witnessed the sire and bitch breeding and took the bitch home with you until she pupped you didn't really know what you were getting. Rarely would one give someone the prized line but cross or outbred to keep their line intact. The number 1 trait that these Pits were bread for was gameness. A dog that would fight to the death, with no fear, and would never quit. Most fights were stopped when the owners felt the dogs were sufficiently tested because they were so expensive. Contrary to popular belief a good champion would only have two to three pit fights in their lifer and a great champion maybe five. Before 1950 any farm boy could recognize the difference between a Staffordshire, catch bulldog and a Pit bulldog even though in appearance they may appear to be th same. How ever each line was bred for a different purpose and each was a different breed. The staff and catch dogs were working dogs who were allowed to roam the farm at will and usually responded to people well. The title Pit bulldog is just that. It only referred to the line that had been proven in the pit and all other bulldogs need not apply. If you lived on a farm as a kid there were three things that were not permitted, You didn't play by the well, you didn't play with farm equipment and you didn't go in a dog yard where any Pits resided. I agree that dog fighting in todays society is inhumane and and deserves to be outlawed. But in the thirties when a farm overseer made fifty cent a day for six days a week from daylight to sunset income from a couple of Pits might make the difference between eating and going without. Times are very much different and so are the dogs. As time changed and club were formed such as the AKC and American Pit Bull Terrier/AMSTAFF, owners started out breeding and cross breeding to improve the disposition of the pit. In fact I don't think that the AKC all the pit breed. AMSTAFF is relative new and was welcomed as a avenue to show Pits. Many are called Pit Bull Terrier's but this is a misnomer. The result of kennel clubs was to keep the name Pit Bull but the breed was destroyed to satisfy charteristics and create a better disposition. Today, many crossbreeds are call pit type dogs and are therefore referred to as Pits. To my knowledge the UKC is the only club that has had a class for true Pits, that were bred for the pit, tried in the pot and excelled in the pit. The Pit Bull who's lines extended back more than 400 years no longer exists today. Even the Rednose or Colby dog you referred to was outbred in the 60's and 70's and and the line has been contaminated. While the so called Pit is now less aggressive because of out breeding to Rockwilders and Stafordshires, some who in turn have become more aggressive because of their Pit blood. That is why most old breeders deem these dogs so dangerous. When a pit was purebred one knew exactly what he would do. The mix breeds and they are mixed regardless of papers from a club can be anything, cuddly, obedient, a friend and dangerous. The problem is that out breeding has produced a dog that is unpredictable and one never knows when 400 years of genetics will kick in or even if true Pit blood is involved. I feel sorry for the dogs but I would never trust one. The common line in Pit type dog attacks are he was a good pet and always minded me, the dog was provoked or mistreated when in fact some of their bloodline was bred only to fight to the death. Blue ribbon Pits that priss around the ring today would have been called cur or sissy dogs in bygone years. In fact in the early UKC showings they would not have placed or been allowed to compete or even called a pit because none have been pit tested. The purebred Pit was never a great choice for a family pet and in truth he was a monster."

[spunkets]

"When I work against the fence area he goes ballistic."

Pepper spray the li'l darling.

[Red Badger]

Ammonia.........It’s good for the plants........

[Joe 6-pack]

"Over the past years, I've seen postings here on FR that seem to fall on one side or the other but this fundamental question gets clouded over in these discussions because of the understandable emotion evoked by these horrific attacks."

One reason that question gets, "clouded over" so often is that this is a highly emotional issue and everyone has a strong opinion, regardless of their command (or lack thereof) of the facts.

First, "Pit Bull" is a very ambiguous term, and even local legislators who set out to ban, "Pit Bulls" find themselves wrestling over the definition. For example, there is the "American Pit Bull Terrier", which is a specific breed recognized by the UKC (in fact UKC registrant #1 was an APBT), but not by the AKC. One problem is, the overwhelming majority of people who actually register dogs as APBTs, and breed them for conformance and show purposes, tend to be responsible owners, and carefully monitor the blood lines to minimize or eliminate the undesireable traits. The classic "Bull Terrier" is best recognized as Patton's Willie, or Spuds Mckenzie, and are generally people friendly dogs. Pure breds that conforms with the standards of the breed and truly meet the book definition of a "Bull Terrier," will be well outside the price range of the meth dealer that needs a protection dog for his trailer in the woods, or the gang banger in the street. Moreover, most serious breeders would no more associate with the criminal element than they would sell them a puppy.

