I just wasted 5 minutes of my life that I'll never get back reading this piece of shit article and all the moronic comments that followed.

andrew
that dumb old cunt couldnt control her dog. the woman who was attacked was on a public road, had every right to be there. control your dog. pit bulls are the strongest dog that exists, pound for pound. and it takes a lot of force to hurt them. control your dog.

being the owner of a squishy, retarded, life-loving pitbull, i am appalled at this article. i understand the need to spell out how to defend yourself when some untrained freak dog comes your way, but it seems unfair to be so black and white. there are those who have trained, friendly pitbulls out there, and who are also trained friendly people. you suck, stranger.

@103 - Maybe I'm thinking of Dan Savage instead of you? I know there have been a few different authors doing your anti-pit bull articles but I haven't kept track. I do see that typing "pit bull" into the search box at the top of your page returns 1000 hits (the max it can return) of articles, slog posts, etc., so it seems to me that the Stranger is a little bit crazy in its anti-pit bull hysteria. Typing in "dalmatian" only returns 14 hits. "Rottweilier" only returns 94, and almost all of those are comments where people are saying something like "Rottweilers attack almost as many people as pit bulls, why don't you guys write about them?"

Yeah I looked through some of those, it's Dan Savage who keeps pushing for the breed ban and extermination, not David Schmaeder. Oops! Same initials.

DAVID SCHMADER'S PIT BULL ARTICLE FAQ
"Where are the statistics?": Try the Center for Disease Control for starters.

"You never read about golden retrievers biting people!" See answer above

"Yeah, maybe the Stranger should write an article about banning negroes or the gays because they are like dog breeds?": Uh, yeah. What is it like to have the mental capabilities of a retarded spider monkey?

"I have a pit bull and it hasn't killed anyone yet. How ya like them apples?" I have a gun that hasn't killed anyone yet, but I don't toss it into my neighbors yard for their toddlers to play with.

"You suck. I'll never read the Stranger again": Liar. Where else are you going to find ads for tranny hookers who give you the deep-dicking that you crave?

DAVID SCHMADER'S PIT BULL ARTICLE FAQ (continued)

"I'm a nice white lady who wears makeup and has a job and I own a pit bull. Isn't just the ethnics who are to blame?" Ah, only in Seattle. And you people think Southerners are racist.

"My dog only attacks people who move. Why don't you euthanize joggers/cyclists/toddlers?" Thank you for pointing this out. We will all stay inside from now on so you can let your dogs wander around off leash without having to worry about a toddler unexpectedly provoking your little bubba boo into ripping its testicles off.

"My pittie is my baby. Why can't you understand that?" If you have trouble discerning between human offspring and dogs then you don't deserve to have been born.

"Dogs don't kill people. Bad owners kill people." You're right. Next time a pit bull maims a kid let's give the owner a lethal injection instead. Maybe that will stop people from keeping and raising these shit dogs. I think we're agreed on that point.

To the Stranger

Your data is wrong about pit bull attacks. For one thing dogsbite.org has false data about pit bull attacks.

In the last 35 years there have been over 500 fatalities by canines. Less then 1.9 percent of those fatal attacks occured by what was identified positively as a Pit Bull Terrier.

There are over 5 million Pit Bulls living in our country, there are over 70 million canines, when you divide the number of fatal attacks by pit bulls, using the estimated total population of canines, it is very low. Over 35 breeds are responsible for killing people. An example is in Pierce County if you look at their dangerous dog citations issued for 2006-2009 you will find dogs responsible for severe injury are not pit bulls. Pit Bulls do attack, they can cause severe injury or death like any other dog over 25 lbs, yes small dogs have killed people. Consider with over 5 million Pit Bull Terriers living in our country, if they are so dangerous or unpredictable then we would see a much higher number of fatalities and severe injuries.

Just looking at fatalities in our state ? The last one was 2 German Shepherds and Pit Bulls are not the highest on our list.

There is a movement in our country, headed by the democratic party, they are discriminating against the middle class, and minorities.

They use the breed ban for a tool along with other laws that take our rights to succeed in their agenda, we must remember the Republican party was formed to stop slavery, the democratic party used to be pro slavery, maybe they still are ???

