-linux_lad wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

I am curious as to why a Marine should not instead of putting his hand
down the dog's throat instead use the muzzle of his M-16 for that
purpose.




The technique is taught as a self defense mechanism. An example of
circumstances where military personnel might be without a weapon would
be escape from a pow facility, or from a downed aircraft.

That makes sense. One of the few things on this thread that does.

--
-linux_lad
To verify that this post isn't forged, click he
http://www.spoofproof.org/verify.php...7abcd93543ecc7

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's. Operating on this simple
principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that most
(not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they had
other options and chose the dangerous one.

--
-Jim
©¿©¬

If you want to reply by email its -- ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"Robert Galloway" wrote in message
...
Why not. The guy I work for has three Rottweilers. Got to be careful
around them or they'll love you to death. Great big teddy bears. I
can't believe the breed has any inherent evil tendencies. They must be
taught. One man's observation only.

bob g.

Stay tuned - someone is yet bound to introduce the Rottweiller
into this thread...

jtpr wrote:

All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's.

Reporterese-to-english dictionary "Pit Bull (n): a dog."

The fact that you "read a lot about" something often means that the press
has decided to play it up and not that there is a real problem.

Operating on this simple
principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that
most (not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they
had other options and chose the dangerous one.

--
-Jim
©¿©¬

If you want to reply by email its -- ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"Robert Galloway" wrote in message
...
Why not. The guy I work for has three Rottweilers. Got to be careful
around them or they'll love you to death. Great big teddy bears. I
can't believe the breed has any inherent evil tendencies. They must be
taught. One man's observation only.

bob g.

Stay tuned - someone is yet bound to introduce the Rottweiller
into this thread...


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"jtpr" wrote in message
...
All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's. Operating on this simple
principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that
most
(not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they had
other options and chose the dangerous one.


I have a Rotti x Pitbull. A nicer dog would be hard to find. It is
protective of the house but lets kids grab her round the neck while she
walks along with them dragging behind.

Fraser

If you want to reply by email its -- ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"Fraser Johnston" wrote in message
...

"jtpr" wrote in message
...
All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden
Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's. Operating on this simple
principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that
most
(not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they
had
other options and chose the dangerous one.


I have a Rotti x Pitbull. A nicer dog would be hard to find. It is
protective of the house but lets kids grab her round the neck while she
walks along with them dragging behind.

Fraser






There are always exceptions to every rule, and I'm glad your dog appears (so
far) to be one. My feeling is simply why take the chance?



--
-Jim
©¿©¬

If you want to reply by email its -- ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
jtpr wrote:

All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden
Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's.

Reporterese-to-english dictionary "Pit Bull (n): a dog."
snip


Nice theory, but if you actually apply it to my example, a Golden Retriever
mauling a child would certainly be a LOT more newsworthy a story.

--
-Jim
©¿©¬

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:29:57 +0800, Fraser Johnston
wrote:

"jtpr" wrote in message
...
All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's. Operating on this simple
principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that
most
(not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they had
other options and chose the dangerous one.


I have a Rotti x Pitbull. A nicer dog would be hard to find. It is
protective of the house but lets kids grab her round the neck while she
walks along with them dragging behind.



Mom and Dad inherited a Shepherd back when they were renovating a
farmhouse. For some reason, they thought they needed a bigger house for
five kids . . .

When the dog moved in, she IMMEDIATELY became "Mom's Dog."

There was one guy on the HVAC crew whom Mom didn't much like. Peabo
wouldn't let him into the kitchen (the divide between the old house and
the addition was there).

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:38:24 -0400, "jtpr" wrote:


If you want to reply by email its -- ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"Fraser Johnston" wrote in message
...

"jtpr" wrote in message
...
All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden
Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's. Operating on this simple
principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that
most
(not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they
had
other options and chose the dangerous one.


I have a Rotti x Pitbull. A nicer dog would be hard to find. It is
protective of the house but lets kids grab her round the neck while she
walks along with them dragging behind.

Fraser






There are always exceptions to every rule, and I'm glad your dog appears (so
far) to be one. My feeling is simply why take the chance?

Read to the end of the thread. The short form is that no breed is more
likely to attack than any other.