In the 'hood, the term "pit bull" is usually applied to some variation of Staffordshire terrier, occasionally, some Rottweiler blood gets in the mix, American Bulldogs, Mastiffs, Dogo Argentino, Presa Canarios or whatever the meanest, biggwest, most aggressive violent dogs can be found and bred.

Amidst all this confusion, do-gooders call for bans on "Pit Bull Terriers," and politicians respond by drafting legislation that includes Boxers, English Bulldogs, or other dogs that are traditionally family pets. Furthermore without a strict definition, the media (scrupulous fact checkers that they are) tend to blame most any dog attack on "Pitbulls" even in incidents where the breed is not certain, or the victim/witness who couldn't tell a Rhodesian Ridgeback from a Doberman Pinscher reports the animal as a "Pit Bull" and the press obligingly prints that in their headline and the Police Officer dutifully enters that information in his report.

I really can't understand how many conservatives and small government people can not see the parallels between the efforts to ban "assault weapons," and breed specific legislation.

[spunkets]

"Ammonia.........It’s good for the plants........ "

Could be if it's dilute, or placed on just the dirt around the plants. It will kill the grass though, or leaves any stronger solutions hit. The equivalent of ammonia content is what kills the grass animals pee on. The N content is just too high.

[spunkets]

"Boxers, ... or other dogs that are traditionally family pets.

The old man brought a boxer home one day, when I was less than 4. I used to have to hide in a room with the door closed, because it would knock me down and chew on me. After Ma spent the a few entire days on top the washing machine and much screaming at paw, the dog disappeared and everyone lived happily ever after.

[Joe 6-pack]

Boxers are especially energetic dogs...Although I've known people with small kids who have had one without any problems, I wouldn't necessarily recommend the breed for a family with younger children. I would hope you'd agree with me that that fact and your anecdote don't justify banning the breed.

Many animal rights folks are against the AKC and other professional dog associations, but selective breeding to increase and maintain certain breed characteristics serves many purposes, one of which is allowing a prospective owner to obtain a dog that suits their family situation and lifestyle. Many mutts make great pets, and I'm all for the adoption of shelter animals. Having said that, they can be a wildcard draw, and you may end up with something that's completley unsuitable and unpredicatable.

[spunkets]

"I would hope you'd agree with me that that fact and your anecdote don't justify banning the breed."

That's right.

[meandog]

love dogs, some breeds more than others. Every vet I’ve talked to about pit bulls says this breed needs to be fixed to greatly reduce the inherent tendencies of this breed to unexpectedly snap and do something like this. After sexual maturity, there is something in this breed’s wiring that makes them more prone to unexpectedly turn violent, nad you cannot foresee what will trigger it. It appears to be a hormonal thing, and spay/neuter can reduce it significantly. Of course, this is also assuming they haven’t been bred to be violent and mean on purpose by the owner.

Dogs, by natural selection, are hard wired to be subservient to human master "pack leaders". It is important for all so-called "pitbull" owners to establish that fact and instill other parameters so that the dog can be socialized and obedient whether on or off leash around other humans and animals. And, I would advocate that all dogs be either spayed or neutered, unless of show quality (which the so-called "pitbull" is not as it is not a recognized AKC breed, being the product of backyard breeding by nefarious types).

If you're asking whether there are circumstances of dog's "snapping" because of a mental deficiency then I would agree that there have been occurrences, as the canine kingdom is little different than the human one and there indeed is a certain small percentage of "red zone" crazies--just as there are in human beings. But, if you're saying that all PBTs "snap" then I would disagree--the vast majority can and have been successfully trained and socialized.