Below is a article that has been circulating around the country regarding pit bulls.

RACISM AND THE PIT BULL

Many think that owners of pit bulls fall into a stereotype due to flawed data. A study done by Tufts University found that stories of vicious pit bulls increased newspaper readership by as much as 100 percent, thus supporting the idea that using the term “pit bull attack” is more beneficial than using “dog attack” (Cohen & Richardson, 292). In an article by Twining, Arluke, and Patronek, it states that “media reports of attacks by these dogs were invariably accompanied by value-laden descriptions of their owners as people whom ‘average citizens’ might find dangerous” and that “these reports often described pit bull owners as white thugs or poor urban blacks and Latinos who kept their dogs in dope dens and fed them raw meat to make them as mean as possible” (Twining, Arluke, & Patronek, 2). These descriptions help enhance the stereotypes and further false beliefs in regards to certain ethnic backgrounds.

On March 5, 1910, Du Bois gave a speech on race prejudice and the economic cost of the discrimination against Blacks. He opened with “the more or less theoretical problem of race prejudice today enters largely in the
domain of practical politics and has become of increasing importance in the
United States not only because it involves to the Negro in sections of the country a denial of the principles of democracy…but on account of the unwisdom from an economic standpoint of repressing the colored races” (Du Bois, 211). If one were to apply Du Bois’ theory to the enactment of breed-specific legislation, one would correlate that banning pit bulls is the government’s way to oppress minorities. For example, one of Aurora’s grandfather requirements for keeping a pit bull within the city limits is a licensing fee of $200, while licenses for other dog breeds are $7, on top of other restrictions, including installing a 6-foot tall privacy fence if one did not already have one on his/her property, posting a warning sign that states a dangerous dog lives at the residence, carry a $100,000 liability homeowner’s policy, installing a six-sided pen in the backyard, micro chipping the dog, and spaying or neutering of the dog. The owner must also be twenty-one years of age and the dog must be on a six foot leash and muzzled when out in public. All these requirements are costly and statistics show that Whites make substantially more money than minorities; consequently, forcing minorities to either move out of the city with their pit bulls or give up
ownership of their dogs to animal control, which will then euthanize
these dogs.

Du Bois further explains that “they say bluntly that they do not care what ‘Niggers,’ ‘Dagos,’ ‘Chinks,’ or ‘Japs’ may be capable of – they do not like them and they propose to keep such fold in a place of permanent inferiority to the white race” (Du Bois, 217). If one were to believe in stereotypes of pit bull owners, one would assume these owners are unsavory characters who should not share the same community. It does not matter to non-pit bull owners nor the city how well behaved pit bulls can be nor how responsible the owners are; they just take the stereotypes at face-value. According to Du Bois, the government, mainly run by Whites, helps fuel these stereotypes, which can lead to localities enacting breed-specific legislation in an effort to keep minorities inferior to Whites. During an Aurora Colorado city council meeting discussing the proposal of the pit bull ban, councilwoman Molly Markert said that she wanted to support a pit bull ban because she did not want “those people” moving to Aurora, in reference to Commerce City passing their ban on pit bulls. It is quite apparent that Ms. Markert believes in the social stigma of owning a pit bull and one can make the assumption that Ms. Markert, being a white woman, made a racist remark. However, it is the responsible owners of pit bulls who are hurt most by stigmas because of the “various negative consequences such as social exclusion, anxiety, alienation, loss of self-esteem, discrimination, and social disenfranchisement” (Twining, Arluke, & Patronek, 3). Many owners have described their experiences when having their dogs in public. Owners have very well-behaved pit bulls which strangers will dote upon until they find out that the dog they are petting is a pit bull. Other owners have people intentionally crossing the street so that they do not cross paths with a pit bull. Durkheim would explain that “where individual differences are expressed in form of deviant behavior, repressive sanctions are brought upon the dissenters” (Wallwork, 43). Durkheim would describe these behaviors as the repressive sanctions to control and discourage the ownership of pit bulls.