--RC


If I weren't interested in gardening and Ireland,
I'd automatically killfile any messages mentioning
'bush' or 'Kerry'

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:40:56 -0400, "jtpr" wrote:



If you want to reply by email its -- ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
jtpr wrote:

All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden
Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's.

Reporterese-to-english dictionary "Pit Bull (n): a dog."
snip


Nice theory, but if you actually apply it to my example, a Golden Retriever
mauling a child would certainly be a LOT more newsworthy a story.

Wrong. For three or four different reasons. And I say that as a former
newspaper reporter and editor for wire services and daily newspapers.
Among the problems are misidentification of the dog's breed, lack of
identification of the dog's breed (remember, in by far the largest
percentage of fatal dog attacks the dog's breed is unknown), and the
scare factor of the name 'pit bull'. Not to mention the relative
unimportance to the media of getting the breed right.

Let me give you an example from another area that may help clarify how
the process works. Three or four years ago a drunk in the upscale
community of Scottsdale, AZ, was driving home after an evening's
drinking when he hit and killed a boy of 10 or so. The drunk had the
misfortune to be driving a Rolls Royce. As a result the story got at
least ten times as much play as a typical drunken driving fatality of
a child and every stinking one of those stories mentioned the guy had
been driving a Rolls Royce.

Now as with most communities, the make of vehicle involved in a fatal
accident almost never makes the news at all, unless police are trying
to find the car. What made this car 'newsworthy' was the connotation
of wealth, luxury and privilege carried by "Rolls Royce." Just as
'pit bull' in a news story about a dog mauling is more 'newsworthy'
than, say, a golden retriever.

And let's not forget simple ignorance and prejudice on the part of the
members of the media. Reporters and editors are usually pretty smart,
but they are often shockingly misinformed.

--RC

If I weren't interested in gardening and Ireland,
I'd automatically killfile any messages mentioning
'bush' or 'Kerry'

Who would have cared if it had been a white guy fighting the LAPD on tape
rather than the (everyone remember the phrase?) "black motorist Rodney
King?" It would have been just another drunk fleeing and eluding.

Ya gotta sell that soap, and folks won't read your paper or watch your
broadcast unless you give 'em what they want.

wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Nice theory, but if you actually apply it to my example, a Golden
Retriever
mauling a child would certainly be a LOT more newsworthy a story.

Wrong. For three or four different reasons. And I say that as a former
newspaper reporter and editor for wire services and daily newspapers.
Among the problems are misidentification of the dog's breed, lack of
identification of the dog's breed (remember, in by far the largest
percentage of fatal dog attacks the dog's breed is unknown), and the
scare factor of the name 'pit bull'. Not to mention the relative
unimportance to the media of getting the breed right.

Let me give you an example from another area that may help clarify how
the process works. Three or four years ago a drunk in the upscale
community of Scottsdale, AZ, was driving home after an evening's
drinking when he hit and killed a boy of 10 or so. The drunk had the
misfortune to be driving a Rolls Royce. As a result the story got at
least ten times as much play as a typical drunken driving fatality of
a child and every stinking one of those stories mentioned the guy had
been driving a Rolls Royce.

Now as with most communities, the make of vehicle involved in a fatal
accident almost never makes the news at all, unless police are trying
to find the car. What made this car 'newsworthy' was the connotation
of wealth, luxury and privilege carried by "Rolls Royce." Just as
'pit bull' in a news story about a dog mauling is more 'newsworthy'
than, say, a golden retriever.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:32:05 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:

Who would have cared if it had been a white guy fighting the LAPD on tape
rather than the (everyone remember the phrase?) "black motorist Rodney
King?" It would have been just another drunk fleeing and eluding.

Ya gotta sell that soap, and folks won't read your paper or watch your
broadcast unless you give 'em what they want.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the more subtle (I won't say
'finer') points of news coverage, but I will point out that the Rodney
King story had two things going for it -- one of them legitimate IMHO
and one of them illegitimate.

The legitimate point is that a lot of minorities in Los Angeles
believed that the police tended to brutalize them as a method of
keeping them in line. What happened to Rodney King played into that.

The ******* was that it was a very graphic piece of tape. As far as
the news gerbils in television were concerned, that made it not only
newsworthy but worth running and re-running and re-running. (That
running it constantly might be inflammatory apparent occurred to those
twits not at all.)