[Joe 6-pack]

"That's right."

Thanks for the sanity check. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm always amazed at the self-proclaimed, small government types who are all for passage of vague, ambiguous legislation calling for the outright ban of a breed of dog they cannot define. Furthermore, these same people will decry the main stream media's leftist slant and hidden agenda on everything from Iraq, taxes, unions, public schools, etc. but insist that every article about pit bulls is totally objective and free of sensationalism.

There are dangerous dogs out there...no doubt...but dog attacks are the result of improperly restrained, inadequately supervised animals, and there is a human somewhere in that equation that failed to exercise their responsibilities and should be financially, if not criminally liable.

Some people may wish to own a certain type of firearm or motorcycle, and be totally unprepared and hopelessly inexperienced to handle them...and when they do take ownership of such, their inexperience creates an unnecessary hazard to others...yet a right thinking person would not call for a ban on certain weapons or motorcycles simply because some people who are ill-prepared to own them insist on doing so.

No dog owner should be in favor of such laws, because government will always become more intrusive.

20 years ago we were told, "You're now required to wear a seatbelt, but you won't be pulled over for not wearing it...if we pull you over for something else, i.e. speeding, burnt out tail light, and you're not wearing your seatbelt, you'll be charged for that."

Then about 10 years ago, we were told that, indeed, "if we see you driving without a seatbelt, we'll pull you over and write you a ticket."

Now, I turn on the radio and I hear ads for "Click it or ticket," where I'm told the Federal Government is subsidizing local and state polilce departments to pay officers overtime strictly for the purpose of enforcing mandatory seat belt laws.

If, as some locations have already done, the powers that be cobble together a nebulous definition of "pit bull" and succeed in banning them, the "next dangerous dog" will become, "the most dangerous dog," and we'll hear stories about how that breed has mauled people, is bred to be aggressive, etc. until it too is banned.

Trust me...PETA and other animal rights groups are behind much of this legislation with an end view of complete bans on animal ownership. While maybe well intended by many, the submission to a ban on "pit bulls" is just the beginning of a much larger agenda.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I mean, just look at their record if you don't believe me."

Agreed...a review of their record is in order. Pit bulls have long been known for their associations with "Gang" activity...

Likewise, Bull Terrier owners are usually brash, aggressive personalities...

...and as we all know, "mean people suck." I read that on the bumper of a Prius so it must be true!

A dog that purely evil would never have any legitimate commercial purpose...

A further examination of the historical record reveals "Sgt. Stubby." This vicious, cruel dog actually had the temerity to actually bite the German soldier attempting to infiltrate the lines of the American unit to which Stubby belonged.

Yep...an examination of their record indicates why we need to ban these dogs ASAP. In fact I think a retroactive ban should be enacted to assess a fine from anybody who ever owned, or even thought of owning a pit bull...then we could fund a government agency to post an armed federal agent in every library to ensure that people who check out, "The Bar Sinister," sign an waiver acknowledging that bull terriers are so evil that even reading a story about one could result in sever injury. After all, Government knows best what freedoms we should be allowed to exercise, and certainly, bull terrier ownership has no place in a society where people can't responsibility for themselves or their animals!

"I Love Big Brother."

[reagan_fanatic]

Gosh, how could I ever be so wrong?

Let's condense all these wonderful points into a nice, colorful children's picture book and present it to that little three year-old girl who was mauled by a member of this peaceful, misundertsood and persecuted breed, shall we?

[Joe 6-pack]

"Gosh, how could I ever be so wrong?"

Indeed it's the dog's fault. The Aunt, who was in breach of a civil contract by having the dog in violation of her lease agreement, and who failed to exercise due diligence in maintaining control of the dog is blameless.

What happened to this girl is tragic...but the owner of the dog is responsible. Animals act without morality. Cows give milk, not because they love us and want us to be healthy, but because they simply produce milk as a course of their nature. Some have been purposely bred to be more productive and have a higher yield than others, and those cows give more milk...not because they like us more...but because that's what they do. It's the dairy farmer's choice as to whether or not he uses the animal responsibly.