This perpetuation of stigma with all its negative consequences leads to keeping minorities inferior to Whites, especially when coupled with legislation. Du Bois describes political direction as “they must vote always and simply to keep Negroes down…It means that there are certain parts of the country where reason cannot be applied to the settlement of great political questions” (Du Bois, 212). It appears that Du Bois is quite correct. For instance, when Aurora was proposing to ban pit bulls, the City of Aurora invited the public to speak. More than 350 people spoke and roughly only six people were in favor of the ban. Those opposed to the ban, some experienced veterinarians who work with dogs every day, asked the City to look at their current dangerous dog ordinance and make changes to increase the penalties while also leaving out breed specifics, which would hold the owners responsible. However, Aurora chose to pass the ban regardless of the evidence and pleadings presented. Consequently, it seems that breed-specific legislation can be seen as indirect “legal discrimination” and Du Bois’ theory supports the ideology that political questions are not answered by reason.
Durkheim explains that “moral reasoning is not, as Kant would have it, an entirely private affair of an isolation self existing in the realm of pure representations; it takes place, rather, in a community of shared moral rules” (Wallwork, 36). However, when looking at the number of opponents of the breed ban in Aurora, it appears that the shared moral rules were not in support of the breed ban, but by the council members who voted in support of the ban. One would assume that if the citizens of Aurora felt safer to have such bans in place, then more citizens would have come to speak in favor of the ban.

Even though pit bulls are a controversial topic, many owners come out and protest against breed bans across the nation. These protests show that there is a community who share the common morale of eradicating breed bans, but until breed bans are lifted, citizens must follow guidelines in order to keep their dogs, risk their dog to be euthanized, give their dog away, or move out of the city. Durkheim explains that “the pervasive influence of these traditional beliefs is such that individuals more or less acquiesce to the dictates of public opinion” (Durkheim, 1972). Pit bull owners and fanciers must acquiesce to the collective will in order to be accepted in society and still may experience all the negative impacts of stigmas.
On the other hand, Comte believes that “the individual is a major source of energy in his social system” and that “it is the preponderance affect or emotion in individuals that gives energy and direction to people’s intellectual activities” (Ritzer, 114). Although to Durkheim it seems that
being the outcast is deviant, Comte would argue that without deviance, society would not learn to greater itself. Without discourse and disagreement, society will not learn to grow nor will it achieve a higher intellectual level. For example, many would say that pit bulls are bad dogs and want to euthanize them, but when the dogfighting charges arose surrounding Michael Vick, society began to realize that it is the owners who are responsible for the dog’s demeanor. Society has also learned that even if dogs are trained to fight, the dogs can be rehabilitated to be loving pets, as well as service dogs (i.e.: search and rescue, drug and bomb detection, therapy, etc.). Comte believed in “social Darwinism,” where as time goes by, society changes based upon moral responses. As the case with Michael Vick, society began to learn about the nature of humans and what horrors humans commit for sport, money, and simply to be cruel. It is this momentum that hopefully will change the image of pit bulls and their owners.
Comte explains that the changing of society and the changing of the individuals within that society contribute to one another simultaneously; “The influence of civilization in perpetually improving the intellectual faculties is even more unquestionable than its effect on moral relations.

The development of the individual exhibits to us in little, both as to time and degree, the chief phases of social development” (Comte, 301). Due to owners wanting to be able to own whichever dog they please as long as they are responsible in doing so and also experiencing the unfair stereotype of owning certain breeds has prompted Representative Debbie Stafford to pass HB 1279 in 2007, which prohibits breed-specific legislation in the State of Colorado. This change brought upon by individuals has brought forth change in legislation

Another example of “social Darwinism” as Comte has described is the history of pit bulls. A pit bull became the official mascot of the United States after World War I when Sgt. Stubby, the military’s first dog to receive medals and a pit bull, fought in seventeen battles, saved his troop from a gas attack by the Germans, and caught a German spy. Pit Bulls became popular mascots for companies like RCA and Buster Brown Shoe Company and in the popular show The Little Rascals, Petey was a pit bull star (History of the APBT). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_St…
An animal rights group will invoke a knee jerk reaction to Pit Bulls.

