This topic might be termed

"The politics of 'me'" Or..

"love your enemies..as long as they are human"

All have some application to this story.

I often go for a walk around 6.00am at a local public access place of wide open spaced. The facility is fenced and all access points have signs erected "Dogs must be on a leash".

Most dog owners ignore this, and sometimes find that the 'other' dog which is also unleashed, bites their little pooch to bits.

But.. to the story. There are 2 women who usually come alnog with about 3 or 4 dogs, and wander around with them unleashed. One of those dogs is a labrador. While most dogs which are unleased seem to just want to 'greet' the stranger coming the other way.. THIS one.. seems to want to turn me into a convenient "chew toy".

Phase 1. It runs up to me, (silly me thinking it wants a pat) so I try to pat it. Then..it starts to 'chew' me. Not a 'dog fight' intensity..nope..just 'chew'.. like the other day it was climbing up me and sunk it's teeth into the back of my upper arm...and 'hung'....
I let this pass, with no comment.. and today, it came up, so I just stood still, doing nothing, to see what it would do. Annnnd sure enough.. it grabbed my hand and started.. "chewing/biting".. well.. that was enough for me.. plenty of 'accomodation' already, time for 'ACTION'.. so I kicked it! *thump* Yelp /yelp/growl/bark. The owner glared at me.. clearly I'm the 'bad guy' here :)

Later.. I warned the owner "If it comes on me again, I'll hurt it".
Whereupon.. I got "If you had kept walking it wouldn't have done anything" HAH! (been there, experienced that.. result "chew toy-land")

So.. should I allow this mut to 'chew' me or should I report it, or kick it. or.. sue the owner or..?

I certainly wouldn't allow the dog to "chew" and I definently would not kick it, because that's just plain animal cruelty!
But I can understand your fustration, before taking any course of physical action how about you threaten the owner in a kind manner if possible and then hopefully she will control her dog.

It's called "mouthing", you animal, and it's what dogs do to express affection.

You didn't take the owners to task for not having their dogs on a lead. Instead, you kicked their pet and gave them a warning afterward. Their rudeness doesn't justify your violence, and if someone gives you a bashing for it I won't have an ounce of sympathy.

Sancho's right - the dog was clearly just being over-friendly. While the dog owner should have had her pet on a leash, Polycrap was more at fault for kicking the poor thing. That's a really good way to get properly bitten.

Why didn't Porky just ask the dog's owner to put it on its leash, rather than antagonising both her and the dog? It seems that he's as boofheaded with animals as he is with humans.

Around the second or third time it happened, you should have gone up to the owner and said, in a polite, friendly, neighbourly manner, "Excuse me, but I really don't like your dog mouthing me. I seem to be some sort of magnet for him! Do you mind calling him off me, or leashing him if you see me coming?"

Kicking the dog shows that you have a taste for cruelty, and an inability to deal with an uncomplicated difficulty in a normal way. It reflects what you appear to do on this forum — escalate a small problem in order to demonise others and generally stick the cat among the pigeons. You seem entirely motivated by narcissism and pleasure in conflict. Certainly not Christianity.

Do you not yourself notice that you end every argument that by comparing yourself favourably against Christ? "Oh look, once again, coincidentally, these selected bible quotes demonstrate how Jesus agrees with me!" You don't love Christ, you hate him — otherwise why would you belittle him by making him like you rather than trying to discover who he might truly be? You are a sham Christian with an imaginary friend you've remade in your own image, to justify your own prejudices.

On the other hand, maybe you're this lovely guy. Who knows?

Fascinating!

The way that some people have 'injected' their own undertanding of 'what' this animal was doing.. mind blowing.

I meet dogs every day on this particular patch, and I know the difference between 'mouthing' and showing affection and 'chewing/biting' duh.. myyyyy goodness.. the depths some of you will stoop to :)

errr some facts.

1/ I don't have to TELL the silly owner it should be on a leash she has to pass a SIGN telling her that every single time she comes in.

2/ If she chooses to ignore that clear and unmistakable sign..and then choose also not to restrain the animal when it goes for me...repeatedly.. over and over.. and with me not being in the slightest bit 'provocative' to the mut... there is nothing whatsoever cruel about kicking this animal in self defense. In fact.... (double duh) its lawful!

3/ Even if I applied the 'human' law of 'reasonable force' this owner would still be blaming me.(and some here by the looks of things)

If she hasn't got the sense to realize that her dog mauling people is a problem she is responsible for, and that she should put it on a leash AS per the sign.. then I'd say she has not a leg to stand on.. and neither does the mut.

If common sense "leash the dog" does not prevail when repeated attacks have been made, then a good swift kick might.

Further.. how arrogant and mindless was sancho's idiotic comment that kicking a dog which is in the process of biting/mauling me is 'animal cruelty'....utter, absolute, and complete rubbish.

CJ jumps in also in the frenzy to support such twisted thinking..in fact..that he does.. explains a lot about why his responses on many threads have a 'surreal' air about them.

Sancho then wants me 'bashed' as a result. Now that's logic for you.

-animal attacks human
-human defends self
-BASH the human :)

good 1 Sancho

Dear Cino.... I've tried 'stopping' the dog.. but to stop it..you have to kind of grab it..and then it gets more aggressive and tries to bite your restraining hands.

Interesting though.. I've reflected on your words that I could have asked the owner before kicking the dog to restrain it? yep..I could have, but I rather did that by my body language of just 'taking it' for so long now. This has not been a one day thing. Surely.. if a person can see their dog actually hanging off your arm.... they must realize it has to be holding on pretty jolly hard....right?

The fact that when I did complain to her she blamed me... is pretty indicative that she would have blamed me anyway. Even if I'd not kicked the mut. She has one of those 'harsh' faces which make you think she has lived a life of 'conflict' or perhaps by now lives 'for' conflict. She saw me in the distance.. made no attempt to leash it. I'm still thinking I'm the good guy here :)

Dear Veronika... "On the other hand, maybe you're this lovely guy. Who knows?"

Indeeed... people who've met me in person might be the best commentators on that eh?

I'm more interested in people sussing out for themselves the 'real' Jesus than having them "like" me here on my online persona.
This is not a popularity contest. If people disagree with verses I bring which show that Jesus did not include some people.. that he berated.. criticized.. rejected.. then they should do the study themselves of the 'complete' Jesus.. the one they will meet in the whole scripture.

Accusing me of 'picking verses which agree with me' is the same as others picking verses (or thoughts) which disagree....right?
So...personal investigation is the answer.

"I'm still thinking I'm the good guy here :)"

Really? You think you're right and everyone else is wrong? Astonishing.

Certainly your two posts of justification demonstrate how deeply you believe the lies you tell yourself. All those words, yet all you're actually saying is that you'd rather kick a mouthy dog then negotiate with its owner to resolve the situation. This is not a belief system, but just your way of interacting with the world. It's consistent with the way you come across.

"personal investigation is the answer."

Then why not do some? You come across as someone who hasn't been honest for a very, very long time. You say you're not here to win a popularity contest, yet everything you post involves some flattery of yourself, some narcissistic self-congratulation. You say you want people to know Jesus, yet everything you write seems designed to achieve the very opposite — in fact, you want to control Jesus, you want to interpret him for others. You don't *believe* in him, you create him. You look for him in the mirror. You don't like it when other Christians like Foxy or Steel Mann talk about their relationship with Christ — you tell them they are wrong, that they don't really know him, they think he is woosy, left-wing, Tim-Costello-esqe, whereas you know he is fearsome, judgemental, bigotted. Christ, you believe, is like you, you, you.

Oh, is that the time? Sorry, session's up, for today. See you next week!

Polly kicked a doggie in the park? Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. To be fair, if the dog was growling and actually broke the skin, then he might have a case, some dogs are like that, but not Labradors. I have seen working dogs do that, blue cattle dogs etc. but they don't bounce around, they just go you.

It sounds like Boazy doesn't know how to deal with dogs and probably never owned one, indicated by his kicking it..
Try this next time: fold your arms with your hands in your armpits and turn your back on it. Keep turning your back on it if it moves around in front of you, it'll get the mesage soon enough.

And it works on evangelizers too!

Let's see now. Porkycarp

- kicks dogs
- beats his daughter
- incessantly spreads fear and loathing of gays, Muslims or anybody else who doesn't share his peculiar and paranoid world view

I reckon the Labrador's a better Christian than Porky is.

Mind you,

<< Later.. I warned the owner "If it comes on me again, I'll hurt it". >>

I thought he said it was mouthing him, rather than humping his leg. If it was the latter and the Lab did what he said, that might warrant a slight shake of the leg.