To say that a type of dog (and I defy you to satisfactorily define "pit bull") should be banned is saying that a type of property should be prohibited because it is potentially more dangerous if improperly kept or if it escapes the control of its owner. People lose control of their vehicles through negligent driving all the time...when this happens, an SUV or pickup will potentially be more dangerous and destructive than a compact or sedan...do you agree with banning the bigger vehicles simply for that reason? And trust me...a much larger number of young children are maimed by reckless drivers than by any type of dog.

Likewise, when improperly bred, raised, trained, and secured, a "pit bull" will be potentially more destructive than a yorkshire terrier...but it is the responsibility of the owner, regardless of breed, to maintain control of the dog.

My heart goes out to this poor girl, but let's assess fault where it should properly fall, and not let emotion over-ride logic.

[Captain Rhino]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to work up these informative replies.

The main points I get are:

- Pure breed pit bull terriers are predictably very aggressive all the time. As such, they are never to be considered safe to be around ever.

- The pure breed pit bull terrier as a line no longer exists. It has been crossed repeatedly to other breeds (primarily to improve disposition). The result is a sturdy, well armed, and unpredictable dog that can become aggressive at any time either with or without provocation.

- All this cross breeding makes legally defining what is and is not a “pit bull” just about impossible. And it may be too narrow a focus since the mixes are the unpredictable ones most likely to be encountered anyway.

- Sloppy fact-gathering by the police and sloppy reporting by the news media means that many dog attacks get reported as “pit bull attacks” when they might, in fact, have been carried out by a pit mix or some other breed entirely.

Many communities already have dangerous animal laws. These laws, as I understand them are focused on containment. But containment can fail and we get these attacks as a result.

There is always the reactive response that comes after the attack (dog siezed, dog put down, dog owner sued, etc.)

Is there anything that, in your opinion, is being missed on the proactive side of the issue?

Would some sort of mandatory registration and licensing scheme for all dogs work to identify these dogs early and ensure the owner was fully aware of their responsibilities and all the liabilities of owning such animals? Mandatory insurance with the insurance companies required to certify, etc.? Perhaps aggressive enforcement of existing laws? (As in “Don’t worry about your containment being adequate. It will either meet the requirement each and every time we inspect it or we will make it meet the requirement on the spot and send you the bill.”)

[Joe 6-pack]

I can generally agree with the points as you've itemized them with the exception of the references to their being, “unpredictable,” which I think should be regarded as only half the story. One of the primary goals of any responsible breeder is in fact, “predictability.” Most of the non-dog, general public is generally not aware of the fact that dogs and breeders involved in the dog show world are not so much competing against one another as they are being evaluated against the written standards for that breed, which includes character and disposition, as well as physical conformity to that standard. If a show like the Westminster Kennel Club, or other competitive show is run strictly by the organization's rules, the dog awarded, "Best In Show" may not necessarily be the best looking, healthiest, strongest, biggest, fastest, friendliest etc. dog in that show...the Best In Show should, strictly speaking, be the dog that most closely conforms to the written standard for its individual breed.

Now, depending on the purpose the dog was bred for, the characteristics it exemplifies can vary widely. For example, here's the UKC standard for the German Shepherd:

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/GermanShepherdDog

Depending on the breed, and the purpose for which the breed was originally developed, alertness, assertiveness and even aggressiveness are desirable traits (who wants a pacifist for a guard dog?) Having said that, a dog that can not be controlled by its master is useless. Consequently if you look at the American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, etc. at the top end of the serious breeder and competition world, I can virtually guarantee you the dogs will be quite "predictable" in their behavior, and manageable by human masters who know what they are doing. The street thug owner, backwoods meth blender, or NFL dog fighter, no doubt will, be buying or breeding dogs they aren't particularly concerned about controlling. They want as violent, erratic, and unstable a dog as possible since they are merely going to drop these dogs into a plywood pit with another dog, and leave them there until one of the two is dead. These dogs and their descendants are not the type of dog you want to leave your child with, and even if rescued by a humane society or other well-intentioned shelter, are generally very high risk adoptees. Unfortunately dogs from these lineages are often sold to unsuspecting, inexperienced owners as, "great guard dogs," or to people who simply want the *prestige* of owning a pit bull.