Cites react by restricting and/or banning the ownership of Pit Bulls. However, Comte does not believe that this is the solution as “that if condensation and rapidity were to pass beyond a certain degree, they would not favour, but impede this acceleration. The condensation, if carried too far, would render the support of human life too difficult; and the rapidity, if extreme, would so affect the stability of social enterprises as to be equivalent to a considerable shortening of our life” (Comte, 306). Aurora Colorado reports of bite statistics supports Comte’s theory as the number of dog bites in the City, after the enactment of their pit bull ban, has increased (Johansson, 2008). it is quite apparent that banning new pit bulls from the city and placing extreme restrictions on owning pit bulls within the city are not the answer to keeping the community safe from dog attacks.
Even though Du Bois, Durkheim, and Comte most likely did not face issues such as breed-specific legislation, their theories are broad enough to encompass society across many issues and decades. The restrictions of owning a pit bull support Du Bois’ theory that the enactment of bans on pit bulls is an effort to oppress minorities. The acquiescence of individuals complying with grandfather laws in order to keep their dogs within municipalities that have banned pit bulls support Durkheim’s theory that the individual will acquiesce in order to avoid society labeling the individual as a deviant. The history of pit bulls and the changes in legislation, whether in favor or opposing the ownership of these dogs, support Comte’s theory on “social Darwinism.” Many would hope that Comte’s and Durkheim’s theories about society changing based on collective will and individuals will change how pit bulls are viewed, hopefully changing legislation in the future.

Just to throw out some more statistics:

You're 4 times more likely to get hit by lightning than killed by a pit bull.

You're 6 times more likely to drown in a swimming pool than get killed by a pit bull.

You're 500 times more likely to die in a car crash than get killed by a pit bull.

You're 400 times more likely to get depressed and commit suicide than get killed by a pit bull.

You're 300 times more likely to get murdered by a human than killed by a pit bull.

You're 3000 times more likely to die by heart attack from all that fried food you eat than get killed by a pit bull.

You're half as likely to get killed by a Rottweilier as killed by a pit bull.

You're one fifth as likely to get killed by a wolf as killed by a pit bull.

Twelve times as many people have claimed to be abducted by UFO's as have claimed to have been attacked by pit bulls.

The world is a weird place.

to 138 ? get out of your closet and live in the real world. Washington has a law that prohibits discriminating against a specific breed. Breed bans are discrimination, singling out a specific breeds is discrimination, and we are losing our rights faster then most think. But then some do not think, they just talk.

Don't ask me how much more likely you are to be killed by another dog than a pit bull though. That would ruin the whole point of my post. So just don't even ask, fuckers.

i think this story and all the others would be a better read if BACONCAT WASNT IN BETWEEN EVERY FUCKING COMMENT.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2111-…

Now this is an article!

First-"Pit Bull" is NOT a breed. It is a generic term used to describe a type of dog carrying similar traits and characteristics.
Second-The ATTS study shows that "Pit Bulls" are the least likely to attack and score highest (the best) on the aggression testing, making them optimal family dogs.
Third-OVER BREEDING AND BACKYARD BREEDERS that know SQUAT about breeding, use pedigrees similar in looks to the APBT that would carry the human and animal aggressive gene-ie: The boxer, American Bull Dog, Chessie...etc.
Forth-and I cannot stress this enough-MORE THAN 30% OF DOGS THAT HAVE ATTACKED AND BEEN PINNED AS A "PIT BULL" WERE NOT PIT BULLS AT ALL, DNA PROVED THAT!!!! The other percentage when DNA was ACTUALLY done, showed that the animal was less than 25% APBT and was mixed w/ several other breeds. In a much higher number of attacks, the dog is judged on appearance and no DNA is done, making it impossible to form statistics accurately. A MIXED dog or a "MUTT" is more likely to attack than any pure bred dog or breed of "APBT" This is due to the larger number of pedigrees wrapped up into the dogs DNA. It carry's multiple traits, and multiple pedigrees aggression characteristics.
FACT-It is impossible to get an accurate statistic on dog attacks and by what breed the attack was committed because most go unreported. Since the APBT is the most targeted breed by our media (and apparently this douche bag) they are the first and most often, only attacks to get reported.
FACT-These dogs (in order) were listed by the Center for Disease Control less than 1 yr ago as the most dangerous dogs...does anyone see PIT BULL on here?