I don't think he really meant that though, but I wonder what the poor dog's owner thought...

Sit down David please.
Ready?
On the evidence I agree with you!
Let it be known I love dogs, they like me.
I rarely hurt a dog, even the next door neighbors idiot toilet brush on legs.
It invades my yard and my house, yes in the doggy door.
It barks at me and tries to bite me here in my home.
My two mini Foxys would never enter another home.
The problem however both mine and yours is not the dogs, its the fool that owns them and will not attempt to train them.
Your thread put the blame in its title not the dog.
Dogs do mouth but only you would know how hard it bit.
I often feel like kicking said toilet brush but will never do it, and like you the owner is a rude uncaring woman so violence is not an option.

Polycarp,
you are right and so is Belly. Some owners simply have no idea of animal control. They let the animal do as it pleases. Yet they are supposed to be the master. A neighbors labrador used to greet people by smelling their groin. OK dogs identify by smell, but as he hit hard it hurt. A sharp whack on top of his head with a short, stout piece of timber each time he tried it on me soon changed his mind. You have to ensure you are boss.

Pity you can't whack the owner, but try it on the dog, you have a right to defend yourself and tell the owner you will complain to Council. They should act if the dogs are required to be leashed.

Oh, I found out why people walk or exercise early in the morning. They do it before their brain wakes up and realizes what is happening.

A few more.

It cost me $400 to join a health club and I did not lose weight. Apparently you have to go there.

My Grandmother started walking 5 miles a day when she was sixty. She is now 97 and we don't have a clue where she is.

One advantage of exercise is that you die healthier

I have flabby thighs, but fortunately my gut covers them

I like long walks, especially if taken by people I have no time for.

The only reason I would take up exercise is so that I could hear heavy breathing again

Take up cross country skiing, but start with a small country

You're paranoid Polycarp.

"that kicking a dog which is in the process of biting/mauling me is 'animal cruelty'....utter, absolute, and complete rubbish."

In the process? "biting/mauling?" Come, come. You would be bleeding by now if the dog intended biting you. So where are your wounds?

Let's be frank. The dog was greeting you and he slobbered on you eh?

What an unelightened soul you are, Boazy. You dislike animals.

Even St Mary's Catholic Cathedral in WA has invited one and all, including their animals, for a blessing of pets next Sunday.

Well that's a good PR exercise and I, an atheist, may attend.

I'm prepared to forgive and forget, the heinous indifference that Christians have had towards other species, providing of course they're capable of emerging from the middle ages!

You’ve got to love it.

Here’s this twit confessing to kicking the mutt! in writing.

The RSPCA are always looking for ways to highlight Animal cruelty and I reckon this one takes the cake.

Brilliant story. “Bible basher kicks mutt and confesses on OLO.”

Well done David Boaz.

You paint such a good picture of the Church I almost feel sorry for them.

I don’t suppose in that deranged mind of yours it occurred to you to ask the lady to call her lab puppy away from you – 'before' you kicked 'the mutt.'

In the mean time I suggest you walk another time or place or park you big hero.

The reason why the lady said nothing is clear to me. She was probably quite stunned and thought you are a very sick person.

There is a clear link between Animal cruelty and domestic violence

I had a neighbor once (speaking of the Church) who’s son was a Minister.

One day she walked into the Church while he was giving a service and carried to the front his little dog he and his wife had almost starved to death.

She stood up and gave him and his flock the best message they had ever had then turned and walked out.

She took the little dog to the vet and nursed it for months.

At least the lord was served on that day as someone spoke up for his creatures.

I must say more and more churches are inviting the Animals into their Churches.

Its good to see.

Mean time Bozzie perhaps we will meet up in the park one morning.

We might be able to have that litle chat with some Muslim faith citizens.


Enjoy your walks!

OK, I'll bite (heh heh)

Some dog owners ARE irresponsible, BUT...

I used to enjoy a run in the mornings with my German Shepherd; naturally she was on a lead. However, the couple who owned a little fox terrier did not keep their mutt on a lead and for three mornings in a row, this little dog would nip the heels of my dog.

Solution? Easy. One the third morning I advised the owners of the terrier that if their dog was not under restraint the next day, I would let my German Shepherd off the lead. My suggestion worked. We were all happy joggers.

There is no excuse for violence. Clearly Polly doesn't get animals, but this does not excuse his overreaction. His complaint was with the owners of the labrador, not the dog itself. From Polly's description I doubt very much that he was in danger from the dog.

Next time Polly, talk to the owners, amazing how communication works.

Wow.. quite amazing eh... some of these posts.

Thanx Banjo and Belly :) good material there.

I had a Pointer a while back.. and I did feel 'paranoid' every time it went up to some stranger to greet them.. "I" knew it would not hurt them..but 'THEY' did not..and the look on their faces told it all.

But my pointer never did to them what this silly labrador did to me.

And the silly posters who think I don't know the difference between 'affectionate mouthing' and 'lazy mauling' need to see Dr Veronika for some therapy.

Has anyone ever heard of 'Dogs are pack animals which have an alpha male which disciplines the underlings in doggy language ..ie. tears them to shreds until the lay cowed whimpering on their backs?

I guess such people who don't know this have never owned a dog then:)

Notice how once an idea gets in some heads..it just stays there?

"It was mouthing you" then..on the basis of that falsehood.. they runnnn with the 'now you silly sausage you' type outbursts.

I suppose Dr Veronika (and her ilk) would require on the spot counselling for any driver who has just passed through a RED LIGHT.. and that they be reminded that "doing so can have serious and injurious consequences"
Sorry Veronika.. no amount of 'your a bad Christian' polemic will disguise the plain stupidity of your approach.
The owner passed the 'red light' hundreds of times.

Even leashed dogs can be a problem. Once as I passed by some people with a LEASHED Rotweiler.. just after I passed and had my back to it, it lurched around and tried to seriously BITE me.. on the back of the leg. I felt it's lips rather than it's teeth.

I was also attacked by another rotweiler which got out of a compound nearby..where I knew there was a 2nd one. On the way to this place I walk..there are 2 rotties which give me the 'brown stare of death' each time I pass by.

Polycarp,
Have ever thought of photographing the dog &owner then giving it to the council with a complaint and let them handle it? an $80 fine would train the owner.

Bugsey is absolutely right you should pay attention.

Pehaps I should invite you to my park and watch you kick a neighbour's annoying mut.....After it chewed your leg off... the neighbour would have bashed you. I would then congratulate you for giving the dog negative training making it savage. p.s. It's ok I'm advanced first aid qualified.....

I'm reminded of the Chinese saying "tis better to be silent and thought PERHAPS a fool. Than to speak and remove all doubt.
Or when you're up to your neck in it don't sing about it.
This is a case in point.

May your God help you if she has a big hubby/boyfriend or son.

Hmmmm

I guess dogs just don't like Polly...

BTW the head of a wolf pack are both an alpha-male and female, not that I'd expect Polly to know this given that he has little knowledge about living creatures. Dogs behave in the same way.

I suspect that Polly appears to be an 'outcast' to the thinking dog and they respond appropriately.

"The core of a pack is a mated pair of wolves - an adult male and female that have bred and produced young.

The other members of the pack are their offspring: young wolves ranging in age from pups to two and three-year-olds.

Pack sizes vary, most packs have 6 or 7 members, although some may include as many as 15 wolves. The size depends on many variables including the current numbers of the wolf population, the abundance of food, and social factors within the wolf pack.

Within each pack is an elaborate hierarchy. It may consist of a single breeding pair, the Alpha male and female, a lower group consisting of non-breeding adults, each with its own ranking, a group of outcasts, and a group of immature wolves on their way up."

http://www.wolfweb.com/facts-pack.html

Examinator :) and Bugsy.. not a bad thought there.. But I wonder how may 'layers' of skin it's toothy pegs must break through before it is considered a 'bite' *grin*.

But the problem with the 'snapshot' idea is as follows:

1/ It involves a lot of time.
2/ It would stress out and possibly create financial hardship for the owner
3/ The dog is in the 'PROCESS' of munching me.... The most I could get is a pic of it approaching, and the owner.
4/ Doing that would elevate the whole thing to a 'litigation' level.. who wants that?

Fraccy is as evil and perverse as ever.. making this wild claim that 'dogs don't like you' Noooo Fraccy.. they love me EXcept...this one.
(and the Rotty that tried to clamp its canines on my leg)

The other dogs accompanying these women run up for a greeting and a pat.. "other" labradors are the same.. THIS one is 'most different'.. completely out of character. (Dr Veronika might be able to help it)

Most people are still ignoring the SIGNS. "Dogs must be leashed" u know..RED LIGHT.. "stop or pay the consequences"

If some clown rocks up and starts harassing my child or my wife.. it will be thump bam bang..thankyou maam.. I sure as heck am not going to wait for a photo and a phone call to the local police.
Violence IS... the answer at times.. the POLICE use it.. the Army uses it, I was once employed to KILL people (if needed) for the sake of your freedom to abuse me.....it is the ultimate deterrent.