The hard fact is that there is a large measure of simple prejudice and
not a little stereotyping that goes into deciding what it
'newsworthy.' Which is why a 'pit bull attack' is so much more likely
to get big play than a dog bite.

--RC

wrote in message
.. .

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Nice theory, but if you actually apply it to my example, a Golden
Retriever
mauling a child would certainly be a LOT more newsworthy a story.

Wrong. For three or four different reasons. And I say that as a former
newspaper reporter and editor for wire services and daily newspapers.
Among the problems are misidentification of the dog's breed, lack of
identification of the dog's breed (remember, in by far the largest
percentage of fatal dog attacks the dog's breed is unknown), and the
scare factor of the name 'pit bull'. Not to mention the relative
unimportance to the media of getting the breed right.

Let me give you an example from another area that may help clarify how
the process works. Three or four years ago a drunk in the upscale
community of Scottsdale, AZ, was driving home after an evening's
drinking when he hit and killed a boy of 10 or so. The drunk had the
misfortune to be driving a Rolls Royce. As a result the story got at
least ten times as much play as a typical drunken driving fatality of
a child and every stinking one of those stories mentioned the guy had
been driving a Rolls Royce.

Now as with most communities, the make of vehicle involved in a fatal
accident almost never makes the news at all, unless police are trying
to find the car. What made this car 'newsworthy' was the connotation
of wealth, luxury and privilege carried by "Rolls Royce." Just as
'pit bull' in a news story about a dog mauling is more 'newsworthy'
than, say, a golden retriever.



If I weren't interested in gardening and Ireland,
I'd automatically killfile any messages mentioning
'bush' or 'Kerry'

wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:32:05 -0400, "George" george@least wrote:

Who would have cared if it had been a white guy fighting the LAPD on tape
rather than the (everyone remember the phrase?) "black motorist Rodney
King?" It would have been just another drunk fleeing and eluding.

Ya gotta sell that soap, and folks won't read your paper or watch your
broadcast unless you give 'em what they want.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the more subtle (I won't say
'finer') points of news coverage, but I will point out that the Rodney
King story had two things going for it -- one of them legitimate IMHO
and one of them illegitimate.

The legitimate point is that a lot of minorities in Los Angeles
believed that the police tended to brutalize them as a method of
keeping them in line. What happened to Rodney King played into that.

The ******* was that it was a very graphic piece of tape. As far as
the news gerbils in television were concerned, that made it not only
newsworthy but worth running and re-running and re-running. (That
running it constantly might be inflammatory apparent occurred to those
twits not at all.)

Of course it did. Riots are news too.

The hard fact is that there is a large measure of simple prejudice and
not a little stereotyping that goes into deciding what it
'newsworthy.' Which is why a 'pit bull attack' is so much more likely
to get big play than a dog bite.

--RC

wrote in message
. ..

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Nice theory, but if you actually apply it to my example, a Golden
Retriever
mauling a child would certainly be a LOT more newsworthy a story.

Wrong. For three or four different reasons. And I say that as a former
newspaper reporter and editor for wire services and daily newspapers.
Among the problems are misidentification of the dog's breed, lack of
identification of the dog's breed (remember, in by far the largest
percentage of fatal dog attacks the dog's breed is unknown), and the
scare factor of the name 'pit bull'. Not to mention the relative
unimportance to the media of getting the breed right.

Let me give you an example from another area that may help clarify how
the process works. Three or four years ago a drunk in the upscale
community of Scottsdale, AZ, was driving home after an evening's
drinking when he hit and killed a boy of 10 or so. The drunk had the
misfortune to be driving a Rolls Royce. As a result the story got at
least ten times as much play as a typical drunken driving fatality of
a child and every stinking one of those stories mentioned the guy had
been driving a Rolls Royce.

Now as with most communities, the make of vehicle involved in a fatal
accident almost never makes the news at all, unless police are trying
to find the car. What made this car 'newsworthy' was the connotation
of wealth, luxury and privilege carried by "Rolls Royce." Just as
'pit bull' in a news story about a dog mauling is more 'newsworthy'
than, say, a golden retriever.



If I weren't interested in gardening and Ireland,
I'd automatically killfile any messages mentioning
'bush' or 'Kerry'

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)