1) Dachsunds
2) Chihuahuas
3) Jack Russel Terriers
4) Chow Chows (also the #2 most unpredictable dog, both human and animal aggressive)
5) Australian Cattle dogs
6) Cocker Spaniels
7) German Shepards
8) St. Bernards
9) Great Danes
10) The Bull Mastiff

Go to this site-see if you can pic out the "Pit Bull"-You'll be surprised at how wrong so many people are when they peg a "Pit Bull". http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/…

Say it w/ me! "Just because it LOOKS like a Pit Bull does NOT mean it is" and we need to wipe this society of the ignorance it lives so blissfully in because it is costing innocent creatures their lives.

How to defend yourself against shotty education and non-researched writing statistics-
STEP ONE- Don't read the Stranger. Instead, do your OWN homework on sites that have dedicated their LIVES to studying, raising, rescuing and educating on the APBT. For instance-http://pitbullrescuecentral.com/
OR
www.pitbullsontheweb.com

These are where Mr. Schmader SHOULD have gone-those of us that know and understand the breed understand one very important thing-ALL DOGS ARE CAPABLE OF ATTACKING AND IT'S MOST OFTEN A MIX!!!! Jack Russel Terriers were actually responsible for more child attacks than any other breed. They are small dogs there for not considered a threat but w/ access to hospital records and stats in Washington state, more bites treated that go unreported are committed by the Jack Russel and the Dachsund (wiener dog). Education needs to be there on all dogs and for dog owners. KNOW YOUR BREED BEFORE YOU TAKE IT HOME!

Dave Schmader can chalk it up to the breed all he wants to but please know that his research is little to none, his attitude is set against this dog due to media vomit and he is, unfortunately, the breed of human that thinks he knows it all. My info can be found on any reputable site such as the ones I have listed and I don't have to be right, I just choose to be factual. Please see Penny Eim's article from the Tacoma Dogs Examiner for facts about the APBT and points that Dave has just taken too far.

I would be insulted by this article as a reader, but since I am no longer a reader, I will just laugh it off as we have real education beyond a Capitol Hill piece of toilet paper.

I really like pit bulls. They make great targets. If you shoot them in the head with a 185 grain Cor-Bon DPX traveling at 1200 ft/sec, they lie down very quickly and bleed a lot. It's not necessary to climb on top of cars or do any of that other stuff.

@142 - I don't know if I'm one of the "frothy ragey types" you're talking about (I posted 103), but I would guess they're mad not about the article as it stands alone, but because it's yet another in the never-ending series of anti pit bull articles and pit bull owner trolling attempts that the Stranger does. Personally I own a pug, but if there was a newspaper devoting 5 - 10% of its space to riling hipsters up against pugs, I'd be pissed about it too. I don't want douchebag hipsters following me around and harassing me because the Stranger told them to. I mean, I get that that's the whole joke, that they get mad when trolls harass them, and that getting mad just makes trolls harass them more, but it's worse because the Stranger has magical douchebag hipster mind control rays and if they paint a target, all of the douchebag hipsters in the city will jump to follow their hipster overlord's wishes and douche out as hard as they can. It's just a sea of hip douche everywhere, and no one likes that. Except hipster douchebags, I guess.

Absolutely fantastic response to the rabid pit-bull-apologist crew!

Too bad they've all still got their heads up their asses. But I guess that's a pretty safe place to stick it, so their loving pets can't chew their faces off.

I've noticed all the pit bull haters have weird (not normal names ? Of coarse to hate a Pitbull, you are not normal, you are an animal abuser, animal hater. The breed commonly known as the American Pit Bull Terrier is a canine just like all other 543 breeds that exist. So what need to do is pass a law to exterminate animal abusers or ban them and then we will get rid of child molesters, domestic violence perpetrators, killers and other sick people that take up oxygen on our planet. Animal abusers seem to be congregated on this site. Including the individual who wrote the article.

I've heard there is a group called the Animal Liberation Army and they do not like animal abuse or those who spread garbage within the media to promote animal hate crimes.

Read the first article and loved it. Found it informative. Read this one and laughed my ass off. Thank you. Great use of pictures.

wow. that was amazing.

and @148, it is totally better with baconcat comments.

