On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:22:02 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
>>
>> Dogs that bite children should be destroyed. Period. In every case.
>
>Poppycock. Most dog bites are just nips that don't even draw blood, and
>it may have been provoked by the kid's behaviour. Large dogs that give
>serious bites can be allowed one. Vicious dogs who maul shopuld be
>destroyed.

by then it's too late

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:14:29 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> On Apr 17, 4:59*pm, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>>
>> Good advice Janet and good comparison. *I assume most parents wouldn't
>> dream of allowing their offspring the license to pick up someone else's
>> child, say at the supermarket or shopping mall. *As I said before, any dog
>> has the potential to bite.
>
> IIRC, the AH had assured the family of the little girl that the dog
> was "friendly."
>
> If it had been my child, the owner would have 3 choices:
> 1. Have the dog peacefully put down.
> 2. Hide the dog where I couldn't get to it.
> 3. Risk having the dog die a far more painful and prolonged death.
> Few things are easier to kill than a dog. They'll eat damned near
> anything, and this time we wouldn't be talking capsaicin.
>
<snip>
>
> If you prioritize animals over humans, you have surrendered a certain
> portion of your humanity.
>

because we all know a large part of one's humanity is taking relish in
poisoning dogs.

blake

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> On Apr 17, 8:43*pm, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>> Bobo Bonobo® :in
>> rec.food.cooking
>>
>>
>>
>>> IIRC, the AH had assured the family of the little girl that the dog
>>> was "friendly."
>>
>> Yes, I believe you're correct but it was when the dog got away from it's
>> owner. *The child was bitten when the owner had taken the dog back and
>> resumed her line at the check out. *Correct me if I'm wrong here.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If it had been my child, the owner would have 3 choices:
>>> 1. Have the dog peacefully put down.
>>
>> ROFLMAO... Good luck!
>>
>>> 2. Hide the dog where I couldn't get to it.
>>> 3. Risk having the dog die a far more painful and prolonged death.
>>> Few things are easier to kill than a dog. *They'll eat damned near
>>> anything, and this time we wouldn't be talking capsaicin.
>>
>> We all know how you enjoy tormenting and torturing animals. You've
>> admitted to such. *I believe we had a discussion on this once before and
>> I called you a coward. *My opinion of you still holds. *Your bragging
>> about your demented fantasies regarding the torture and murder of animals
>> has been well documented on Usenet.
>>
>>
>>
>>> An excerpt from the Test of the Gom Jabbar, from the first Dune book:
>>
>> I haven't read a Dune book since I was probably 12 and I could care less
>> what the author says regarding humanity.
>
> You are a traitor to the human species. You have become part dog.
>>

a traitor to humanity because he thinks poisoning dogs is barbaric? you
got a ****ing screw loose, buddy.

blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
>> On Apr 17, 8:43 pm, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>>> Bobo Bonobo®
>>> :in
>>> rec.food.cooking
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> IIRC, the AH had assured the family of the little girl that the dog
>>>> was "friendly."
>>>
>>> Yes, I believe you're correct but it was when the dog got away from it's
>>> owner. The child was bitten when the owner had taken the dog back and
>>> resumed her line at the check out. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If it had been my child, the owner would have 3 choices:
>>>> 1. Have the dog peacefully put down.
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO... Good luck!
>>>
>>>> 2. Hide the dog where I couldn't get to it.
>>>> 3. Risk having the dog die a far more painful and prolonged death.
>>>> Few things are easier to kill than a dog. They'll eat damned near
>>>> anything, and this time we wouldn't be talking capsaicin.
>>>
>>> We all know how you enjoy tormenting and torturing animals. You've
>>> admitted to such. I believe we had a discussion on this once before and
>>> I called you a coward. My opinion of you still holds. Your bragging
>>> about your demented fantasies regarding the torture and murder of
>>> animals
>>> has been well documented on Usenet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> An excerpt from the Test of the Gom Jabbar, from the first Dune book:
>>>
>>> I haven't read a Dune book since I was probably 12 and I could care less
>>> what the author says regarding humanity.
>>
>> You are a traitor to the human species. You have become part dog.
>>>
>
> a traitor to humanity because he thinks poisoning dogs is barbaric? you
> got a ****ing screw loose, buddy.
>

Even worse, his music really, really, deeply sucks.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:20:30 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>> the management shouldn't be letting ****ing dogs in the store.
>
> I didn't see anything in Cheryl's post which indicated that there were dogs
> ****ing in the store.
>
> Bob

actually, my eyeballs skipped over the 'pet' part of 'pet food store.' i
thought it was some flaky west coast grocery we were talking about.

oopsie.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:00:08 -0400, jmcquown wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>
>>> So why did the parents not stop the child from approaching the dog? The
>>> dog was obviously leashed and back in the owner's control. I see children
>>> running amuck in these stores all the time. Regardless of the signs
>>> posted parents allow their offspring to pound on the glass of animal
>>> cages etc. I see people in those stores that think the place is a
>>> petting zoo.
>>
>> From what I have seen in stores, it is probably the kids who should be
>> leashed.
>
> Perhaps these days... it wouldn't have occurred to me to pitch a fit or
> wander away from my mother when she took me to the store, no matter how
> fascinating the display or how enticing the sweets or whatever. Back when I
> was a kid it was a privilege, not a right, to go to the store. (I do
> realize not everyone can find someone to sit with their children when they
> shop.)
>
> I remember when I worked in a shopping mall in the late 1970s and especially
> early 1980s (after the Adam Walsh abduction/murder) seeing parents with
> "leashes" on their young children. Mostly toddlers. Given the very real
> fear about children being snatched by unscrupulous people from large
> department stores, I thought it a quite sensible idea rather than some form
> of cruel and unusual punishment.
>
> Jill

that's like wearing a raincoat, galoshes, and carrying an umbrella 24/7
because it rained once or twice last year. the fear might have been real,
but it was in no way sensible.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:52:21 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> On Apr 17, 8:36*pm, Rhonda Anderson > wrote:
>> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>> I was bitten pretty severely by a cat too. *Within a week, the cat was
>>> dead. *I'll never get back that $25 that my wife insisted I pay to get
>>> a trap and have it euthanized by a vet. *We lived in Florida. *The
>>> soil was sandy. *I had a shovel. *All it would have cost was half a
>>> buck for a can of wet food to distract it while I delivered a fatal
>>> blow. *Instant, skull crushing death. *We lived right next to a small
>>> wooded area. *Twenty five bucks.
>>
>> I'd be interested to know the circumstances of the bite. Sitting quietly on
>> your porch when the cat appeared out of nowhere and attacked you? Or were
>> you interacting with the cat in some way?
>
> It was a stray, and I pitied it because it was skinny. I started
> giving it food out in front of the apartment, and I'd pet it and it'd
> nuzzle me. Once, I let it inside because we were having a little 15
> minute thunderstorm. I fed it and pet it, and when it was time for it
> to leave, I opened the door and tried to coax it. Next I tried to
> gently shoo it out. Finally, I picked it up, and it lit into me in a
> very bloody way.
>
> I am not concerned with fault of any of that, which I consider
> nonsense when an animal attacks a human. I like cats. I'm a cat
> person, but an animal who bites with that ferocity is a threat to our
> species.

so, a two-bit cat was a threat to your life (and the whole human species!) who deserved 'instant, crushing death'?

you are a sick, um, puppy.

blake

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:24:15 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Lin wrote:
>
>>> You feared for your LIFE? You thought the cat was a GENOCIDAL threat?
>>>
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn, what a WUSS!
>>
>> Sweetheart ... you are fortunate that our two cats don't turn into
>> Tasmanian Devils. I've seen cats do some pretty nasty damage to folks that
>> didn't ask for it -- not to mention the infections that come from a simple
>> cat scratch.
>
> But let's be real he Domestic cats are NOT a "threat to our species." It
> is hyperbolic hysteria even to *hint* at such a thing.
>
> Yes, cats can inflict some painful superficial damage. But I can KILL a cat
> in a matter of seconds. Our species' survival is not in any way threatened
> by domestic cats.
>
> Bob

a threat to sanity, maybe - *viz.* sheldon - but not survival.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:13:26 -0500, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:24:15 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>>Lin responded to Bob, who was responding to Bobo:
>>
>>>> You feared for your LIFE? You thought the cat was a GENOCIDAL threat?
>>>>
>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn, what a WUSS!
>>>
>>> Sweetheart ... you are fortunate that our two cats don't turn into
>>> Tasmanian Devils. I've seen cats do some pretty nasty damage to folks that
>>> didn't ask for it -- not to mention the infections that come from a simple
>>> cat scratch.
>>
>>But let's be real he Domestic cats are NOT a "threat to our species." It
>>is hyperbolic hysteria even to *hint* at such a thing.
>>
>>Yes, cats can inflict some painful superficial damage. But I can KILL a cat
>>in a matter of seconds. Our species' survival is not in any way threatened
>>by domestic cats.
>
> You mean Bobo was WRONG? Bobo is never wrong! You have shattered my
> reality. I must regroup.
>
> Carol, wondering what kind of a name Bobo is for a grown man

who said anything about a grown man?

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:15:11 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> On Apr 17, 10:24*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
> wrote:
>> Lin wrote:
>>>> You feared for your LIFE? You thought the cat was a GENOCIDAL threat?
>>
>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn, what a WUSS!
>>
>>> Sweetheart ... you are fortunate that our two cats don't turn into
>>> Tasmanian Devils. I've seen cats do some pretty nasty damage to folks that
>>> didn't ask for it -- not to mention the infections that come from a simple
>>> cat scratch.
>>
>> But let's be real he Domestic cats are NOT a "threat to our species." It
>> is hyperbolic hysteria even to *hint* at such a thing.
>>
>> Yes, cats can inflict some painful superficial damage. But I can KILL a cat
>> in a matter of seconds. Our species' survival is not in any way threatened
>> by domestic cats.
>
> I can too, but it would have been a bit traumatic for my dear sweet
> wife had I done so then and there.
>>

you aware that in many ways you fit the profile for serial killers, aren't
you? and i'm not talking about playing your music for people.

blake

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:10:17 -0500, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:39:30 -0600, Pennyaline
> > wrote:
>
>>Cheryl wrote:
>>> You can believe that if you want. Knock yer socks off. And you're very
>>> interesting to read. I think I'll flag your posts and watch you more.
>>
>>I am interesting to read. Now hurry along and work on a reaction more
>>productive than deflection, okay? That's a girl!
>
> I'm gonna watch both of you. This may require Kettle Corn.
>
> Carol

i think maybe a stiff drink.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> On Apr 17, 1:35*am, zxcvbob > wrote:
>> Cheryl wrote:
>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Cheryl > wrote:
>>
>>>>> But you don't know me very well. *Those who do know that what I wrote in
>>>>> between those who need to be acting and weren't doing so.
>>
>>>> I kind of found it painful to read. *So I didn't.
>>
>>>> -sw
>>
>>> But shouldn't cases like this show that taking your dog or cat or
>>> whatever into a pet food store where there are kids who don't know that
>>> the pooch on the leash isn't friendly to kids even if the pet owners
>>> didn't know their doggie can't deal with kids. *Seems to me a law suit
>>> in the making
>>
>> This was totally the owner's fault. *According to the story, she had the
>> dog back on the leash at the time, and had told the girl that the dog
>> was friendly.
>>
>> If it were my kid, I probably would have attacked the dog at that point
>> and one of us would have died. *I was ready to do that when my parents'
>> dog growled and snapped (totally unprovoked) at my daughter when she was
>> about 4 or 5 yo if he hadn't backed off. *He's mellowed with age and
>> they get along great now. *'course she's a lot bigger than him now...
>
> I've yet to ever kill a dog, but I'm only 48.
>>

ah, you have something to live for!

blake

On 18 Apr 2009 01:38:28 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Bobo Bonobo® >
> :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
> *
>>
>> You like dogs better than humans. Species traitor.
>
> It would be true I like my animals better than *most* humans, not all, but
> most. I also respect my animals more than *most* humans and most certainly
> more than today's "entitled" generation.
>
> Michael

it's true that most dags are smarter than mr. bonobo.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:

> On Apr 18, 3:39*am, Rhonda Anderson > wrote:
>> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote :
>>
>> *Dogs
>>
>>> that have potential for harming humans are dangerous weapons, just
>>> like guns, and when the owner fails to exercise due diligence they
>>> should have their right to own dogs taken away, just as habitual drunk
>>> drivers are banned from driving, or child molesters are banned from
>>> unsupervised contact with children, or violent felons are disallowed
>>> the right to own firearms.
>>
>> _Every_ dog has the potential to harm humans. _Every_ dog. _Every_ breed.
>>
>> The only dog with no potential to harm anyone is one that has had its teeth
>> and claws removed.
>
> Then perhaps no one should bring them into public, ever. What type of
> dog do you own, or have you owned?
>
> The dog in this tale is a MFing rottweiler.
>>
>> Even those "gentle" dogs you mentioned who would never harm anyone may bite
>> if they were threatened or injured.
>
> Did the little girl in the original post go up and pull the dog's
> tail? No, she attempted to be affectionate.
>>
>> Owners of all dogs should act responsibly. And anyone who may be in the
>> vicinity of a dog should also act responsibly. Parents should not let their
>> children approach or pat strange dogs.
>
> I agree, but the dog's owner had just assured them that it was a
> friendly dog. What if we were in a checkout line and you accidentally
> hit me with an item that you were putting up on conveyor belt, and I
> reacted by punching you?

i would have no trouble believing that.

blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:00:08 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> I remember when I worked in a shopping mall in the late 1970s and
>> especially
>> early 1980s (after the Adam Walsh abduction/murder) seeing parents with
>> "leashes" on their young children. Mostly toddlers. Given the very real
>> fear about children being snatched by unscrupulous people from large
>> department stores, I thought it a quite sensible idea rather than some
>> form
>> of cruel and unusual punishment.
>>
>> Jill
>
> that's like wearing a raincoat, galoshes, and carrying an umbrella 24/7
> because it rained once or twice last year. the fear might have been real,
> but it was in no way sensible.
>
> your pal,
> blake



Your mother *never* told you to take an umbrella because it might rain?

Jill

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:15:11 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
>> On Apr 17, 10:24 pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
>> wrote:
>>> Lin wrote:
>>>>> You feared for your LIFE? You thought the cat was a GENOCIDAL threat?
>>>
>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn, what a WUSS!
>>>
>>>> Sweetheart ... you are fortunate that our two cats don't turn into
>>>> Tasmanian Devils. I've seen cats do some pretty nasty damage to folks
>>>> that
>>>> didn't ask for it -- not to mention the infections that come from a
>>>> simple
>>>> cat scratch.
>>>
>>> But let's be real he Domestic cats are NOT a "threat to our species."
>>> It
>>> is hyperbolic hysteria even to *hint* at such a thing.
>>>
>>> Yes, cats can inflict some painful superficial damage. But I can KILL a
>>> cat
>>> in a matter of seconds. Our species' survival is not in any way
>>> threatened
>>> by domestic cats.
>>
>> I can too, but it would have been a bit traumatic for my dear sweet
>> wife had I done so then and there.
>>>
>
> you aware that in many ways you fit the profile for serial killers, aren't
> you? and i'm not talking about playing your music for people.
>

That might cause more of a slow, lingering malaise that eventually might end
in death did not the sufferer take her own life in utter misery.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:10:34 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:00:08 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>>
>> I remember when I worked in a shopping mall in the late 1970s and especially
>> early 1980s (after the Adam Walsh abduction/murder) seeing parents with
>> "leashes" on their young children. Mostly toddlers. Given the very real
>> fear about children being snatched by unscrupulous people from large
>> department stores, I thought it a quite sensible idea rather than some form
>> of cruel and unusual punishment.
>>
>> Jill
>
>that's like wearing a raincoat, galoshes, and carrying an umbrella 24/7
>because it rained once or twice last year. the fear might have been real,
>but it was in no way sensible.
>
You're saying a harness and leash on a toddler is not sensible?
Obviously you haven't had a toddler around. I could tell you toddler
stories that would make your hair curl.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

blake murphy wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:00:08 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
> > "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >>
> >>> So why did the parents not stop the child from approaching the dog?
The
> >>> dog was obviously leashed and back in the owner's control. I see
children
> >>> running amuck in these stores all the time. Regardless of the signs
> >>> posted parents allow their offspring to pound on the glass of animal
> >>> cages etc. I see people in those stores that think the place is a
> >>> petting zoo.
> >>
> >> From what I have seen in stores, it is probably the kids who should be
> >> leashed.
> >
> > Perhaps these days... it wouldn't have occurred to me to pitch a fit or
> > wander away from my mother when she took me to the store, no matter how
> > fascinating the display or how enticing the sweets or whatever. Back
when I
> > was a kid it was a privilege, not a right, to go to the store. (I do
> > realize not everyone can find someone to sit with their children when
they
> > shop.)
> >
> > I remember when I worked in a shopping mall in the late 1970s and
especially
> > early 1980s (after the Adam Walsh abduction/murder) seeing parents with
> > "leashes" on their young children. Mostly toddlers. Given the very
real
> > fear about children being snatched by unscrupulous people from large
> > department stores, I thought it a quite sensible idea rather than some
form
> > of cruel and unusual punishment.
> >
> > Jill
>
> that's like wearing a raincoat, galoshes, and carrying an umbrella 24/7
> because it rained once or twice last year. the fear might have been real,
> but it was in no way sensible.


Jill's still wearing her leash, lol...


--
Best
Greg

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...

> actually, my eyeballs skipped over the 'pet' part of 'pet food store.' i
> thought it was some flaky west coast grocery we were talking about.
>
> oopsie.

No worries. It was unreadable after all.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> actually, my eyeballs skipped over the 'pet' part of 'pet food store.' i
>> thought it was some flaky west coast grocery we were talking about.
>>
>> oopsie.
>
> No worries. It was unreadable after all.
>
I thought it read just fine.

In article >,
Rhonda Anderson > wrote:


> _Every_ dog has the potential to harm humans. _Every_ dog. _Every_ breed.
>
> The only dog with no potential to harm anyone is one that has had its teeth
> and claws removed.

I went to a dog picnic a few years ago with my sister. There were about
150 dogs, and all but two were muzzled. My sister had one of them
(along with another couple with muzzles). She got a *lot* of dirty
looks. She just had to keep repeating the mantra: "No teeth. No
teeth. No teeth.". The dog was also completely blind.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel = Duplicitous NetKKKop [WAS: DK StinKin' MOTHER****ER]"
(subject of post on rec.food.cooking dated April 15, 2009}

Dan Abel > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Rhonda Anderson > wrote:
>
>
>> _Every_ dog has the potential to harm humans. _Every_ dog. _Every_
>> breed.
>>
>> The only dog with no potential to harm anyone is one that has had its
>> teeth and claws removed.
>
> I went to a dog picnic a few years ago with my sister. There were
> about 150 dogs, and all but two were muzzled. My sister had one of
> them (along with another couple with muzzles). She got a *lot* of
> dirty looks. She just had to keep repeating the mantra: "No teeth.
> No teeth. No teeth.". The dog was also completely blind.
>

Must have been a bit annoying for her. But definitely no point muzzling him
unless she thought he might lick people to death - I've known a few dogs
who seemed intent on doing that (in a very friendly manner of course!). So
many dogs who seem to think I'm in need of a bath :-).

Will see plenty of dogs of many different breeds today - off to see how my
friend's dog does in Group and possibly Best in Show judging.

--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.
My Country, Dorothea MacKellar, 1904

In article >,
Rhonda Anderson > wrote:


> Is this lack of concern in relation to fault restricted to domestic
> animals? If someone jumps into a pool full of polar bears and gets mauled
> (as happened recently) should the bears be despatched as a "threat to the
> species"?

I think it was a year ago Christmas. Three young men apparently thought
it was fun to throw stuff at a tiger. The tiger got mad. One man dead,
two injured. Police killed the tiger, as you don't want a mad tiger
wandering around with a bunch of people.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel = Duplicitous NetKKKop [WAS: DK StinKin' MOTHER****ER]"
(subject of post on rec.food.cooking dated April 15, 2009}

In article >,
"Janet Bostwick" > wrote:


> You forgot that they can count and have watches.

Nope. I've never seen a dog with a watch. They just get the time from
their cell phones!

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel = Duplicitous NetKKKop [WAS: DK StinKin' MOTHER****ER]"
(subject of post on rec.food.cooking dated April 15, 2009}

Dan Abel wrote:

> Rhonda Anderson > wrote:

>> Is this lack of concern in relation to fault restricted to domestic
>> animals? If someone jumps into a pool full of polar bears and gets
>> mauled (as happened recently) should the bears be despatched as a
>> "threat to the species"?
>
> I think it was a year ago Christmas. Three young men apparently
> thought it was fun to throw stuff at a tiger. The tiger got mad.
> One man dead, two injured. Police killed the tiger, as you don't
> want a mad tiger wandering around with a bunch of people.

I never did hear why that German woman jumped in with the polar
bears or how badly she was injured. I'm pretty sure they didn't
feel the need to kill the innocent bear.

nancy

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:00:08 -0400, jmcquown wrote:

> > early 1980s (after the Adam Walsh abduction/murder) seeing parents with
> > "leashes" on their young children. Mostly toddlers. Given the very real
> > fear about children being snatched by unscrupulous people from large
> > department stores, I thought it a quite sensible idea rather than some form
> > of cruel and unusual punishment.
> >
> > Jill
>
> that's like wearing a raincoat, galoshes, and carrying an umbrella 24/7
> because it rained once or twice last year. the fear might have been real,
> but it was in no way sensible.

To be honest, we never had one of those leashes, but they looked like a
good idea. Very young kids just have no clue. You can't tell them not
to run out on the street, or down the stairs at full speed, not to
mention losing them if one goes one way and the other goes the other way.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel = Duplicitous NetKKKop [WAS: DK StinKin' MOTHER****ER]"
(subject of post on rec.food.cooking dated April 15, 2009}

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:50 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>As I mentioned in a previous post, my gentle Lab bite almost right
>through my hand, but it was an exceptional circumstance. He was just a
>gentle dog that I felt that I had to intervene to help him out when the
>other dog attacked him. I was busy watching the German Shepherd that I
>was afraid was going to break his leg.

My lab bit me on the hand a couple of years ago while we were playing
fetch with a stick. I didn't let go of it fast enough, and she jumped
up and tried to get it out of my hand. Ouch.

Jo Anne

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote:
>
>
>> You forgot that they can count and have watches.
>
> Nope. I've never seen a dog with a watch. They just get the time from
> their cell phones!

Some dogs seem to be able to tell time. When I was a teen we had a Lab
who used to come into the rec room at 11 pm and sleep on the couch. One
night I had a girlfriend over and we were making out hot and heavy on
the couch. I told her that we were going to have to get off the couch at
11 o'clock. She thought I was kidding. At 11 pm, on the dot, the dog
came in, climbed up and forced us off.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote:
>
>
>> You forgot that they can count and have watches.
>
> Nope. I've never seen a dog with a watch. They just get the time from
> their cell phones!
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>
Mine isn't allowed a cell phone, nor may he order anything from the shopping
network with his credit card. House rules.
Janet

Dan Abel wrote:

> Nope. I've never seen a dog with a watch. They just get the time from
> their cell phones!

I'm surprised that NO ONE here has ever had a "Watchdog" ... ;-)

--Lin (many watchdogs in her lifetime)

On Apr 18, 1:21*pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:15:11 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 17, 10:24 pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>> Lin wrote:
> >>>>> You feared for your LIFE? You thought the cat was a GENOCIDAL threat?
>
> >>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn, what a WUSS!
>
> >>>> Sweetheart ... you are fortunate that our two cats don't turn into
> >>>> Tasmanian Devils. I've seen cats do some pretty nasty damage to folks
> >>>> that
> >>>> didn't ask for it -- not to mention the infections that come from a
> >>>> simple
> >>>> cat scratch.
>
> >>> But let's be real he Domestic cats are NOT a "threat to our species."
> >>> It
> >>> is hyperbolic hysteria even to *hint* at such a thing.
>
> >>> Yes, cats can inflict some painful superficial damage. But I can KILL a
> >>> cat
> >>> in a matter of seconds. Our species' survival is not in any way
> >>> threatened
> >>> by domestic cats.
>
> >> I can too, but it would have been a bit traumatic for my dear sweet
> >> wife had I done so then and there.
>
> > you aware that in many ways you fit the profile for serial killers, aren't
> > you? *and i'm not talking about playing your music for people.
>
> That might cause more of a slow, lingering malaise that eventually might end
> in death did not the sufferer take her own life in utter misery.

So, you've heard our stuff? Or are you just blowing out your ass
again?

--Bryan, aka Bobo Bonobo http://www.TheBonobos.com

On Apr 18, 3:44*am, Rhonda Anderson > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote :
>
>
>
> > I am not concerned with fault of any of that, which I consider
> > nonsense when an animal attacks a human. *
>
> Is this lack of concern in relation to fault restricted to domestic
> animals? If someone jumps into a pool full of polar bears and gets mauled
> (as happened recently) should the bears be despatched as
> a "threat to the species"?

Any reasonable person should expect to be able to go shopping without
fear of attack. Jumping in with bears, well, I'd have different
expectations.
>
> If someone provokes an animal that has claws and
> teeth, they should expect those claws and teeth to
> be used in reaction. A cat or dog is not a stuffed
> toy or a robot.

No question, but what constitutes provocation? I agree that a person
who torments an animal should have no expectation of safety.
>
> --
> Rhonda Anderson
> Cranebrook, NSW, Australia
>
--Bryan, aka Bobo Bonobo http://www.TheBonobos.com

On Apr 18, 11:20*am, wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:22:02 -0400, Dave Smith
>
> > wrote:
> >Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>
> >> Dogs that bite children should be destroyed. *Period. *In every case.
>
> >Poppycock. Most dog bites are just nips that don't even draw blood, and
> >it may have been provoked by the kid's behaviour. *Large dogs that give
> >serious bites can be allowed one. Vicious dogs who maul shopuld be
> >destroyed.
>
> by then it's too late

I agree.
One is one too many.

--Bryan, aka Bobo Bonobo http://www.TheBonobos.com

Bobo Bonobo® said...

> So, you've heard our stuff? Or are you just blowing out your ass
> again?


Bobo's the fidiot who went for triple green Del Taco burritos for breakfast.
Blowing it out his ass all day!!!

Del Taco and the Bobobos! The greasiest places and people on earth.

And he found fault with my meatless meatballs?

Andy

On Apr 18, 12:27*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:15:11 -0700 (PDT), Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 10:24*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
> > wrote:
> >> Lin wrote:
> >>>> You feared for your LIFE? You thought the cat was a GENOCIDAL threat?
>
> >>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn, what a WUSS!
>
> >>> Sweetheart ... you are fortunate that our two cats don't turn into
> >>> Tasmanian Devils. I've seen cats do some pretty nasty damage to folks that
> >>> didn't ask for it -- not to mention the infections that come from a simple
> >>> cat scratch.
>
> >> But let's be real he Domestic cats are NOT a "threat to our species.." It
> >> is hyperbolic hysteria even to *hint* at such a thing.
>
> >> Yes, cats can inflict some painful superficial damage. But I can KILL a cat
> >> in a matter of seconds. Our species' survival is not in any way threatened
> >> by domestic cats.
>
> > I can too, but it would have been a bit traumatic for my dear sweet
> > wife had I done so then and there.
>
> you aware that in many ways you fit the profile for serial killers,
> aren't you? *

It's only in this age of sissy men like you and Michael that
sensitivity to the rights and feelings of a biting dog would be
anything but laughable. The dog bites the master or one of his
family, the master takes it out and shoots it. The dog develops a
taste for sheep, the sheep rancher takes it out and shoots it. Same
if the dog starts attacking the chickens.

A dog has no more rights than a pig or a mule. That was the way it
was when farms were farms. When it came time to kill the pig, a man
wasn't too squeamish to kill it himself, and anyway that pig had a far
more pleasant life than the way they raise them these days. Old women
would snap the necks of chickens they'd raised from chicks. I bet
that there were a lot of serial killers back then.

Enjoy your factory farmed meats while fooling yourself that you're
morally superior to me.

> and i'm not talking about playing your music for people.

That's the *more* radical side.
>
> blake

--Bryan, aka Bobo Bonobo http://www.TheBonobos.com

Nancy Young wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> Rhonda Anderson > wrote:
>
>>> Is this lack of concern in relation to fault restricted to domestic
>>> animals? If someone jumps into a pool full of polar bears and gets
>>> mauled (as happened recently) should the bears be despatched as a
>>> "threat to the species"?
>>
>> I think it was a year ago Christmas. Three young men apparently
>> thought it was fun to throw stuff at a tiger. The tiger got mad. One
>> man dead, two injured. Police killed the tiger, as you don't
>> want a mad tiger wandering around with a bunch of people.
>
> I never did hear why that German woman jumped in with the polar
> bears or how badly she was injured. I'm pretty sure they didn't
> feel the need to kill the innocent bear.

She didn't jump in. Apparently she felt the bear needed a friend or a
hug or was trying to talk to it or something and leaned into the
enclosure, and fell in. They didn't have to kill the bears to get her
out, but it was coming pretty close to it and she was being pawed and
nipped and mauled all the way out.

They killed the tiger 1) because it was out of its enclosure and 2)
because it was still with one of its victims, who was alive at the time.
To get the victim, they had to dispatch the cat. What a shame to kill a
beautiful animal for being itself.

I hope they sent the dumb ass woman from the polar bear incident to get
her head shrunk. How ignorant, self-centered and disturbed is it to
think that a wild animal needs a scratch behind the ears or whatever she
thought she was doing. It's incredibly obvious that these animals aren't
teddy bears, yet people still forget or overlook that they are predators
in the wild, and one of many wild animals that will run down and kill a
human being if they want to.

responded:
>
> Oh I saw it Honey...

....which was utterly useless for the continuation of this discussion.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:24:04 -0600, Pennyaline
> wrote:

responded:
>>
>> Oh I saw it Honey...
>
>...which was utterly useless for the continuation of this discussion.


So what you're saying is that it's OK to poke at me, but if I
poke back, you pickup and run off home like the spoiled child you let
on to be.

cshenk wrote:

>>> There's is no need or reason for someone to take their animals to a
>>> pet food store (unless a guide dog).
>>
>> Sure there's [sic] is! I used to take my dog inside the pet store because
>> she LIKED it! So much to see and smell, and so many people to coo over
>> her... It was a treat for her, and a helluva lot more humane and
>> considerate than leaving her in the sweltering truck all alone.
>
> Missed another one Bob. Around here, the Vet office is often inside the
> pet store along with a training facility and a sort of 'day care' where
> you can drop off the pooch for a few hours when shopping elsewhere.

Depends on the dog in question. My dog was very devoted to me, and didn't
care much about other dogs. She would TOLERATE other dogs around, but was
much more focused on people. At the PetsMart where I took her, the "day
care" was also the groomer, and the groomers were visibly disgruntled with
their jobs -- which I'm sure my dog was able to perceive, and it distressed
her to be in that environment. My shopping trips were always less than
fifteen minutes, and usually less than five.

A word about the breed: My dog was a Staffordshire terrier. They are
nicknamed "nanny dogs" in England for their natural patience and
protectiveness toward children. I'm told that it's the only breed which has
no record with the CDC in the USA of *ever* biting a human.

Bob

sf wrote:

> You're saying a harness and leash on a toddler is not sensible?
> Obviously you haven't had a toddler around. I could tell you toddler
> stories that would make your hair curl.

I'm happy with the amount of curl my hair has right now, but could you tell
me a toddler story that would make my hair as long and healthy as when I was
20? :-)

Bob