Man 'strangles dog' after attack - Page 8

simplysardonic · #71 (**permalink**) 24-10-2009, 04:27 PM

What a disusting individual

hope he gets time for that. RIP poor dog, at least you are away from your brute of an owner

Emraa · #72 (**permalink**) 24-10-2009, 06:52 PM

I found this really disturbing. What an idiot, for owning a dog that he had no control over and not having it on a lead and for killing it!
Makes me sick.

james1 · #73 (**permalink**) 24-10-2009, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

I see you bolded the question in my post but still refused to answer it.

You may think that you expressed your thoughts reasonably and succinctly but in actuality you gave us a contradiction by initially offering broad support for the owner's actions and then backtracking slightly. Here's you own words...

You even proffer the possibility that this abominable act might be the product of boundless love before scrabbling back onto the fence with...

Are you not? Because when you write that, had you been in his place, you too would have killed, or had killed, the dog it seems to me that your position closely aligns with his actions.

You entreat me to "read your posts". These are your words twisting there on the screen. You have said that we should not rush to judgement but you say this after describing the child as an infant and the the incident as a mauling. These are your words. Your difficulty is not that I am not reading your posts but that I am reading them. Repeatedly I have asked you for clarification but, instead of giving it, you have complained at being asked.

You have ascribed some unflattering motives to my participation in this thread but it does not seem to have occured to you that I find that the notion that the summary execution by strangling of this dog could possibly be anything other than deserving of instant condemnation to be entirely repugnant and that that notion being expressed on a public forum warrants being challenged and tested.

I have made no reference to our relative handling experience nor would I because it is pretty pointless on an anonymous forum and it is irrelevent. It is the 'What is being said' that is important. Not the 'Who is saying it'. A position does not become wrong because of who is saying it. So I urge you to leave aside the accusations that I am looking for glory or sainthood because, firstly, you don't have mind-reading powers so you are speaking with an eloquence unhindered by knowledge and, secondly, it would be irrelevent anyway. Deal with what I write rather than speculate on my character and I shall afford you the same courtesy. What I wrote (and you emphasised in bold) was:

Will you condemn this owner's actions and conceed that all possible alternatives should be sought before killing a dog?

Go on. Give it a crack.

Do your write for The Sun? You seem to be rather dramatic, at least I offered an opinion instead of making my first comments a critical expose that is more sensational rather than constructive.

I like your 'scrabbling over the fence' comment - Id like to know if we or have ever had an issue before - you seem quite rattled and keen to do your best to try and teach me a leeson!? Im thinking this is a personal issue for you as on the whole you seem to have taken it upon yourself to try to undermine anything I say rather than what I say.
My gist (so we are clear) is: It was a disgracefull act BUT we do not know the end resluts as yet. So; speculating on what he should have done doesnt really do anything apart from inflate an ego

Johnderondon · #74 (**permalink**) 24-10-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james1

It was a disgracefull act ...

Thank you! At last! God, wasn't that like pulling teeth?

No, I don't write for the Sun, I am not trying to teach you anything (although it is gratifying that you have revised your position) and I regret that you have persisted with ad-homs but not to the extent that they have rattled me.

I do not have any 'issue' with you. On the contrary I have enjoyed and largely concured with your posts on some other issues.

james1 · #75 (**permalink**) 24-10-2009, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

Thank you! At last! God, wasn't that like pulling teeth?

This is the first time we have ever spoken, and the first time I have ever had the headache of reading your posts.

I would like to say if you would have read my previous posts on this subject you might have concurred a little faster and saved me a lot of hastle.

Johnderondon · #76 (**permalink**) 25-10-2009, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james1

This is the first time we have ever spoken, and the first time I have ever had the headache of reading your posts.

If you wish to avoid hassle then consider more carefully before posting. I have no beef with you, James. I'm sure you are a stirling fellow. However, I will take issue wherever I see support or mitigation for acts of barbarity and inhuman cruelty whatever the source.

Quote:

I would like to say if you would have read my previous posts on this subject you might have concurred a little faster and saved me a lot of hastle.

I could not have "concurred a little faster". In none of your previous posts did you condemn the act. Feel free to quote yourself but I told you - I am reading your posts (with more attention than you have given mine). You were more interested in criticising me or, in some posts, refusing to discuss the matter and that's why it's taken this long for us to get this far. There can be no question that I might have "concurred a liitle faster". I made my position very clear from the get-go and have not shifted from it. I called it a "barbaric act" (post #19) and it has taken until now (post #79) for you to concede the parrallel sentiment, i.e. a "disgraceful act". And, for that, I am grateful even though this glaringly obvious and belated recognition was granted amid further jibes and personal remarks.

Over nine pages your thoughts have moved from...

Quote:

good on him

to...

Quote:

a disgracefull act

so the notion that I might have "concurred a little faster" is palpably absurd.

My advice at this juncture would be stop digging, James.

james1 · #77 (**permalink**) 25-10-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

If you wish to avoid hassle then consider more carefully before posting.

You must be JOKING right? Ill post what I like - What I expect is for people to read what i have written and not take it as some kind of biblical reading that is there to influence all man kind.
The hastle comes from you - and your lack of ability in understanding points of view. Amember said on this thread you were hounded in a thread. I can entriely understand that now - as you do not read anything written, instead go off on a personal mission to no meaningful ends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

I have no beef with you, James. I'm sure you are a stirling fellow. However, I will take issue wherever I see support or mitigation for acts of barbarity and inhuman cruelty whatever the source.

And where exactly do you see my support of barbaric acts? Somewhere out of context perhaps? As throughout the thread time and time again I have said I do not condone his action. I am merely replying to you as I do not want people reading your posts and believing your thoughts to be mine - taking on your judgemental view and not my own. Which is far too often done with members on here Doc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

I could not have "concurred a little faster". In none of your previous posts did you condemn the act. Feel free to quote yourself but I told you - I am reading your posts (with more attention than you have given mine). You were more interested in criticising me or, in some posts, refusing to discuss the matter and that's why it's taken this long for us to get this far.

We havent come that far - as we still dont know what went on. Your posts are quite reasonable but harldy succinct and completely off the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

There can be no question that I might have "concurred a liitle faster".

Glad you feel that - maybe in the future you should just write you opinions down instead of attacking someone elses, you could possibly have someone engage you with it too, instead of marking your first post as some kind of unparallelled critique thereby inciting 79 or so more posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

I made my position very clear from the get-go and have not shifted from it. I called it a "barbaric act" (post #19) and it has taken until now (post #79) for you to concede the parrallel sentiment, i.e. a "disgraceful act". And, for that, I am grateful even though this glaringly obvious and belated recognition was granted amid further jibes and personal remarks.

And you dont see taking a simple statement apart and continuing this over howvever many pages isnt making this personal. As I have said previous you could have stated your opinion - in a much better fashion as the (my first) post you decided to judge - might have been on one of your off days? I hope youd concur with this

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

Over nine pages your thoughts have moved from...

to...

so the notion that I might have "concurred a little faster" is palpably absurd

.
from.... to.... what? It doesnt take a medical degree to realise there are not many people on this earth that would condone such acts. If you think someone would come on here - as has been mentioned before - a sit of "dog lovers" to say yes, strangling a dog in public is their idea of Sunday lunch or something - youve got things wildly out of proportion, and should calm down and read what is written, to which as I told you as much in my first reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnderondon

My advice at this juncture would be stop digging, James.

Are you just typing for fun now?

Johnderondon · #78 (**permalink**) 25-10-2009, 09:15 AM

James, this latest post of yours is largely nonsensical and, since you have now, finally, conceded that it was a "disgracefull act" we have little to disagree over (unless you retract), so I intend to leave this thread and my comments can stand.

Before I depart, though, I will make three observations.

Not condoning something is a long way short of condemning it.

You may, of course, post what you like but you should expect controversial views to be challenged and tested.

Critique of a post or statement is not a personal attack (even if you feel affronted).

james1 · #79 (**permalink**) 25-10-2009, 01:04 PM

Id like to add something to your 3 points.

Personality counts: quite a lot.

Seen as you dont know me or have ever chatted to me before on here - you dont have the slightest clue what I am about. As I have said previous....... You are judging without know the full facts apart from those views in a very short report. The video is grainy and we dont know the mans motivations, his personal history, the dogs history, the situations surrounding the event or even if the dog has in actual fact died.
You are making assumptions both of me and the article which is a reflection on your character not mine.

As I have already said, there are not many people in this world that would condone his actions (if what has played out is in fact true). However, I might just save time and start quoting previous posts as my answers if you continue as im getting bored of this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Contact Us - Terms of use - Top
Pet Forum \| Dog Forum \| Cat Forum \| Small Animals Forum \| Bird Forum \| Horse and Equestrian Forum \| Reptile Forum \| Poultry Forum \| Fish Forum PetForums is part of the Pet Media group of websites including \| Pets4Homes \| PetsLocally