Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    DEBATE    |    Enjoy opinions shoved down your throat    |    4,105 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 1,720 of 4,105    |
|    Lee Lofaso to Richard Webb    |
|    Helping to alievate o 1/    |
|    03 Jun 12 16:10:00    |
      Hello Richard,              >LL>The problem is, most folks who own pit bulls (and certain other       >LL>large breeds) do so for illegal activities (dog fighting). The       >LL>vocal cords of these dogs are usually cut so the dogs will not be       >LL>able to make a sound when wounded in a fight.              >LL>Oh, some of those folks are very bright. Bright enough to       >LL>know how to make money in a sickening "sport". Also bright       >LL>enough to make themselves (and their dogs) scarce when the       >LL>law finds out about their nefarious activities.              RW>Yeeah maybe, but this thing that adopted his cousin's       RW>rottie in cednter city N.O. might have been cunning, but       RW>bright doesn't describe this dim bulb. Standing him against       RW>a wall and shooting him would have been neighborhood improvement.       RW>The average intelligence of the enighborhood would have immediately       RW>gone up about 50 points.              You could have bought him a one-way bus ticket to Arkansas,       thus ending up with the same result. :)              >RW>INdeed, I've known some well behaved pitbulls, their owners       >RW>are usually people of intelligence who properly trained the       >RW>dog.              >LL>There is a big difference between *responsible* dog owners       >LL>and nincompoops.              RW>INdeed there is, and usually responsible dog owners have       RW>the intellectual capacity to understand what's going on       RW>around them and govern themselves accordingly.              Talking about dimbulbs and nincompoops, the following story       is a recent case of what NOT to do -              A 91-year-old woman was outside tending to her garden, with       her miniature shnauzer by her side. Two houses down, a teenager       stepped outside to take his dog for a walk. The teenager had       a pit pull, and when that pit bull saw that miniature shnauzer       it was love at first bite. After taking a nibble of flesh       from "Geaux Sport" (the name of the miniature shnauzer), some       neighbors pulled the pit bull away, and called animal control.       The local police also arrived, taking the boy away for not       being able to control his dog.              The boy's parents were called, who picked up their kid at the       police station. Animal control had picked up the pit bull, and       was housing it at the pound.              Ten days later, animal control released the dog to the boy's       parents, who then returned the dog to their son, telling him he       was not allowed to keep the dog at that house (the boy was       living alone at one of his parent's houses).              The next day, the old woman was outside tending to her garden,       with her stitched-up miniature shnauzer by her side. The teenager       stepped outside to take his newly-returned pit bull for a walk.       And when that pit bull saw that miniature shnauzer it was love       all over again. Only this time, the pit bull took off a much       bigger chunk of flesh than the first time, sending Geaux Sport       straight to the graveyard. Not only that, but the pit bull       also dedided to get seconds, biting off a chunk of flesh from       the old woman's arm.              Neighbors arrived as quickly as they could, pulling the pit       bull off the old woman. Animal control arrived to pick up both       dogs (the dead miniature shnauzer and the very much alive pit       pull). Police picked up the boy to keep him safe from the       neighbors. The pit bull was then euthanized by animal control       so that a third incident would not take place.              The old woman asked that criminal charges be dropped against       the boy, since she felt sorry for him and he did not know any       better. The court decided to convict him of a misdemeanor,       sentencing him to a few hours of community service. The old       woman then tried to sue the boy's insurance company, but the       courts ruled that the boy's parents were not liable because       the parents told the boy he could not to keep the dog at home       (the court reasoned that the boy merely disobeyed his parents).              Where is justice in all of this? The old woman lost her       dog. The boy also lost his dog. The woman was not allowed       any compensation for the loss of her dog, or for medical       expenses incurred. The boy was not allowed any compensation       either, and was even forced to spend time in community service.       The boy's parents got off the hook completely, not having       to pay a dime to anybody.              What laws are there to keep folks from owning a pet? What laws are       there to keep folks from making babies? Is it possible for a free and       open society to have such laws? Should a free and open society have       such laws? Why, or why not?              >RW>Indeed they do, and it's the irresponsible ones who give       >RW>certain breeds undeserved reputations.              >LL>For the most part, that is true. However, the only difference       >LL>between dogs that most folks are aware of is "big" and "small". In       >LL>that sense, all "big" dogs are dangerous, and all "small" dogs       >LL>(except for chihuahuas) are nice and friendly.              RW>I've never met a chihuahua I liked |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca