In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/06/16 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/06/2016 13:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/16 12:34, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/06/2016 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Well you obviopusly don't live in te country, where dogs work, and
where
breed is very important, and people select on breed even when its a
pet,
because they want a specific characteristic. For example, I dont think
there is a single instance of a baby ever being mailed by a black
labrador. But it happens with other breeds.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eft-horrific-f
acial-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html



Well i stand corrected, I cant understand what must have happened there.




AIUI you were making wild claims without a clue as to reality.
Situation normal.

I think you will find that the article actually backs up my assertion
that black labradors are noted for their docility.

They are noted for being soft-mouthed which is a characteristic bred in
for their working role.
But of course you cant wait for any chance for an ad hominem can you?



--
bert

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 01/06/2016 13:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/06/16 12:34, dennis@home wrote:
On 01/06/2016 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Well you obviopusly don't live in te country, where dogs work, and
where
breed is very important, and people select on breed even when its a
pet,
because they want a specific characteristic. For example, I dont think
there is a single instance of a baby ever being mailed by a black
labrador. But it happens with other breeds.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-Harbour.html


Well i stand corrected, I cant understand what must have happened there.




AIUI you were making wild claims without a clue as to reality.

The reality is that that is quite rare with black labradors.

On 01/06/16 16:04, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 23:38, bert wrote:
In article , polygonum
writes
On 31/05/2016 21:34, Tim Streater wrote:

Pedigree is a load of cock anyway. These dogs with funny snouts and
all
the rest of it should be severely discouraged. Up with mongrels!

Funny how I detect a general whiff of mongrelism being good in dogs,
less good in humans. :-) (Not meant to be a direct response to you,
Tim.)

Well the Egyptians were keen on line breeding and look what happened to
them. Depends what you want. Dog breeds were mostly developed for a
working purpose and that's where the pedigrees were important. Nowadays
they are mostly associated with the show world.

Well you obviopusly don't live in te country, where dogs work,
Well I live in the UK where some dogs work and I work one myself, but I
would say the majority of breeds are no longer used for the working
purpose for which they were bred.
and where breed is very important, and people select on breed even
when its a pet, because they want a specific characteristic. For
example, I dont think there is a single instance of a baby ever being
mailed by a black labrador.
I'm not sure that Labs are bred for the fact they don't maul babies.
But it happens with other breeds.

What, they are bred to maul babies?

well effectively yes. Terriers are bred to maul rats for example. A
rugrat is pretty much a rat in smelly pants. You would be a fool to9
have a terrier and a baby.

Labs are bred to retrieve. To carry, not to bite anything.





--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/06/16 16:04, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 23:38, bert wrote:
In article , polygonum
writes
On 31/05/2016 21:34, Tim Streater wrote:

Pedigree is a load of cock anyway. These dogs with funny snouts and
all
the rest of it should be severely discouraged. Up with mongrels!

Funny how I detect a general whiff of mongrelism being good in dogs,
less good in humans. :-) (Not meant to be a direct response to you,
Tim.)

Well the Egyptians were keen on line breeding and look what happened to
them. Depends what you want. Dog breeds were mostly developed for a
working purpose and that's where the pedigrees were important. Nowadays
they are mostly associated with the show world.

Well you obviopusly don't live in te country, where dogs work,
Well I live in the UK where some dogs work and I work one myself, but I
would say the majority of breeds are no longer used for the working
purpose for which they were bred.
and where breed is very important, and people select on breed even
when its a pet, because they want a specific characteristic. For
example, I dont think there is a single instance of a baby ever being
mailed by a black labrador.
I'm not sure that Labs are bred for the fact they don't maul babies.
But it happens with other breeds.

What, they are bred to maul babies?

well effectively yes. Terriers are bred to maul rats for example. A
rugrat is pretty much a rat in smelly pants. You would be a fool to9
have a terrier and a baby.

IMO you would be a fool to have any dog with a baby.
Labs are bred to retrieve. To carry, not to bite anything.





Well babies can be killed by being carried not just by being bitten.
Once such case involved a Rottie who decided to bring out baby from
where it had been left out of the way during house move and in picking
it up like it would a puppy broke its neck.
--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/06/16 16:04, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 23:38, bert wrote:
In article , polygonum
writes
On 31/05/2016 21:34, Tim Streater wrote:

Pedigree is a load of cock anyway. These dogs with funny snouts and
all
the rest of it should be severely discouraged. Up with mongrels!

Funny how I detect a general whiff of mongrelism being good in dogs,
less good in humans. :-) (Not meant to be a direct response to you,
Tim.)

Well the Egyptians were keen on line breeding and look what happened
to
them. Depends what you want. Dog breeds were mostly developed for a
working purpose and that's where the pedigrees were important.
Nowadays
they are mostly associated with the show world.

Well you obviopusly don't live in te country, where dogs work,
Well I live in the UK where some dogs work and I work one myself, but I
would say the majority of breeds are no longer used for the working
purpose for which they were bred.
and where breed is very important, and people select on breed even
when its a pet, because they want a specific characteristic. For
example, I dont think there is a single instance of a baby ever being
mailed by a black labrador.
I'm not sure that Labs are bred for the fact they don't maul babies.
But it happens with other breeds.

What, they are bred to maul babies?

well effectively yes. Terriers are bred to maul rats for example. A rugrat
is pretty much a rat in smelly pants. You would be a fool to9 have a
terrier and a baby.

IMO you would be a fool to have any dog with a baby.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Labs are bred to retrieve. To carry, not to bite anything.





Well babies can be killed by being carried not just by being bitten.

Labs don't carry things that big.

Once such case involved a Rottie who decided to bring out baby from where
it had been left out of the way during house move and in picking it up
like it would a puppy broke its neck.

In article , 9pl
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/06/16 16:04, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 23:38, bert wrote:
In article , polygonum
writes
On 31/05/2016 21:34, Tim Streater wrote:

Pedigree is a load of cock anyway. These dogs with funny snouts and
all
the rest of it should be severely discouraged. Up with mongrels!

Funny how I detect a general whiff of mongrelism being good in dogs,
less good in humans. :-) (Not meant to be a direct response to you,
Tim.)

Well the Egyptians were keen on line breeding and look what
happened to
them. Depends what you want. Dog breeds were mostly developed for a
working purpose and that's where the pedigrees were important.
Nowadays
they are mostly associated with the show world.

Well you obviopusly don't live in te country, where dogs work,
Well I live in the UK where some dogs work and I work one myself, but I
would say the majority of breeds are no longer used for the working
purpose for which they were bred.
and where breed is very important, and people select on breed even
when its a pet, because they want a specific characteristic. For
example, I dont think there is a single instance of a baby ever being
mailed by a black labrador.
I'm not sure that Labs are bred for the fact they don't maul babies.
But it happens with other breeds.

What, they are bred to maul babies?

well effectively yes. Terriers are bred to maul rats for example. A
rugrat is pretty much a rat in smelly pants. You would be a fool to9
have a terrier and a baby.

IMO you would be a fool to have any dog with a baby.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Labs are bred to retrieve. To carry, not to bite anything.





Well babies can be killed by being carried not just by being bitten.

Labs don't carry things that big.

Once such case involved a Rottie who decided to bring out baby from
where it had been left out of the way during house move and in
picking it up like it would a puppy broke its neck.

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.
--
bert

On 02/06/2016 14:47, bert wrote:

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

What people appear to forget is they are dogs and they all behave like
dogs whatever the breed.

On 02/06/16 17:34, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/06/2016 14:47, bert wrote:

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

What people appear to forget is they are dogs and they all behave like
dogs whatever the breed.

I assume you have never owned a dog then?

Another thing you pronounce solemn opinions on, about which you know SFA.


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 02/06/2016 18:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/06/16 17:34, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/06/2016 14:47, bert wrote:

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

What people appear to forget is they are dogs and they all behave like
dogs whatever the breed.

I assume you have never owned a dog then?

Another thing you pronounce solemn opinions on, about which you know SFA.



So what do your dogs behave like? Monkeys?

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , 9pl writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/06/16 16:04, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 23:38, bert wrote:
In article , polygonum
writes
On 31/05/2016 21:34, Tim Streater wrote:

Pedigree is a load of cock anyway. These dogs with funny snouts
and
all
the rest of it should be severely discouraged. Up with mongrels!

Funny how I detect a general whiff of mongrelism being good in
dogs,
less good in humans. :-) (Not meant to be a direct response to you,
Tim.)

Well the Egyptians were keen on line breeding and look what happened
to
them. Depends what you want. Dog breeds were mostly developed for a
working purpose and that's where the pedigrees were important.
Nowadays
they are mostly associated with the show world.

Well you obviopusly don't live in te country, where dogs work,
Well I live in the UK where some dogs work and I work one myself, but
I
would say the majority of breeds are no longer used for the working
purpose for which they were bred.
and where breed is very important, and people select on breed even
when its a pet, because they want a specific characteristic. For
example, I dont think there is a single instance of a baby ever being
mailed by a black labrador.
I'm not sure that Labs are bred for the fact they don't maul babies.
But it happens with other breeds.

What, they are bred to maul babies?

well effectively yes. Terriers are bred to maul rats for example. A
rugrat is pretty much a rat in smelly pants. You would be a fool to9
have a terrier and a baby.

IMO you would be a fool to have any dog with a baby.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Labs are bred to retrieve. To carry, not to bite anything.





Well babies can be killed by being carried not just by being bitten.

Labs don't carry things that big.

Once such case involved a Rottie who decided to bring out baby from
where it had been left out of the way during house move and in picking
it up like it would a puppy broke its neck.

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it.

Labs don't do that with babies.

A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.

BULL****.

* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

On 02/06/16 20:08, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/06/2016 18:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/06/16 17:34, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/06/2016 14:47, bert wrote:

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* .
Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

What people appear to forget is they are dogs and they all behave like
dogs whatever the breed.

I assume you have never owned a dog then?

Another thing you pronounce solemn opinions on, about which you know SFA.



So what do your dogs behave like? Monkeys?

Mostly like themselves.

But to racists like you I guess 'they all look the same'

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/06/2016 14:47, bert wrote:

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

What people appear to forget is they are dogs and they all behave like
dogs whatever the breed.

Different breeds mostly behave quite differently to other breeds.

They were bred like that, stupid.

On 02/06/2016 20:21, 9pl wrote:
A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.

BULL****.

Not sure how to compare the linear dimensions, but if you only consider
weight it seems a show condition Yorkshire terrier would be 1.8 to 3.2
kg. As pets, they are, so I read, usually heavier. The average human
birth weight is 3.5 kg though the range of normal is between 2.5 and 5
kg (all but 5% of newborns will fall into this range). Yes - human
babies are often heavier than Yorkies, but not by so very much and there
is an overlap.

--
Rod

On 02/06/2016 20:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

So what do your dogs behave like? Monkeys?

Mostly like themselves.

But to racists like you I guess 'they all look the same'


You are projecting again (well that's what you call it).
I suppose it makes you feel better if you think everyone else is a
racist like yourself.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 02/06/2016 18:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/06/16 17:34, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/06/2016 14:47, bert wrote:

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed
it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

What people appear to forget is they are dogs and they all behave like
dogs whatever the breed.

I assume you have never owned a dog then?

Another thing you pronounce solemn opinions on, about which you know SFA.



So what do your dogs behave like?

They mostly behave the way the breed was bred to behave.

Not always, but nothing is ever perfect.

Your original was pig ignorant ****.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/2016 20:21, 9pl wrote:
A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.

BULL****.

Not sure how to compare the linear dimensions, but if you only consider
weight it seems a show condition Yorkshire terrier would be 1.8 to 3.2 kg.
As pets, they are, so I read, usually heavier. The average human birth
weight is 3.5 kg though the range of normal is between 2.5 and 5 kg (all
but 5% of newborns will fall into this range). Yes - human babies are
often heavier than Yorkies, but not by so very much and there is an
overlap.

He said BIGGER, not HEAVIER.

On 02/06/2016 22:17, 9pl wrote:


"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/2016 20:21, 9pl wrote:
A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.

BULL****.

Not sure how to compare the linear dimensions, but if you only
consider weight it seems a show condition Yorkshire terrier would be
1.8 to 3.2 kg. As pets, they are, so I read, usually heavier. The
average human birth weight is 3.5 kg though the range of normal is
between 2.5 and 5 kg (all but 5% of newborns will fall into this
range). Yes - human babies are often heavier than Yorkies, but not by
so very much and there is an overlap.

He said BIGGER, not HEAVIER.

And I started my response with "Not sure how to compare the linear
dimensions, ..." which clearly recognised that.

--
Rod

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/2016 22:17, 9pl wrote:


"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/2016 20:21, 9pl wrote:
A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.

BULL****.

Not sure how to compare the linear dimensions, but if you only
consider weight it seems a show condition Yorkshire terrier would be
1.8 to 3.2 kg. As pets, they are, so I read, usually heavier. The
average human birth weight is 3.5 kg though the range of normal is
between 2.5 and 5 kg (all but 5% of newborns will fall into this
range). Yes - human babies are often heavier than Yorkies, but not by
so very much and there is an overlap.

He said BIGGER, not HEAVIER.

And I started my response with "Not sure how to compare the linear
dimensions, ..." which clearly recognised that.

And then rabbi ted on about what wasn’t being discussed and
didn’t even concede that a baby is quite a bit BIGGER than a Yorkie.

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 20:56:02 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 02/06/2016 14:47, bert wrote:

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

What people appear to forget is they are dogs and they all behave like
dogs whatever the breed.

Different breeds mostly behave quite differently to other breeds.

But all have similarities as a species otherwise we would be able to lable them as dogs, peole would have chikens on leads thinking they were dogs because there was no way of IDing a chicken from a dog.
Although on a kebab skwerer they look pretty much the same, not sure about the taste though, been a while since i had a chicken kebab.


Can you tell the difernce between a chicken and a dog ?


They were bred like that, stupid.

"bert" wrote in message
...

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.


Who does like Yorkies?

Bloody horrible breed.


--
Adam

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/16 17:34, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/06/2016 14:47, bert wrote:

Friend of mine had a Lab which took a dislike to a Yorkie* . Grabbed it
by the scruff and went off into the lake to drown it; he had to leap in
and rescue it. A new born bay isn't much bigger than a Yorkie.
* That's Yorkshire Terrier not chocolate bar.

What people appear to forget is they are dogs and they all behave like
dogs whatever the breed.

I assume you have never owned a dog then?

I assume that he has never had a pet of any kind.



--
Adam