bk_blue

You guys are insane :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Come on, don't feed the trolls. 8)

26 and loving it.

Nice pics- you're all very photogenic. :)

Have a look- it's a blog written from the point of view of a stray dog in Bangkok. It's not written to make you cry and in fact it's quite humorous, but the sheer number of strays are sad enough: [url]http://bkkstreetdogs.blogspot.com/[/url] And a link to sponsor a stray dog in Thailand (AUD$12 a month): [url]http://www.soidog.org/index.htm[/url] Everyone knows about the animal welfare organisations in their own countries and the problems with overpopulation that are prevalent everywhere, but the overwhelming number of strays in places like Delhi, Bangkok, parts of Indonesia etc are really horrible. This link was posted on another forum (and the girl who posted it got flak for supposedly putting starving animals over starving children :roll:), so I thought I'd post it here just in case anyone's interested.

He's very cute. I hope he finds a home where he is appreciated. :)

Whilst I agree that the girl should have had the dog leashed (that he stays out the front is not good dog ownership) and that she should have looked before darting out onto the road, it's difficult to determine from one minor event that someone's a bad or neglectful parent. It very well could have been a one-off. There's no way of knowing and if you call child protection they'd probably laugh at you if they're anything like the Victorian equivalent. Not that what you would be doing if you called them would be a bad move at all, it's just that you probably know as well as I do, and obviously better given that it is within your city, that they have far more serious cases than a kid outside her own home with her dog presumably not looking bashed around or dirty or ill, albeit outside when she should have been inside.

I'm not going to deny I find it very juicy indeed :D but there's a time and a place for it, and that sort of stuff is probably better off in PMs/email/chat.

[quote name='__crazy_canine__']BK, calm down. :x Again, Im not judging, I just wanted to know if she does home visits..... [/quote] Well, maybe it's time to think about wording your posts more carefully. You could have just asked straight out about home visits with none of the judgmental crap and "suspicious" emoticon. Thank you to all involved in this situation. Again, Michele, if there is anything I can do, let me know.

I agree with Malamum. All this extraneous stuff is interesting but irrelevant and it's actually quite petty, bitching over someone's looks, morals, etc. I'm certainly no angel when it comes to fidelity and I bet- actually, I know- there are members who haven't been 100% faithful to their partners, and judging by Naomi's PM which I don't really think should have been posted at all (it has no relevance to her PETS, and they're who we are worried about, yes, not who she's shagging?) and is a contravention of the forum "rules", there's at least one of you who's gone out with an ex-crim as well. Come on. Pot kettle black people.

Agree with Mel et al. CC, just pull your fucking head in for once and try not to be so quick to judge someone who is obviously not to blame here and is doing a fantastic job of helping us sort out this web of deceit. I don't really care if you post a "no offence" disclaimer; "no offence" usually means the exact opposite. To Cynthia: thank you very much for coming here and trying to assist us in working matters out. :)

[quote name='Debbie'] I remember when she was posting about going to the gym and wanting to go out to celebrate her birthday with some "guy" from the gym and Justin was giving her a hard time about it and she was saying he was just a friend and it was all innocent..........now I'm having my doubts.... :-? [/quote] I flat-out asked her if she was interested in that guy from the gym because that's exactly what she was acting like and she said no (I would imagine the thread is still kicking around somewhere). My instincts about people are usually right and they were proven so in this case. Go Finland- love those socialist democracies. :D

I suppose I'd like to reinstate my "DAL is a fucked up little girl" comment right about now. And I'd like someone to come to her defence. :lol:

Yeah, I've noticed that Michele :D Re Naomi's email to k9- UGH. So she's going to get what she wants- that is, she's going to get rid of Zoey. I wonder what Justin will have to say about that considering she's his dog, yes?

Well done Michele- so glad you didn't listen to that nasty, pessimistic, condescending poster who said your efforts would get you nowhere. And thank you Lorraine for helping out- you're very kind to come and explain things. :)

Number one rule of debating: don't bring up weird facts about yourself that damage your credibility and thus your argument. :lol:

What the Snopes site is saying is that there was an article published in the Reunion Island paper stating that although it had occurred, it was a rare occurrence (ie using live dogs as bait). The practice of using dead dogs as bait is done by a small group of fishermen, and the dogs weren't people's pets but rather strays (there is a sterilisation program that's been going on since 2001- not very effective if they still have 150,000 strays) that had been culled. So when I was saying that a live dog had been used as bait "once or twice", I wasn't quoting directly from the articles, more that I was supposing that had it only happened once or twice, that would still be too many times for me to condone. Does that make sense? I have to go to work now so I'll clarify it later if it's not clear.

I wouldn't say it's an animal rights lie- it [i]does[/i] happen- just perhaps not as often as they're representing it to happen. The fact that it happens once or twice is one or two times too many for me. Anyway, this is from a government which allows the most inhumane treatment of geese for human consumption- stringent animal welfare legislation it may have for companion animals, but the French, like many other countries (including Australia), don't count commercial livestock such as poultry, sheep, pigs and cows as animals for the purposes of the statute.

[url]http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=sharkbait[/url] This is what Snopes has to say about it: [url]http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/sharkbait.asp[/url]

I completely understand where they are coming from- being an EMT doesn't mean that you throw caution to the wind. Actually, as "professional" lifesavers, where rescuing people and being in tough situations is part of the job, this would make them even more likely to keep a cool head and not rush in blindly like perhaps I would have done as a lay rescuer, or everyone here would have done. This doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with their reasoning, though. I think they probably should have gone in, especially as there were so many of them there. But then again, I'm not a licenced EMT. I wasn't there; I can't assess the situation from their eyes. I'm glad baby DJ is ok. It could have been worse.[/i]

I think it's 5000- you had better get posting!

I'm with the others: full disclosure is the only way to go. Lying doesn't get anyone anywhere and this is applicable to dog breeds. Not only does is cause problems for the owner, it can cause problems for the dog as it will pay any ultimate price once the truth is discovered. There could be possible legal implications (fraud etc) stemming from this deceit as well. Furthermore, as SG said, if a shelter can lie about a dog's background, what else could they be lying about?

that is the cutest thing ever. I think I would drop dead if I ever saw Isabella even giving Mischa the time of day let alone grooming her!

Happy belated 14th birthday, Jesse :angel:

I think he's adorable. HF, you have changed my view on Poodles. :iloveyou:

[quote name='Hmmmm']I want to see it because I would like to see for myself how exactly they portray matching dogs... or I should say fighting dogs. I honestly wish someone would come out with a good documentary interviewing real dogmen and what they go through with their dogs.[/quote] Did you not just say that most "real" dogmen/dogwomen(?) don't let cameras near their pit and/or dogs? So how could an "accurate" documentary be produced? As dogfighting is ILLEGAL, that would give you all away, would it not? So you're going to just have to live with the fact that the general public will have this perception that dogfighting is bad. Which, of course, it patently is. Let us not have any romanticisation of past dogmen and look through the history of dogfighting with rose-coloured glasses.