Wake up all you duffers and armchair philosophers who wallow in the freedom that our parents paid for with their lives and life qualities.
One of my uncles walked across the Italian Alps to escape from those who would oppress YOU.
...and ur worried about a biter dog getting its cumuppance from the bitee? *puzzled look*

I always get a little chuckle when Boazy shares these sorts of fables with us.

They are usually focussed on women (remember - girl in a video shop, girl who parked her car in front of boazy, now women with dog in a park) or they are about Muslims (harassment on the steps of central station and the Anzac parade/muslim paranoia story).

What purpose do they serve? Some hidden biblical message no doubt?

Boazy sometimes I wish you would debate or offer a 'real' opinion on various issues ie. what do YOU think about an issue rather than attempting to use OLO as a way to fulfill your quota hours of missionary work.

So much for turn the other cheek. What a loony.

Polycarp,
Some people just don't stop to think. The dog owner is responsible to keep the dog under control. I am sure you can look after yourself physically but what about older people and others not too good on their feet. This dog is a real threat to their safety as broken hips are quite common in older people. Dogs that jump up on people and grab them like you described are a hazard, even fright can cause some people to loose their footing.

The dog has been spoilt and needs some drastic action to bring him into line. Do complain to council for the sake of others.

Banjo,

Yes she broke a by-law but Polycarp’s actions potentially breached the crimes act (police involvement). Not to mention as I suggested some Boaz (sorry bozo) breaking his face.
. Logic/experience dictates if that woman is half as confrontational as him she'll ignore his as an oaf and your pensioner scenario can still happen.

Polycarp

Serves you right for getting up at such an ungodly hour! God is punishing you. :-)
If you don’t learn from this he’ll turn you into a .... a.....gay Muslim.

In reality merely photographing her with you phone would probably be enough to scare her into using a leash. And you should have thought of protecting all those helpless pensioners and fellow .....what is it that you are now? Can’t be Christian ("brother’s keeper?”and all that)
Too busy….? Where's your public spirit/responsibility, your courage of convictions?

Say what you will about my lack of religiosity but At least I’m not a hypocrite.

A little Didactic huh? This is what you do all the time. ;-|>

<<Violence IS... the answer at times.. ....it is the ultimate deterrent>>

I think Jesus said that one time, didn't he?

Polycarp: <<
Wake up all you duffers and armchair philosophers who wallow in the freedom that our parents paid for with their lives and life qualities.
One of my uncles walked across the Italian Alps to escape from those who would oppress YOU.
...and ur worried about a biter dog getting its cumuppance from the bitee? *puzzled look*>>

Oh please. My great grandfather died during the Somme campaign protecting YOUR freedom, and all you've done with it is write a whiney post about a Labrador who you needlessly kicked simply because you were unable to effectively communicate with his owner.

If you are truly puzzled by the reactions you are getting to your original post, stop blaming everyone else and work it out.

Except we all know you wont.

Next!

No people! David has every right to defend him self. I,ll even hand him the block of wood! Cause dogs should be on a leash. I think its more a case of" you can dish it out but you cant take it" please dont ever threaten my poor doggy, cause I love him.lol

No harm done! Lets get back to business.

EVO

Dear Polycarp,

I don't understand what you're complaining
about. You're a fully functional adult,
not a child. You see people with animals
running free, at the same time every
morning, why do you still persist in going
to the park at that time of day when you
know they'll be there? Then to compound
the situation, you pat one of the animals...

I was always taught not to pat
strange animals. I'm surprised that
you did, clearly sending the wrong
message to the dog.

And, then you kick the animal for doing
what comes naturally (and encouraged by you).

Sorry. You could have handled the situation
as an adult. Warning the owners about their
dogs (and your phobia). Not touching the
animals. And finally, choosing a different
time of day to take your walk. You also
could report these people to the Council if
they ignored your request to place their dogs on
a leash. And get a doctor's certificate (regarding
any bruising done by the animal) to present to the
Head of the Department in charge of that Council park.

Next time act your age.

So much for that idea! I get the point! It was interesting to read your stories.

Thank you.

EVO

Its about the politics not the personal David, and I think you have known this the entire time. so what are you playing at?

EVO

Well.. it takes a thread like this to provide insights into the way different people think eh....

Dear Foxy says:

"1/I was always taught not to pat
strange animals. I'm surprised that
you did,
2/clearly sending the wrong
message to the dog.
3/And, then you kick the animal for doing
what comes naturally (and encouraged by you)."

(no Foxy, what comes NATurally is the desire to greet/sniff)

Foxy.. I prefer to seek 'friendship' with animals before confrontation.

In case u've not noticed.. MOST dogs which are not aggressive just love to 'greet' strangers. There is a beagle which absolutely adores me.. it runs up.. tail wagging.. smiling a doggy smile..and just revels in my pats and hugs....

But foxy.. you want me to re-arrange the universe and change the time I go for a walk.. just because of a woman committing an illegal act..
-2 chances!

Further.. you blame me for 'encouraging it's aggression'? now.. submerged in that is the assumption that
a)I was harrassing the animal.(rather than it harassing me)
b)It only started 'chewing/biting/mauling' me after I 'harrassed it'.

Truuuuly mind boggling.

Evo..thanx for the support mate.

Banjo.. now you have a valuable perspective.. the aged pensioner.. I absolutely assure you.. if a pensioner or otherwise frail person was given a dose of this particular dog.. it would be horrifying and traumatic. So.. I'll follow your advice there and at least get the rego numbers of the cars in the car park if they are around again.. then report it.

Examinator.. me...in breach of the Crimes act? :) utter and complete rubbish old son. Self defense is alway lawful.
I spose I could have grabbed it and BIT its paw or something eh :)

The only limitation is reasonable force. The defense in cases of human assaults is that reasonable force is used. That's the law. i.e.. if some bloke comes to king hit you.. ya caynt thump him with a chunk of 2x4... you can only try to restrain..and that could include a very hard thump to the nose.

Polly: "So.. I'll follow your advice there and at least get the rego numbers of the cars in the car park if they are around again.. then report it."

GOOD

And stop infecting this forum with your inability to cope with day to day problems.

Dear Polycarp,

If you really believe that dogs prefer to
"sniff" first by way of "greeting."
And if you really believe in "greeting"
rather than "confrontation," then why didn't
you practice what you believe?

You should have "sniffed" the dog, instead
of patting him.

Then there wouldn't have been a problem!

According to your logic.

Poylcarp

Au’contraire
You are looking at it through your prism of your sense of unctuous Self-righteousness .

Your knowledge of dog behaviour is either unreasonably poor or you have anger management issues would be their argument.

Your knowledge of the law is also ill founded. If the woman was devious enough, intimidated enough or just plain vindictive you could be in bother.
I agree COMMON PRACTICE suggests that you maybe safe enough, most people would simply shrug off your behaviour as that of an arse.

Your actions were ill advised, posting them foolish. Your confrontation (threat) with the owner opened you up to Assault.
Under the crimes act Assault is abuse, threats etc. (Physical attack is “battery”).

Charges for cruelty to animals are possible. Your previous actions on the day and in the past may be used against you.
Had you actually caused damage to the dog (vet bills) your defence argument may not have held.

If it had broken the skin then you have either a dangerous dog claim to the police and or the council which was the correct way to go. The fact that you didn’t pursue the matter (the actual nature of the injury) and posted your apparent moral indignation rather than “fear” your actions would probably be seen as simple retaliation and reflect badly on you. Hence my apocryphal sayings.

In truth YOU are more than partially at fault. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Her breach of By-laws or the dog's 'attack?' self defense didn’t licence your actions. I would have taken the incident as a personal learning experience not as cause to confirm any assumed 'Superior' moral beliefs. Despite your somewhat extreme views at times I thought you were smarter than that

The day of the dog is dead. Dog owners are accountable for their dogs actions, no mater what the circumstances. Council take great delight in fining people with unrestrained dogs, Give them a shot from ya mobile and they will act on it. People that allow dogs off in public places deserve everything the law allows for. If you can't abide by the law you can't have a dog.

I agree with Polycarp.

Dog owners are under a legal obligation to control their pets.

It is not the responsibility of the general public to keep themselves safe from harm, it is the responsibility of the dog owner to keep the public safe from the mouthing and savaging of their pets.

Quiet a few years ago, I rented an unit where I lived with my daughters. A new tenant moved in with dogs (despite being against the landlords rules), a pit bull and something big (not sure but about the size of a ridge back) and the communal garden arrangement was immediately taken over by these hounds. I walked out of my back door with daughter and we were faced with these beasts pounding down toward us.

If I'd had a pick axe handle to hand, I would have fixed the problem there and them, similar to Polycarps boot, I could not, I phoned the landlord and got the scumbags evicted, along with their dogs.

You wanna dog, you are 100% absolutely responsible for the conduct of the dog.

I fail to see how any nong can dispute that fact.

Dear Examinator..I dont mind debating a point_of_law.. in fact I enjoy_it.

Now.. as an issue_of "Law" we may set_out the following facts.

1/ The dog has 'repeatedly' harrased/mauled me on a number of occasions.
2/ My 'previous' actions were purely self defense..driving off the 'mauler' thus 100% lawful. If I'd had a chunk of wood.. whacked it and it relented..THEN I further attacked it and beat it to death -THAT would be a crime.

3/ My 'threat' to the owner was entirely lawful "If it GOES for me again..I'll hurt it" now..that is a clear and unmistakable statement of fair warning. If I'd said "I'll kill it" then you might have a point. Note..I did not say "If se SEE that dog again I'll hurt it.. but (now note this) If it GOES for me again"

4/ Given that she knows 100% that her dog MUST by law be leashed.... as a condition of entry to the property.. it is 100% on HER..not me.

I'm just the innocent walker who likes to enjoy a bit of exercise without being mauled by some mut which (out of the many many dogs...including bull terriers and german shepherds and even a bull mastif which I regularly encounter quite peacefully)is the notable exception to the rule. (along with the Rotweiler which tried to bite me and the other one which attacked me outright)

So.. the law is actually quite clear.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 - SECT 11

Defence to cruelty or aggravated cruelty

11. Defence to cruelty or aggravated cruelty

In any proceedings against a person in relation to an act of cruelty under
section 9, or an act of aggravated cruelty under section 10, it is a defence
if the person-

(a) acted reasonably; or

(b) reasonably omitted to do an act-

in defending himself or herself or any other person against an animal or
against any threat of attack by an animal.

(notice that last bit? "threat")

Given that an animal will almost without exception try to bite hands.. a kick is the most "reasonable" response under the circumstances.

You have a right of self defence, Any dog owner with an unrestrained animal is liable. Provacation is not a legal point. The law says the animal is to be restrained.

More law.

Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 - SECT 29

Penalty and liability for attack by dog

29. Penalty and liability for attack by dog

(1) If a dangerous dog, that is not a guard dog guarding non-residential
premises, attacks or bites any person or animal, the owner is guilty of an
offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or to a
fine not exceeding 120 penalty units.

(4) If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the owner is guilty of an offence
and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units.

COMMENT

Exammy..nothing there about 'breaking the skin" mate.

If you feel you have a point there.. please back it up with.. law :)

So.. clearly... If I'd run..and this mut had chased me.. not even touched me.. the owner has committed a crime..

This is why the "law" is rather helpful..it exposes the bias, bigotry and woolly thinking of so many people who think they can just apply their bigotry to others. Note..'bigotry' is where one is confronted with facts..but denies them in preference for their own biases.

Obviously, that little 'burst' will attract the charge of BUT BUT..but.. (fume, foam, froth) you you.. YOU are a hypocrite because you vilify such and such regularly (Gays,Islam, Muslims)

To which of course.. I react "The law is clear".. but this isn't the thread to debate those things :)

How simple does it need to be?

1. Take a photograph of the dog off the leash in a restricted area

2. Prove the 'injury' (that the dog is "savage")

3. Report to Council

4. Avoid the place and the time

Councils are required by law in most jurisdictions to provide leash-free dog walking areas.

Nicky

Oh yes, here it is:

Crapathians 25-27
25Violence is the answer at times, it is the ultimate deterrent. 26Yea I say unto thee that any who provide witness against thy neighbors negligence, is truly righteous. 27Blessed are they who use reasonable force for they shalt inherit the kingdom of dog.

Sorry Boazy, I realise now you were only following your foundation documents.

"You wanna dog, you are 100% absolutely responsible for the conduct of the dog."

Does that go for kids too, Col? Glad you didn't have a pick axe handle with you, or a gun for that matter. You might have ended up being charged, or assaulted by your neighbour. My neice lived next door to a gangster family with a couple of pit bulls. One dog got through the fence and attacked her little dogs. Fortunately she had help from another neighbour to rescue her dogs. Called the police. The dog was destroyed and the lease wasn't renewed.

Oh dear Polycarp

All these hysterics and not a drop of blood anywhere.

Let me tell you Brother that DOG spelt backwards is GOD.

Could this be why God made Dog, man's best friend?

But man is not always Dog's best friend eh?

For only savage men breed savage dogs!

Therefore repent my son - for you visit the sins of man on man's best friend.

Clearly, the dog owner's in the wrong here - but that's not really the point, is it? Instead of doing the sensible and civil thing, and confronting the owner of the dog that's annoying him, Porky chooses to kick it instead and looks for retrospective validation of his cruel stupidity. I don't suppose it says anywhere in Porky's bible that two wrongs don't make a right.

Col Rouge appears to be even worse. He seems disappointed that he was deprived of the opportunity to attack some animals with a pick handle, and instead was forced to do the civilised and sensible thing and complain to the relevant authorities (as Porky should with his canine crisis). Col doesn't tell us whether he attempted to discuss the problem with the people he describes as "scumbags", but on his form one can imagine how such a conversation might transpire.

Meanwhile, Porky's at it again:

<< My 'threat' to the owner was entirely lawful "If it GOES for me again..I'll hurt it" now..that is a clear and unmistakable statement of fair warning. If I'd said "I'll kill it" then you might have a point. Note..I did not say "If se SEE that dog again I'll hurt it.. but (now note this) If it GOES for me again" >>

whereas he reported the exchange in his first post on the subject as:

<< Later.. I warned the owner "If it comes on me again, I'll hurt it". >>

I remember this, because I thought it an odd turn of phrase, even for Porky.

Which was it Porky - was it "GOES for me" or "COMES on me"?

It could be a very important legal point.

Jason60 is spot on! When a large hound is barreling down on you, the last thing you will be thinking about is the law.(fear) I know from my own experiences, not all, is as it seems and the first reaction will be instinctive.

If you show fear then your gone. Throw your arms up and screem with all your might! 9\10 it will back off. or have a box of smacko's handy!

I have seen five dog attacks on humans and the only choice was violence to release the animals grip.

It all depends on the circumstances, but right or wrong, the owner is fully responsible.

EVO

Ah criticism from CJ… it means I must be right

“Col doesn't tell us whether he attempted to discuss the problem with the people he describes as "scumbags", but on his form one can imagine how such a conversation might transpire.”

I never bothered to speak with them. It would be almost as pointless as expecting a worthwhile contribution to any post from CJ Morgan.

Why bother to make sensible conversation with those who ignore the terms of their recently signed rental agreement?

I just phoned the landlord and offered the alternative… if they don’t go, I do… (and he felt I was the more meritorious tenant)

But have no fear, if the beasts had touched my young daughter, i would have butchered it there and then, with whatever came to hand.

Fester I am not sure what you are dribbling on about, other than your neighbours outcome was appropriate, the miscreant ended up with no dog and no lease.

Actually in think there are a number of dogs which should be banned from being owned or bred and any of the breed destroyed on sight. Pit bulls and Staffordshire bull terriers immediately come to mind.

Ah dickie.. you can run around here playing with anagrams of the word Dog when you should be seeking out those references, you know to where I supported cartels or are you concerned I might be stalking you?

You really are all play, dickie (and no substance)..

Dear Col,

On behalf of CJ, Dickie, et al, I'd
like to remind you in the words of
your beloved Maggie:

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is
particularly wounding because I think, well,
if they attack me personally, it means they
have not a single political argument left."

Alls fair in love and war. As long as dog owners are responsible. If they are not, and you get a rush; from a dog, go ahead with relevant prosecutions, and you will come out on top. financially. It has been tested.

Foxy "On behalf of CJ, Dickie, et al, I'd
like to remind you in the words of
your beloved Maggie:"

and if you look back in my posts, you will see that I have used quote by Margaret Thatcher myself.

So, like they say, "imitation is the highest form of flattery".

thank you Foxy.

and I came across this interesting take on it here

http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2002/07/20020709_b_main.asp

"If the adage is right that imitation is the highest form of flattery, it's because it goes beyond sycophancy...."