Mike;

Dogs -- all dogs, ever since they split off from wolves and continuously since then, both before and after the creation of specialized breeds -- are selected heavily for liking people. That's the very thing that makes dogs different from wolves, you know. Hypothetically you could breed dogs for aggressiveness against humans, but that would be stupid: even if you wanted guard dogs you would still want them to be safe for their owners. At most you would breed for aggression against strange humans. And as a matter of fact, pit bulls were never bred for aggression against any kind of human: first they were bred to protect farmers against bulls (hence the name), then bull- and bear- baiting, then dogfighting. None of this involves aggression against humans. Human-aggression was actually bred against especially strongly because they had to be safe for their handlers even when fighting another dog. (And no, underground breeders or the bad kind of owner are not currently breeding pit bulls for aggression against all humans, and even if they were they wouldn't know what they're doing and they'd have very little to work with starting from stock so heavily selected against human-aggression.)

In short, no, it's not contradictory to describe a breed as loving and also say that describing a breed as vicious or dangerous is nonsense. Because it's true. The genetic selection has been heavily and nearly exclusively in favor of loving over viciousness, for pits just as much as any other breed. The notion that a breed will magically develop a genetic propensity directly contrary to everything in its background is too stupid to take seriously.

Before it was pit bulls it was Rottweilers, and before that Dobermans, and before that German Shepherds. And in the 19th century it was bloodhounds. Bloodhounds! When was the last time you heard of a bloodhound mauling someone? Never? Well, they'd never heard of a Bull and Terrier (that they called pit bulls) attacking anyone. Genes don't change that fast, and they certainly don't change over a scale of decades, which is all the time it took to drop German Shepherds as the "bad" dogs and replace them with Dobermans, then drop the Dobermans for pits and rotts. And if they did breed bans would pointless anyway, wouldn't they?

I'd also like to comment on the comparison between anti-pit bull hysteria and racism.

1) The object of the prejudices need not be similar for the prejudices themselves to be similar. If one is a displaced or disguised form of the other, we should expect them to be similar in most respects except their objects.

2) The speed with which hatred of pit bulls turns out to be hatred of anyone who owns a pit bull or even who just disagrees with them is more than a little suspicious.

OneTrickPony;

First, just think about what you're saying. Yeah, sure, the probability of it happening rounds to zero, but if it does happen it's pretty bad -- car crashes that cause much worse harm to more people are several times more likely, but probability isn't the real issue. The real issue is PANIC HATE FEAR AN ARMY OF PIT BULLS MAULING OUR STREETS PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

Second, it's not as if there were only pit bulls and yorkies -- if potential damage were the criteria, you would also need to ban, say, boxers.

Uhh......is this supposed to be a satire?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh---I get it-----BITING humor?

@177 and a few others - I've seen a bunch of people say things like "I've encountered just as many pitbulls that were dangerous... their owners made them dangerous through abuse."

Who the hell are you people hanging out with? Cuban drug lords with attack dogs? Thugs running an underground dog fighting ring? I mean seriously, it sounds like half of some people's "friends" are dog-abusing vicious crime lords. Are these all ACTUAL people with ACTUAL pit bulls that you ACTUALLY know, or are you just thinking of the time that your friend of a friend met a stranger who said his friend ran a dog-fighting ring?

@181 - Honestly you seem to be the obsessive angry one in this thread. You've commented like five thousand times, mostly to be really bitchy to people who are bitching.

@184 - The Stranger aggressively promotes the breed ban. Though all of the writers at the Stranger have taken turns writing anti-pit bull articles, Dan Savage writes the vast majority of them, and he vehemently hates all pit bulls and wants them banned, if not exterminated on the spot. The Stranger's been trying to get everyone riled up to pass a breed ban in Seattle for years. Type "pit bull" in the search box at the top of the Stranger page, and you'll see they devote a ridiculous amount of time and space trying to spread this hysteria about pit bulls. I posted earlier in the thread that I'd really like to hear the history of all this and how it started. I can only guess that Dan Savage must have dated a guy with a pit bull and had a nasty breakup, and maybe the dog tried to bite him, so he decided to devote his life to killing his ex-boyfriend's dog? I don't know; I can't really imagine why they spend so much time harping on this thing that doesn't really matter and is mostly completely fabricated, except that it's an ongoing joke or something.

