transient

I was being facetious. I was the one who posted the Botched clip in response to the Chihuahua comment. It took me some time but I finally found another that supports your coin purse theory. Watch at your own risk... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0DcF8svT_Kg

I’m a step behind, here... is this an analogy for a little person or are you actually referring to a Chihuahua?

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e05d1b1a-853e-44f3-951f-2783172bb9d2

If Sophie Turner looked like a sociopath...

She’s got some angular facial features. And the colored contacts and makeup make her look pretty artificial. Wonder if her boyfriend looks anything like Forrest Whittaker. What say you, Fergus? And even if she’s not a dude, I’m a no. I don’t have the patience or the energy for bats**t crazy anymore...

It depends on whether or not Olivia Culpo puts out on a first date. If not, then definitely Helen Mirren. If so... coin flip.

Let me make sure I have this straight, just in case... if I meet your wife I’m not supposed to tell her that you think she’s a loser?

20 years old... DAMN! Talk about an old soul. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to look out for him when he inevitably finds his way to NOLA.

Again, the problem with sites like this, as well as sites that have a clear agenda to defend pit bulls, is in addition to not being objective, they're completely inconsistent. Which data set do you believe above, the one that reports 284 fatalities over 12 years or the one that reports 295 over 32 years? The top site is clearly anti-pit bull by the graphic, and that becomes more clear when you look at the site content. The bottom link is the equivalent of MSN's popsugar spam, and if you go to the study that it references the author starts off by defending his approach against pit bull apologists, which to me is already a red flag about his bias. He tailors the data analysis specifically to how dangerous pit bulls are, and he lists in the notes on the pit bull fatalities such things as people who were hit by cars, people who were hit by trains, people who died of heart attacks, people who died of infections, a dog in Tijuana despite the fact that this is a study in US and Canada, 2 dead men that were determined by forensics to be dead then subsequently eaten by dogs, a child that was strangled by a leash, several instances of homicide where the dogs were either blamed by the person convicted without any evidence to confirm it or thought to play a role somehow (including being fed the body), two cocaine overdoses that were subsequently eaten by dogs, instances where it was clear they weren't sure what the dog was but it was assume to be a pit bull anyway, and one person who was hit in the head by a pan thrown by his brother to break up a dog fight. In fairness, 3 or 4 of these "cases" were not used in final tally of the numbers presented, which raises the question of "why put them in the paper?" If you're inclined to think "it doesn't matter which data set you look at, either one is still too much" consider the previous paragraph and ask yourself how quickly you could inflate those numbers if you take that sort of approach. Also, any breed that the author apparently doesn't think would behave this way on it's own and was part of a multi-dog attack has language that makes it seem like it was coerced by the pit bull(s)... unless it was a Rottweiler, then the language makes it clear that they're both equally at fault. The author then goes on to take an almost apologetic discussion of the numbers associated with German Shepards. In addition, his manner of looking through classified ads to see what dogs are available in order to determine percentage of the total dog population that a breed makes up seems very likely to significantly under represent certain breeds and over represent others. I'm not disputing many of the points that were made intelligently and thoughtfully by posters representing the full spectrum of opinions on this topic in this thread. I just have a hard time accepting it when pseudo-statistics are passed off as objective analysis.

Look for the catch...

My apologies. I interpreted your analogy as a justification to "recall" the breed for an outcome that was statistically more probable than a faulty airbag killing the driver of a car.

Of course I do. I'm not arguing that. In fact, I have no problem with Fergy's idea of background checks and licensing, as it would probably cut down on mistreatment of animals significantly in addition to limiting these incidents. I just wonder why he only sees fit to offer pit bulls that courtesy and not all breeds. It was kinda tongue in cheek since you had said it was unlikely that someone could be disfigured by a Chihuahua and I remembered seeing that very thing on Botched, but it was also to make the point that a dog, no matter how small, is an animal that is unpredictable and capable of causing significant injury.

To your first point, mechanical failure can cause car crashes, so no, 100% of what happens is not due to humans. As for the human aspect of animal behavior, I would argue that counts for more than breed in most instances, either through inhumane treatment and/or training intent or through negligence. Unfortunately, negligence can occur with well meaning dog owners who should never own certain types of dogs no matter how much they love them.

I've got a different analogy. There are 5 million Hondas on the road. 250 people were killed by people driving Hondas, or a car that may have had an OEM Honda part on it ; even if it was a Ford Pinto with a Honda windshield wiper it was classified as a Honda at the time of the accident. Of those 250 people, the drivers of the car were unlicensed or drunk for 240 of those accidents. Of the other 10, there was a problem with the car, which, while horrific and unfortunate, when you look at other car manufacturers is similar percentage wise with cars on the road. Why do you think loyal, licensed Honda owners with clean driving records think I'm crazy when I say it's about time we shut down Honda? Also, when you break from your analogy, your "recall" is a euphemism for killing 5 million dogs.

Just sayin'...

To answer this question accurately I think we need to see which breeds can successfully jump over Anthony Barr...

Are you describing a situation in which your dog was socializing with an unfamiliar dog in the presence of your 5 year old daughter without you in the immediate vicinity?

It's not even just "alpha" owners. I can't tell you how many times I've been at a dog park and seen someone sitting on a bench looking at their phone without any idea where their dog is or what it's doing? There's more of that than aggressive owners with aggressive dogs.

Oblivious owners of all breeds are the reason I no longer take mine. Most parks are a setup for an uncontrolled free for all.

Serious question, did the RBs they drafted suck or did they just not effectively work them into the game plan? I’m working from memory here, but they always struck me as being willing to live and die by Marino’s arm. I don’t really remember them as a team that ever had a game plan that tried to establish the run. Contrast that with the balance the Bills had with Kelly under center (granted, with Thomas in the backfield). To further that point, I just looked on the Pro Football Reference site. Marino is 14th all time in average pass attempts per game, but he’s the only one of his era in the top 20 (unless you count Favre at 17 and/or Bledsoe at 12, since they overlapped the latter part of Marino’s career). The next from that era is Warren Moon at 24. Jim Kelly is all the way down at 45.

And unlike the Broncos at the end of Elway's career, the Dolphins with Marino never accepted that they needed a running game.

So you're suggesting that NE*** will split with the Jets and sweep the Dolphins?

While I was familiar with gestalt of the term, I was never aware of the exact meaning, so I looked it up. Apparently it’s a little more specific than that. If you look it up on Urban dictionary it’s either a penis that is wider than it is long, or it’s another word for taint. It’s also used as an insult to insinuate someone is akin to a short, fat penis or a taint. [moderator sez: That's Enough of That Now!]