I might ask, is it that important that I like you?

EVO: "When a large hound is barreling down on you..."

Um, it was a labrador.

CR: "Pit bulls and Staffordshire bull terriers immediately come to mind."

Staffies? You're scared of staffies?

Another way of saying it, Foxy, is "no one kicks a dead dog".

On the practical side, my dad always told me that in circumstances of being set upon by a dog, a hard crushing grip upon a forepaw made it impossible for the dog to actually close its jaws with any force.

I must add that I have never had cause to try out whether it works or not. And my dad had very large hardened powerful hands.

All of which is really not addressing the issue, which is that of some people having no shame in openly flouting the law, or in this original instance, a local government ordinance.

I don't have a dog, so I won't attempt to discuss this ostensible topic with respect to dog behaviour vis-a-vis pet owner behaviour.

At a pedestrian crossing outside a school entrance near to where I live, there exists a signed area marked as 'No Stopping' immediately upstream of the crossing in both directions. The reason for it is obvious: it is to obviate the hazard of children being obscured from a driver's view until the last moment when they plunge onto the crossing.

Most parents picking up students park and wait in the areas where this is permissible. There are some, however, who habitually seem to both come relatively late in relation to securing a conveniently close parking spot, and see no problem in pulling up (and waiting) in the "No Stopping' area.

I recently approached one such, and said "Mate, do you realize this is a 'No Stopping' area?" "So what?' was the response. He waited there for between five and ten minutes, collected his passenger, and left. He doubtless expects to do so routinely.

Its an attitude thing. How dare anyone call his (routine) behaviour into question, no matter how tactfully. Above the law, and no shame when confronted. You can bet the attitude carries over into other areas of life.

And people wonder why the pendulum swings to zero tolerance.

Dog owners and 4wd drivers go hand in hand. Does that explain the attitude.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is
particularly wounding because I think, well,
if they attack me personally, it means they
have not a single political argument left."

Ah dear Foxy

The following quote is also attributed to dearest Margaret

“You don't tell deliberate lies, but sometimes you have to be evasive.”

So does the second quote negate the first?

And that's odd. I thought Col Rouge hated pit-bulls!

Polycarp.
The first thing you learn in Law at Uni is not a bunch of laws. It is that the law has nothing to do with provocation or the average interpretation of justice. It is based on the black letter and precedent interpretations.

• the woman breached the by-law. (True) that neither gave you the right to kick the dog nor to intimidate her by threatening the dog harm.

Legal interpretation of self defence is based on measured and proportional to the threat. Enough to defend yourself anything more is an offence.

Consider the urban myth. A burglar enters your house you shoot him/her then shoot the ceiling. You change the sequence for the police telling them the first shot was a warning you were defending yourself. Result…You would be charged/probably convicted for at least manslaughter if not murder and for attempting to pervert the course of justice etc.
REASONING: the force YOU used was disproportionate to the threat.

The “or I’ll harm it” could be construed as a threat therefore possible assault charges. Unfair? Perhaps but it’s the law.

Then there maybe a case under common law if you damaged the dog. Here the court decides on probability not beyond reasonable doubt.

Are you now saying the dog continued the attack? If so then it's a dangerous dog and should be declared. Once DECLARED: Then the penalties and restrictive conditions apply.

If dog ‘attacked?' you on previous occasions? i.e. different days? It would be argued why you didn’t act then? It could be then further argued that you were simply retaliating? Your words in your posts would give a prosecutor plenty to play with in that field.

Anyway Given that you don’t accept anything anyone says least of all me, unless inline with your thinking this post is more directed to other readers.
Polycarp let’s agree to disagree. PS don’t call me for bail… no money :-(
end

Examinator, you are absolutely right. The first questions the court would be asking is why did Polycarp not try to address the matter in an adult, responsible manner without committing what could arguably be described as an offence under POCTAA legislation. If he injured the dog (not having followed Plan A) the owner (although she might face a fine by the Council, of if the dog is declared "dangerous" other legislation applies) would be within her rights to be asking for compensation for veterinarian expenses (if anyone kicked one of my dogs, I would make sure the repercussions for them "hurt").

Polycarp, do you not see how silly this is? It was simply a matter of my suggestions in my earlier post. Why are we even arguing about it?

Nicky

*so I kicked it! *thump* Yelp /yelp/growl/bark.*


*thump* Yelp /yelp/growl/bark.

I think the above words you posted spells it out clearly David.

You have deep seated problems with Animals especially since your outburst in another thread I have been aware of it.

You have several times complained that you feel angry there have been more posts on animal welfare than people listening to David going on about his God.'

Thats what this is all about really - 'isnt it' Dont lie again David like you did about not getting our emails when you asked for Paulines contact.
People have their own faiths of many kinds.

Few however think much of you as a person or a Christian

You are discrace to the Church you belong to. So we will have to seek that Church out to see if they can give you some direction and council you.

In the mean time I see no reason you should not be charged for cruelty.

It will serve as a good example for others. Bad enough you did it but to promote it as something that is good is criminal.

Remember you are responsible for your comments and RSPCA only have to request your ID.

Somthing I personally intend to make sure is done.

Your hatred to Muslims and Animals is noted

Now Col Rouge fantasises about "butchering" the dog whose owner he wasn't game enough to confront in an adult manner, just as Porky would rather kick a dog or skulk around a carpark than take appropriate actions.

Porky's afraid of a Labrador, Col Rouge is scared of Staffies. These guys are made for each other.

AAah PALE.. RSPCA... I've been the victim of vexatious allegations before.

One person who had a horse on my property.. and who seemed to come to regard my place as 'her' place.... after being allowed to put her stuff under my verandah (no extra charge) and then.. park her horse float on my place (no extra charge) and finally.. when the food/grass ran out....and I said "time to move on" called in the RSPCA on me for 'animal cruelty' .. when the officer finally arrived.. she saw the only horse on my place which was quite healthy because IT'S owners actually provided food for it!

So.. feel totally free to call the RSPCA :) I welcome it. In fact..I might call them myself! Just after I call the RSPC...H (the human one)

The RSPCA know the difference between time wasting vexatious complaints and real ones.

EXAMMY.. you are talking lots but not making much sense.... I went through those same points you raised myself. "Reasonable" right?
'A kick' is reasonable.. 'holding the dog and stomping it to insensibility' would be UN reasonable.

It was not that the "woman"- 'breached the law' that gave me the right to defend myself by kicking the mut....it was that it was all over me like a bad rash with it's teeth grabbing and tearing at my clothes and skin.... for the UMPeenth time (seems that bit is being missed by myopic readers)

CJ.. ohhhh my .. (more therapy with Veronika mate)

"Justice" in the Bible is what our law is based on "An eye for an eye" LIMITS punishement to the crime itself. You cannot take both eyes for an eye.
Even back in those days they had cities of refuge where blokes like me could flee from the 'wild eyed raging lynch mob' of you, Pale, Veronika and some others with ur torches.. until the ARSPCA can arrive and see all the facts :) (the "A" stands for 'Ancient')

Poly

Report the woman for chrissakes.

Learn that dogs can smell fear - so either get over your phobia or walk somewhere else.

Finally, stop CARPing on and on, you are not the first person to be frightened of dogs. I was attacked when a little girl. I got over my problems when I raised and trained a German Shepherd. I have never been intimidated by dogs since, because I know how to behave around them.

Final piece of advice, and I am not into violence, but if all else fails, the dog's nose is it most sensitive and easy target, if a dog has a grip on you hit the nose. Unless the dog is a Pitbull - then I suggest you scream girlishly for Col Rouge and he'll save you with his pick-axe.

What a freakin' whinge over nothing.

Sooky sooky la-la!

Maybe next time you could waggle your typing fingers at it. If you manage to get it on video, please post it on Youtube, I would be most interested in seeing that.

Boaz-originated threads are usually stalking horses for an eventual whack-a-mozzie rant.

This one hasn't risen above the "nasty doggie bit me" level.

The tension is palpable.

Fractelle,
Why did you tell him that now he'll go around hiting dogs on their noses.

I think it's all that hair it has him confused. Hair= Muslim= Islamic plot (to take over one bite at a time.)
Forget fleas, check for bombs or doggy Korans ;-)

Of course...I've not mentioned yet that the woman was wearing a hijab :)

yes.. of course I'm kidding..that was for Pericles sake..I can't stand the thought of him wetting his pants in drooling anticipation for how I can miraculously (wait.. he doesn't believe in them) "startlingly" transform this thread into some anti Islamic diatribe.