Taking all of that into consideration, dogs, like any other animal including humans are individually capable of random, inexplicable acts that defy explanation. This is true of any breed, and simply one of the risks of owning or interacting with any animal (again, humans included.)

One of the "main points" you identified that bears a heavy emphasis is the misidentification of dogs by the media, law enforcement and the general public. As I alluded to in another reply, this is the very same media that will call an AR-15 sporter a, "machine gun," or a civilian Kalashnikov variant a, "high powered, automatic assault rifle." Some times I believe it's just plain ignorance and laziness-impeded fact checking. Some times I think there's a sales and marketing angle to it: "Pit bull mauls child" will sell more newspapers than, "Neapolitan Mastiff injures child." In the most insidious cases, I believe there is an editorial agenda to enact breed specific legislation that will deliberately look to publish whatever negative news can be published to paint pit bulls in a derogatory light...even if there was no pit bull or variant thereof within miles of the incident in question.

If the media side wasn't enough, police officers are inclined to misidentify any dog in a dog attack as a pit bull simply because everyone knows they're the meanest dog out there, right? This creates a great misinformation snowball when police reports become statistics, and then everyone knows that pit bulls are not only the "meanest dogs," but are the, "meanest dogs by a big margin."

Having responded to the main points you distilled, I'll now respond to your questions...

Is there anything that, in your opinion, is being missed on the proactive side of the issue? Would some sort of mandatory registration and licensing scheme for all dogs work to identify these dogs early and ensure the owner was fully aware of their responsibilities and all the liabilities of owning such animals?

Most municipalities or counties already have some type of licensing or registration requirement. There may be some exceptions in rural, unincorporated parts of the country, but even with that being the case, I'm not aware of any state in the country that does not require rabies vaccinations at the minimum. There are problems with "identifying" these dogs early. As I indicated, strictly defining "Pit Bull" (or "Pit Bull Variant") would be a Sisyphean challenge. American Pit Bull Terriers are only defined as such because they are, or have a verifiable lineage from dogs registered as APBTs with the UKC. As noted above, these dogs are clearly already identified as such from jump-street, and there is a clear paper trail that has to be maintained if the owner wants to preserve the monetary value of the dog and it's future offspring. You could track these dogs very carefully...they already are, but by and large, these are not the problem dogs, and do not belong to the problem owners.

Registering the "problem" dogs would likewise create a very similar analog to the paradoxical logic of gun control...i.e. when pit bulls are outlawed, only outlaws own pit bulls. Getting all the owners of dangerous mixes currently out there to submit their dogs to some sort of genetic registry, I submit, would be unenforceable. Certainly a Michael Vick or persons of that ilk, with a dog fighting farm would not want to take scarred, bitten up dogs to a veterinarian or animal control office who just might suspect dog fighting...but these animals will continue to be bred. Because of all the breeds potentially involved, you would create an ever expanding ring of people that would have to "bring their dogs in" for registration, and as specific breeds were added to the legislation you expend more and more resources on people and dogs that are further and further away from the problem. Even with all of that, all it would take is one owner with a breeding pair of dogs in rural North Carolina to evade registration, and breed their dogs to collapse the validity of the whole system. Say they sell their 8 puppies to a Rottweiler owner (who has his dog "registered".) The Rott breeds with the outlaw dog and they have 10 puppies. Those puppies get farmed out to who knows whom, and within a few years you have a geometric proliferation of unregistered dogs...of course you would be able to genetically trace them back to say the Rott that was in the registry, but what would that accomplish?

You also suggested:

"Mandatory insurance with the insurance companies required to certify, etc.?"