Although I agree with the premise stated by the pro pit bull advocates replying to this article that singling out their paticular breed is discriminatory I can't get past the fact that the cases that are in the news are EXTREMELY vicious pit bull attacks. I live in the Omaha Nebraska area and it seems like now that spring is here the reports are WEEKLEY. We had a case several years ago where a infant/toddler had his genitals ripped off and eaten by the animal in question if my memory is accurate. We have had at least two incidents in the last two weeks. The last one (late last week) being two boys playing in THEIR yards that occurered when the owners of the offending animals somehow failed to keep the gate of thier yard secured which allowed the dogs to do their damage which fortunately wasn't to serious to either boy in this instance. BTW neither dog had tags or current shots and will be put down after their quarantine period. I smell a lawsuit!

@189:

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/06/ther… - A compilation of pit bull attack articles and info about how the anti-breed ban conspiracy is trying to stop the breed ban. Ends with Savage saying "Such nice dogs, a shame if we banned them, right?"

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/pit_… - Another post by Savage, entitled "Pit Bulls Should Be Boiled Alive Like Lobsters And Fed To Their Idiot Owners" ...I think that's pretty telling, no? In the post itself he recommends killing the dogs and putting the owners in prison.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte… - "Pit Bullies" article, about how the breed ban is necessary but it's being dismantled by a secret violent underground pro-pit bull conspiracy.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/09/mose… - Slog called "Moses Lake Decides Not to Ban Face-Biting Monster Dogs", with a link to the article to give you info on how to support the breed ban.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/09/bull… - Article called "Snarling, Frothing, Gnshing Pit Bull Owners" about how pit bull owners are violent psychopaths and helpful info on what you need to do to "get these monster dogs regulated".

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive… - Short post by Savage on a mayor saying we need a pit bull ban.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/06/more… - By Jon Golob, about how the breed ban is the only way to deal with the "problem" since we can't ban temprament

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/cute… - Savage, "It goes without saying that no other breed would ever, ever do such a thing"

There are a lot more; like I said, you can type "pit bull" into the search bar and find thousands of crazed rants by stranger staff about how the pit bulls are destroying the world and need to be stopped.

@194 - Hahaha what? Are you serious? An article titled "Pit Bulls Should Be Boiled Alive And Fed To Their Idiot Owners" is context-free? I just searched for "pit bull" and posted the first few things that came up. And I only did it because you specifically asked me to. Are you saying that even bothering to try to talk with you is a sign of obsessive insanity? Hmm... you actually might have a good point. Good luck, bacon man. I'm sure Dan Savage really appreciates you trying to defend(???) him and say that he actually doesn't support a breed ban(???) because he's obviously very concerned about seeming impartial and sensitive to pit bulls(???!!!) and needs good folks like you to keep his pro pit bull reputation intact. (Seriously what? Who are you trying to convince here, and why?)

Hey hey, lets get back to the real story here,
"How to Defeat a angry BaconCat's overposting"

@197 - Wait, do YOU even know what you're arguing about at this point? I'll try to reiterate our conversation to deal with your short-term memory problems: Me: "The Stranger aggressively promotes the breed ban and Dan Savage is very anti-pit bull and has been pushing Stranger readers to support a breed ban." You: "Can you show us an example where they say they support the breed ban?" Me: "Yes, here are like seven of them where they clearly state it." You: "BLAAARGHGH!!!! GRAKHKVHBB! All of those are out of context or something! I refuse to admit that they exist!!!!" Me: "What? You're a crazy person. I was just answering your question." You: "GRARAHHH!!! FUCK WIT!!! YOU'RE DUMB!!!! IT'S HILARIOUS THAT YOU ARE WRONG AND GET SO MAD ABOUT IT!!! I DON'T KNOW WHAT IRONY MEANS SHUT UP!!" Me: "Wait, do YOU even know what you're arguing about at this point? I'll try to reiterate our conversation to deal with your short-term memory problems: Me: 'The Stranger aggressively promotes the breed ban and Dan Savage is very anti-pit bull and....'"...