Fraccy.. hey..I appreciate your very reasonable advice.. please don't think I've not noticed it. I'm not having a whine.. I'm "exploring the human mind". Nose ey? hmmm yep.. probably true..but the 'canines are sometimes quicker than the hand' and I don't want a set of crushed fingies from whacking too close to the 'business' bit and being a tad slow about it.

I'm sure you can see it.. the law is crystal clear.. my actions were lawful..even if in the view of some perhaps lacking in wisest chronological order. Yet we have a veritable stream of knowitalls who make wild statements which are clearly contrary to the 'black and white' law in front of them. Exammy makes a good try to avoid this :) by referring to case law kind of thing.. but Exammy..ur busted mate..
didn't lay a glove on my argument.

I've done a bit of an ad hoc survey.. and the question was:

"If a dog came to you and jumped up on you.. and started tearing at your clothes and skin in a kind of 'lazy aggression' manner..what would you do"?

If I had a buck for the number of time the confident response "KICK IT" came :) I'd stop all this freelance jounalism (groan)

For those who suggest 'photographing' it and reporting the owner..

1/ If the mut is mauling.. you still have to find a way of getting it away from you in the short/immediate term.
2/ I still prefer to avoid causing a dog owner more inconvenience and confrontation with the law than absolutely neccesary. (do for others :) I sure has heck don't like visits from council or the such like.

Well naturally you'd say that now, wouldn't you Boaz?

>>Of course...I've not mentioned yet that the woman was wearing a hijab :) yes.. of course I'm kidding..that was for Pericles sake..I can't stand the thought of him wetting his pants in drooling anticipation for how I can miraculously (wait.. he doesn't believe in them) "startlingly" transform this thread into some anti Islamic diatribe.<<

But thanks for the fascinating - and illuminating - form of your denial.

The picture you paint of me is, of course, satisfyingly unflattering. All that drool. Quite icky.

I'm sure you must have spent a good while working on that description. Although, for your future reference, "wetting his pants in drooling anticipation" does not work particularly well either literally or metaphorically. Too much contortion involved.

But what have I ever said that leads you to the view that I don't believe in miracles? I most certainly do. Anyone who has watched the birth of their kids knows all about miracles.

It's just that I disagree that a miracle has to be, by definition, an "act of God". There's still so much that we don't know about our universe, a great deal of it is bound to appear miraculous.

It's just that I have yet to be convinced that anything I don't fully comprehend must, by definition, be of divine origin.

And please, don't come the raw prawn with indignation at the suggestion that you use these threads for whack-a-mozzie practice. There's nothing "startling" about it at all.

You do it all the time. It seems to be your starting position, the driving force behind your every word and action, and your inevitable, immovable conclusion. You seek out examples of Islamic mischief, real and perceived, with the single-mindedness of a truffle-hound, and the complete lack of discrimination of a scavenger beetle.

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't come as a surprise, and underneath it all you have to admit - even to yourself - "Whack-a-mozzie? It's what I do"

What a reaction over an overfriendly labrador! Eleven pages!

Imagine the fallout if it had been an Afghan hound instead.

Indeed wobbles. Had it been an Afghan, Porky would've gone barking mad.

You've gotta wonder if we have all gone barking mad even going along with it! Polycarp, if all else fails a rolled up newspaper should do the trick (it's the noise), since you cannot get your mobile phone into place to take a photo of the offending dog and its owner, and clearly aren't interested in taking the obviously sensible, or regulatory path to solve your problem.

Nicky

PS Are Polycarp and Boaz_David one and the same?

*If a dog came to you and jumped up on you.. and started tearing at your clothes and skin in a kind of 'lazy aggression' manner..what would you do"?*

I'd knee it in the chest. It clean takes the wind out of them
and they never do it again :)

Hooray.. a quite sensible suggestion from the 'whack poly' brigade.. ie.. Nicky.. at first you didn't score many points with me, but out of all the suggestions so far that's probably the most humane and practical one.. rolled up newspaper :) excellent.

I've been doing a bit of a survey.. asking people about this. Just outlining it as I've done here.. but limiting the 'question' to the "if a dog came up and" etc.. the score is thus far:

6 "kick it"
2 "fight it off"
1 "ignore it and hope it goes away"
1 "report the owner"

PERICLES please adjust your terminology "Whack Islam" is the correct term. Along with that I also:

"Whack MIUAUG"
"Whack Atheism"
"Wack Political Correctness"

and I do definitely use the forum to refine arguments and ideas along all those important fronts.

Specially given that today we have a 'guilty as charged' for Benbrickhead and around 6 of his cronies for TERRORISM.

But lets not be distracted.. I hope everyone will do a little survey and report the results honestly about this doggy thing... it might be interesting to see the results by geographic location.

Or you could whack a mozzie with a rolled up newspaper.

Again, please post on Youtube.

Well, we already knew Porky's a complete "whacker", didn't we?

<< Specially given that today we have a 'guilty as charged' for Benbrickhead and around 6 of his cronies for TERRORISM. >>

I think the tension's been broken, Pericles - a bit like a dog breaking wind, really.

Oops, I forgot.

<< "Whack MIUAUG"
"Whack Atheism"
"Wack Political Correctness" >>

Whack LABRADORS!!

*but out of all the suggestions so far that's probably the most humane and practical one.. rolled up newspaper :) excellent.*

Err a little bit of bias there BD. If you forgot your newspaper,
you still have your knee handy and its quite humane. When a dog
jumps up it exposes its chest. No need to kick it or anything,
just lift your leg up to bend your knee. It then realises it
got a bit close, they soon learn not to jump up, all very simple.

But given that the religious seldom show good judgement, I am
not surprised at your answer :)

Polycarp, should you not have a newspaper handy, raising your knee to discourage a dog from jumping up is a recognized training technique. However, kneeing a dog in the chest viciously enough to wind it is not, and is not much different from kicking it. Try to have your morning paper with you.

Cheers
Nicky

*kneeing a dog in the chest viciously enough to wind it is not, and is not much different from kicking it.*

Err Nicky dear, its all up to the dog. If he runs at you at full
pelt and jumps up and you raise your knee, he will wind himself,
no need to do anything viciously. Usually the original problem
is crappy pet owners, who forget to teach their dogs the basics,
like not jumping up on people. A bit like crappy parents, who
so spoil their kids, that they bring up brats.

My dogs never get kneed, as they don't jump up and learnt it as
pups. All very simple, basic dog training really.

Yabby, is it possible I could have misunderstood you?

"I'd knee it in the chest. It clean takes the wind out of them
and they never do it again :)"

It would be interesting to know what other training methods you use.

Nicky

Exactly Nicky, the dog winds itself on your knee, depending on how
fast it is running and jumping. No need to kick, no need for violence,
just lift the knee. The dog winds itself, you don't
wind the dog, big difference.

My dogs learn to sit, learn to stay, learn to catch sheep,
learn to stay outside the house when told, etc, etc.
Its all basic stuff, lots of love and lots of discipline.

Its when pet owners forget that they are meant to be the
chief dog and not the other way around, that we have all
these problems.

And no, my dogs don't eat gourmet foods, they eat meat
and bones etc and they don't sleep on the bed.

I don't bemother them, they are dogs and I have no
maternal instincts lol.

You f$cking idiots!. Thinking out side the box is what I am guilty of and doing!. On multi-level community thinking, I have failed, but revelations/bible, with any religion, we are all one. What revelations is saying is,when man comes to the point of too many, it will crash! Why do you think iam telling the world to simplify and reduce population. You all think you are so smart with your greed and misunderstanding in all that the sign's are showing you! Yes! thinking out side of the box is very dangerous, but the message is all the same. The Inca's thoughts on the matter will begin 2012 christianity is about the same time. I do not understand what you are all laughing about. The human race is screwing its self on every level I can think of.
Yes I sit back and watch you all! I have no interest in joining your never ending insights on answers with no conclusions, and how many posts have you all raised with no point! around and around we go!

The pie is in your face! Don't say the people haven't warned you all.

I agree with 91% of the people on this site, I am afraid, I went 9% to the unknown. I'll cope that.
Change has to happen sooner or later, but isn't progress slow!

None of you has the guts to step out-side of the circle\box, now! how much do you weigh!

I never said I wasn't religious! But you have all assume you know what the big picture is!

Rule number one! Man is an ignorant fool!
Rule number two! If you put two rats in a box they will breed. Put ten rats in the same box, they will fight to the death!
(is the world looking a little smaller now) I maybe thinking ahead of myself and others, but it beats the bull-sh2t of the circle!

Get my point!

Evo - I think you've strayed just a tad too far out of the circle this time...and found yourself on the wrong thread.

Yes Romany, how right you are.

EVO

My mistake! sorry.

EVO

*AAah PALE.. RSPCA... I've been the victim of vexatious allegations before.*

David Boaz I bet you have. Your right on one thing RSPCA DONT repond to all calls.
That alone tells me there was more to the bigger picture.

Personally David if I were 'totally convinced' of this actually happening you might get the biggest shock.

There is a part of me however that thinks it possible the dog in the park didnt even happen TBO.

I have noticed your posts rushing into animal threads demading in capital letters and complaining about more posts on Animal Welfare threads than others.

Your hell bent on being the centre of attention David .

Your posts on Muslims tells us that. Of course then when someone asks you a sensible question- Such us what Muslim People do you know living in Australia? + Would you like to meet some of these people instead of posting off shore stuff you run a mile.

My thoughts are by paying this thread anymore attention we are giving you exacly what you want.

That is to have everybodies attention- 'Isnt it David'

Exciting isn't it :)

Poor Evo jumps in with hob nail work boots.... only to realize he is in the wrong thread..but I read ur post anyway evo..and I assume it was connected to Gibo's thread?

CJ is in good form.. nice to see. Bugsy is being lazy..he can do much better at vilifying me :)

Pale is annoyed that I'm getting 'attention' :) cheer up mate.. it's all good.. we have learnt some important lessons.. including me...the newspaper was the best bit I reckon. (thanx Nicky)

Pericles got his wish :) now he's also happy..

Mmmmmm the world is in balance at last.....

Yabby's claws are working well on Nicky *ouch* :)

and dear Romany.. not unusually.. said things which have zero to do with the subject.. onya Romany *grin* (kidding ok)

Have a nice day all.

Sorry, Boaz, I can't let you get away with that, I'm afraid.

(and yes, Nicky, Boaz and Polycarp are indeed one and the same. Explains a lot, does it not?)

>>PERICLES please adjust your terminology "Whack Islam" is the correct term<<

You know, Boaz, it certainly could be that way, if you wanted it to be.

It could also be "whack-a-terrorist", if you felt so inclined.

But your actions - as so often is the case - belie any such positioning.

The reason is painfully obvious to anyone who reads your posts on the topic.

Whenever - and this happens frequently - anyone points out to you that you should not make a connection between Islamic terrorist activity and normal peaceful Muslims, you reply that the two are inseparable. No Muslim can avoid, you tell us, being implicated in the meaning of the one or two verses that you pull out to demonstrate that every Muslim must, by definition, want to destroy Christendom. Or Jewry. Or apostates. Or whatever interpretation you put on it.

We give you every chance, Boaz, to distance yourself from your "whack-a-mozzie" antics. We ask you, every time, to make it clear that you are not accusing every Muslim of being a terrorist, or potential terrorist.

That you continually decline to do so, speaks volumes about your character and purpose.

And gives the absolute lie to:

>>PERICLES please adjust your terminology "Whack Islam" is the correct term<<

If you want us to believe that, Boaz, you are going to have to try a lot, lot harder.

I have to wonder why Polly hasn't sought a tetanus injection by now. I'm sure if his "wounds" were as serious as he has claimed and given his love of melodrama we would all know by now if he had done so.

You were not truly savaged by a labrador or any type of dog were you?

Rhetorical question, Polly. I know not to expect honesty from you. You are trying to cover up your mistakes, yet again.

CJ Morgan “Now Col Rouge fantasises about "butchering" the dog whose owner he wasn't game enough to confront in an adult manner, just as Porky would rather kick a dog or skulk around a carpark than take appropriate actions.”

No fantasy however, I doubt any father, worth his salt, would do less, although I guess we likely have some exceptions here at OLO,
You know –
some pitbull, tearing at your child’s head,

you calmly tell your child,

don’t struggle, you will scare the dog and

he is only reacting out of excitement, wait while I talk to the owner.

In the mean time your kid’s life blood drains out of his body or he is permanently deformed through excessive tearing and ripping of cheek from head..

Yeah,

Somehow, dog butchering seems a valid and reasonable option.

Then CJ’s later post – too much excitement, a lot of whacking off going on

Col "The Dog Butcher" Rouge: << In the mean time your kid’s life blood drains out of his body or he is permanently deformed through excessive tearing and ripping of cheek from head.. >>

Nothing happened though, did it? Therefore it's a fantasy, i.e. it occurred entirely in your head. No blood, no deformity, no tearing, no ripping, no butchery.

You've obviously been spending too much time in the company of a certain paranoiac bulldust-artist who shares your fear of dogs and people.

The Polyboaz said it was "not a 'dog fight' intensity..nope..just 'chew'..", and describes an obviously friendly dog (though that didn't prevent him from giving in to his natural vindictiveness).

By the time we get to Col Rouge, the friendly labrador has turned into a slavering Cerberus, tearing the heads off children in public parks.

If this mob can get so wound up over a retired guide dog, it's no wonder they confuse feeble terrorism with the apocalypse.

Veronika! I guess you have never seen an attack Labrador before? I think you should try and stay at my auntie's house. that's if you can get through the front gate.

The vet said, the dogs got a bad attitude problem and is suffering with a long history of mental illness.

Again! The owner is responsible for the behavior of the animal and we all know some owner's are not the best in the treatment of there pets.

Do we have any postmen here? My aunty has to go down town to collect her mail.

The postman will not deliver.

EVO

Well... more evidence that there is nothing like a good 'dog' story to polarize a group of people :)

For Pericles benefit.. I should do this on a separate thread .. but hey.. his attention is here.

I can't be bothered trying to defend myself from your ignorance based attack about associating "all" of 'them' with the verses I cite.
I have maintained a consistent line thoughout of making a separation between the actual teaching of the faith and the behavior of it's adherents. The behavior follows a bell curve from radical to lazy and all the nominals in between. I referred you and others to the information from Harris Rafiq where it is clearly stated that around 15-20% of the community in the UK lay at the 'radical' end. I don't need to defend myself.. the totality of my offerings speaks for itself.

What you are doing here P (I'm tempted to sic that Labby on ya.. "go BOY.. GET IM"....) is simply re-stating your own warped and baseless understanding of what I do.

The Socialist Alternative mob are now claiming that their RMIT 'protest' is picking up momentum and there will be blockades in the CBD .. I'd love to see that. (See the last paragraph)

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1737&Itemid=1

SANCHO.. at least 'this' time your not advocating I get 'bashed' :)
No mate..it was not being friendly.. if you had read all that I said you would realize this. Claiming it was 'friendly' is a ploy to position me as 'bad guy' ..but I'm afraid that incorrect presuppositions lead to equally incorrect conclusions.

How in the world you get 'obviously' friendly from my posts which clearly differentiated between the OTHER 'obviously' friendly ones and this one is stunning. I know a tail wagging ears flat happy doggy when I see one. I also used to wrestle with my pointer, and know what 'mouthing' is.......This one was not it. I think as Evo points out it is mentally damaged.. probably from abuse by the owner.

Polly, how to tell if a pet is friendly or not.

What some children said about keeping safe with pets:

"Don't run away from dogs or they will chase you."

"Be kind to animals and they will be kind to you."

"Never go near a dog which is growling as it may be scared and it might bite."

"Be careful when you hold a rabbit, their back legs are strong and they have sharp claws."

"Any animal will bite to protect itself."

"Don't go near your pet when it is eating. It might think you're going to take the food away and then it could bite."

"Don't go up to strange animals. You may scare them and they may try to defend themselves."

"Always ask before you pat someone else's pet."

Bites-and-scratches

* Always wash any scratches and bites from animals with soap and water as soon as possible. If the bite or scratch bleeds, that means it is deep and you need to get mum or dad to check it.

* Never go up to a strange animal .You don't know how it will act towards you.

* Never try to play with an animal that is eating or sleeping. Even your own pet that you've had for ages may be startled and bite or scratch.

* Keep an eye on younger brothers or sisters when they are playing with your pet. Young children haven't learned to treat animals with respect and they could be too rough.

How-to-deal-with-animal-bites

* Wash area carefully with water and antiseptic, or soap.

* Use ice to keep the swelling down.

Apply an antiseptic, cover with a clean dressing or plaster, but take the plaster off every day to make sure the bitten place is healing well. Look for signs of an infection, (ie. redness, swelling, pain, tenderness and the infected part often feels hot to touch). If there is infection, you need to see a doctor.

Have mum, dad or a trusted adult check out the bite.

* The person who has been bitten may need to see a doctor.

http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetailsKids.aspx?p=335&np=288&id=1748

>>>>>DIDDUMS<<<<<

How on earth did we get from dealing with a difficult dog, and council by-laws to Muslim/terrorist bashing? Polycarp, I suspect you have been sabotaged.