Many Homeowner's Carriers will no longer write insurance policies for Bull Terrier owners or other, "dangerous breeds." Many who do write policies will make them so exorbitant as to be unaffordable. Again, responsible owners whose dogs are not just pets but investments and show dogs already have policies that cover their dogs individually, or if an established kennel, as a business. Again, as in this very post, the Aunt wasn't even supposed to own the dog by virtue of her rent agreement, and it would have been very unlikely she would have carried insurance on it even if required to do so by law. Certainly, if insurance were mandatory she could have been charged after the fact for not having it, and the dog could be seized and destroyed (as it probably will be any way), but again, this is an ex post facto measure that does the injured girl no good.

You further recommend, "Perhaps aggressive enforcement of existing laws?

This I wholeheartedly agree with, and I would even advocate increasing the penalties above and beyond what they currently are in many cases. Dogs and other animals are property...a unique kind of property, but they are already a kind that occupy a special place in law. You can take your lawn chair and throw it in a fire, bend it, pound it with a hammer, take it to the range and shoot it, attack it with a samurai sword, urinate on it, etc. and nobody cares...you have the right to do with your property as you see fit as long as your activities do not hurt another person. Even though a dog is your exclusive property you can not abuse it like you do your lawn chair, and will face criminal charges if you do. Because there are modifiers to general property rights that already apply to animals, smart legislators and citizens who enjoy their freedoms should emphasize the need to properly maintain an animal, rather than bar its ownership altogether.

I know that many will argue that there are exotic animal licenses for people who wish to own exotic, dangerous animals (i.e. Siegfried and Roy) that should be applied to pit bulls. Again, there is the difficulty in defining pit bull and most laws would inevitably impact many perfectly upstanding, responsible citizens that simply want to get a boxer, bulldog, etc. as a family pet. What many people also do not understand is the domestic dog is one, single solitary species. A 6' long, 190 pound Irish Wolfhound is the very same species and theoretically (mechanics of the act notwithstanding) can breed with a 9" long, 3 pound Chihuahua. To simply require special licensing by species clearly would not be feasible...or every person that wanted a beagle for hunting, or a dalmatian for a Christmas gift for their kids would face prohibitive licensing fees.

Having said all that, there is one very limited exception I would like to see passed, and that is on wolf/dog hybrids. In some venues, wolves are crossed with German Shepherds, Huskies, etc. These dogs do tend to be unpredictable and dangerous, but that's not the reason I would care to see them banned. Simply, when a wolf is bred with a dog, it is not bred with another wolf, and that threatens an already threatened species.

Now if you've read this far, you must think I'm a pit bull owner. I'm not, never have been, and don't ever anticipate getting one. I'm not particularly fond of the breed, but I do love dogs in general. I am and always have been a German Shepherd fan, and I also know how government works, and once the first breed specific legislation is passed, it is only a matter of time before Chows, Dobermans, Shepherds, Ridgebacks, Bulldogs get added to the list...laws once passed are far more likely to become more rigid than to be relaxed.

"Pit Bulls" may pose a higher risk than other breeds, but they are nowhere near as dangerous as arbitrary, ill-conceived limitations on personal freedom.

I may not be particularly fond of pit bulls, but my shepherd and I will fight to the death for your right to own one.

[Secret Agent Man]

It is well known among pit bull owners that they are aware these dogs in this breed have a TENDENCY to snap unexpectedly. I did not say ALL will. But the tendency IS there. Pit bull owners also say spaying and neutering greatly reduces this tendency because there is a strong hormonal component to it. Pit bulls have something in them that makes them more naturally aggressive towards other dogs. Not so much people - that can be learned with abusive treatment, but it isn’t nearly so much innate as their behavior with respect to other dogs. Mostly for the reason you mention, that they look at people/owners as the alpha dog.

[Melas]

Sad day when so-called conservatives start espousing criminal activity here on FR.

[Melas]

Another so-called conservative advocating criminal activity. Take your criminal suggestions to DU. I had a dog poisoned once, and it hurt like hell, not only to lose a dog I loved, but to see my kids heartbroken over the loss of their beloved pet.

[Melas]

And you dare to call yourself a conservative? You’re nothing but a criminal sack of ****.

[Phlap]

lol!