As for Yabby 'sharpening his claws', while he cannot rise above gender-based insults, even where there really isn't a sound opportunity to use them - 'water off the proverbial duck's back'.

Good luck with the newspaper!

Cheers
Nicky

Thats ok spelling it out as long as the dog is in it's own confines. Any dog actions outside these confines are at the dog owners risk.

Bluster, Boaz. Pure bluster. You haven't a leg to stand on, and you know it.

>>I can't be bothered trying to defend myself from your ignorance based attack about associating "all" of 'them' with the verses I cite.<<

Can't be bothered, eh?

Then what's this, in the next sentence?

>>I have maintained a consistent line thoughout of making a separation between the actual teaching of the faith and the behavior of it's adherents.<<

But that is absolute nonsense. You have been associating them at every turn.

Do you remember saying this?

>>We must never EVER forget, that 9:29 of the Quran is a 'command' to 'fight' those who do not believe in Allah.. its not an 'option'... but a command.<<

or this?

>>...scriptures, particlarly those of Islam specifically command them to make WAR against Christians and Jews by name, and infidels in general until they are militarily subjugated.<<

These observations of yours solidly associated a chosen verse with Muslim violence. You then personalise it.

>>I have no desire whatsoerver for people to be welcomed here who have as one of their foundation beliefs a command to fight you and me, and a belief that people who believe as I and other Christians do, are cursed by Allah in this life as well as the next, and should be, to quote Shakirs translation of 9:30 "be destroyed"<<

Does this, or does this not, refer to Muslims?

The fact that you delude yourself otherwise is most instructive.

But I'm still intrigued.

How exactly were you intending to lead us into a whack-a-mozzie rave anyway?

*while he cannot rise above gender-based insults*

Wow, this is interesting! A female who seems to be insulted by
the fact that females can be maternal by instinct. Nicky, you
are one mixed up creature lol.

"..and dear Romany.. not unusually.. said things which have zero to do with the subject.. onya Romany *grin* (kidding ok)"

Oh-hoh-ho DB, you want something which "is"... relevant... to this *LATEST* piece of crapola? *grin*, *smirk, *simper*

How about:... "it" has re-enforced my opinion of what a *jolly laugh* :)posturing old swine you "are"... AND how there is *laugh* *chuckle* *snort* ABSOLUTELY no plumbing the "depths" of YOUR abysmal "ignorance". *wheeze* *gasp* *giggle*.

But hey...its ALL such jolly FUN, isn't it, DEAR DB? And now...:) (rubs her head and pats her tummy in quizzical fashion).. we can ALL...take a *BEX*!! and go and...have a *lie down*!!

Relevant enuf forya?

Here is something about a Labrador, just for you veronika,
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/17/2164951.htm

here is death, courtesy of a red heeler
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=2&ContentID=97607

here is something about a Staffordshire bull terrier
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/22/2281899.htm

here is a non-passive response to a dog bite
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24075488-5013016,00.html

I always remember the plight of a lady in USA, attacked and killed when she passed the beast in the hall way of her apartment block and the dogs owners lacked the skill to do anything, I think one or both owners may have been jailed for manslaughter

http://www.dogbitevictim.com/index.php?start_from=72&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=&

and how about “Dog bites result in approximately 44,000 facial injuries in US hospitals each year.”

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

I could keep going but that will do for now.

I see no reason why a tax payer / member of the public should be restricted or curtailed from the quiet enjoyment of any public facility because of the selfish arrogance and the exaggerated sense of self entitlement of those who call themselves “dog lovers”.

Col, you really are scared of dogs. It's true you come across as a coward in your posts, but I thought that was confined to human interactions.

Anyway, I don't know what you're telling me for. For one, I know dogs occasionally attack and it's tragic when they do, but it was never my argument that no people have ever been attacked by dogs. It is my argument that Polycarp wasn't attacked by a dog, and also that he failed to resolve the situation in a reasonable way. Your stories confirm Poly wasn't attacked — if a Labrador really meant it, it would have broken Poly's skin at the very least.

For two, I honestly couldn't care less what you think about anything. It's mildly satisfying to find that someone who is habitually nasty is scared of dogs, but only for the three seconds I thought about it.

For three, which is related to two, tell someone who cares. Burke's Backyard, for example, are still going around telling people the Staffys and Labradors make ideal family pets — perhaps you should drop them a line.

Veronika, I am not scared of dogs particularly, although I have never lived with one, thus am not particularly drawn to them and am cautious, particularly around those with big mouths and teeth and of an intemperate disposition.

Your opinion to my character is a matter of excessive yawning

but as a gratuitous and superficial aside, such comments invite observation to your own bigoted, hypocritical and small minded intolerance to anyone who has the temerity to hold a view contrary to your own, than they say about me.

I could express how low I consider what passes, in your case as “character” but OLO have a flaming policy which I would prefer not fall foul of.

“Anyway, I don't know what you're telling me for.”

The reason I address the “Labrador” note to you was solely because you made earlier point of it.

I am sure that would have been patently clear, even to those with most limited of reasoning skills.

“For two, I honestly couldn't care less what you think about anything.”

Oh how well you preempted my sentiment toward you.

“tell someone who cares.”

Now that is called repetition and redundancy. You should look up the definition one day when you can find someone to teach you English.

Yabby, not insulted at all. Just offended by the total, stunning irrelevance of it. Are you EVER going to be able to rise above the terminally banal?

Nicky

David/Polycarp,

Re Dogs (& multiculturalism)

Here’s a little something I came across in a book called : My Year Inside Radical Islam –By Daveed Gartnerstein-Ross (p 171)

“ I had first learned about the problem of dogs in Islam when al-Husein and I visited Turkey together, and he told me about a hadith where the Prophet said angels will refuse to enter a house with a dog in it. I made an effort to study the ahadith* in greater depth since then and I learned that dogs were held in even lower regard than I initially believed. In one hadith, Muhammad said, “Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed.” The Prophet also said that dog owners would lose the reward of their good deeds. And he specifically prohibited commerce in dogs– regarding the price of a dog as illegal, along with the earnings of a prostitute and the charge of a soothsayer”

(* plural form of hadith)

Well..between Romany's COLORful and interesting post... (makes the world go round mate :) and Cols informative 'dog bites man' list of links and Horus little dabble into the Islamic aspect of dogs.. wow..

I'm just amazed at where a simple 'dog bites man/man kicks dog' thread can lead :)

We learn that Romany could easily be a leering Dickensian female Fagin...

Veronika would be the cool calm psychoanalyst looking at her watch while yawning as the poor bugger on the couch pours out his heart :)

And Horus has just joined the staff of 'Despatchers' for Chanel 4 in the UK for 'undercover mosque- the dog story' :)

Let's see how the 'Gregorian Chant' thread goes if approved :)

Speaking about dogs... My neighbours have 2 labs.. one hates me the other loves me. The one which hates me does so because I hunt it out of my shed when it comes to eat Pus's food ! grrr...

The other day I had an interesting experience with these neighbours.
They have 3 very exhuberant and naughty children... around 6 to 12 in age.

We all went out for a picnic up on the bush. After a while, our family decided to go home, and they wished to remain and enjoy the pristine wilderness.
After driving for some time in the Station wagon we decided to stop and get some refreshment at a shop.. I needed to get something from the back of the station wagon and when I opened up the back door.. SHOCK HORROR .. there were 3 KIDS! The neighbours kids!- all scrunched up together and hiding..and as they saw me..they all developed the cheekiest grins you can imagine.
I shrieked at them.. what the HECK is this all about ? stowing away like this.. ur parents must be having 10 coronaries and 20 heart attacks not to mention wondering about ME... Nowwww we have to drive BACK to the picnic place and drop you all off there!

Then..they all scrambled out and started running around playfully.. I threatened them :) "Get BACK in that car NOWWWWWWW orrrr.... 1...... 2....... 3! (gives one a slap on the leg...now GET in there! *fuming*)

Finally.. they are all back in the station wagon... and then.....

then....

I woke up :)

Porky: << gives one a slap on the leg... >>

What is it with these fantasies of violence? First Col imagining "butchering" a dog, now Porky dreaming about slapping his neighbour's child.

May I also say that I think that "Pus" is a terrible name for a cat.

Are you sure it's a cat? It could be a family member.

I see Buggles and CJ are up to their usual par :)

had to see the reaction to that dream b4 I go out 2night..

I thought Pericles would have jumped in on that one.. or at least Dr Veronika.... *mutter mutter*....

see u all later.