Comment Made By Rspca Chief Executive Mr. Michael Link

[poodlefan]

Why exactly do you think saying "it could have been x, y or z breed" is detrimental to any of them? If he'd said "It could have been a poodle or a maltese or a crossbreed" would you be so worked up over it?

My guess is not.

[Curlybert]

I did explain that and proceeded to say that the previous 8 votes (yes) are to be added to the final poll results therefore nothing is lost.

No, you didn't. Anyway it is hardly a proper poll when you keep fiddling with the question(s), notwithstanding that the results thus far do not favour your viewpoint at all.

No, not at all. I don't know what the heck is going on; I have been trying to rectify the problem and am not having any luck! Heck, I want people's opinion just as much as you do, no matter if they agree with me or not. I was, in fact, trying to reword the question to this poll as I worded it wrong the 1st time around. Looks as though the poll is back on and lest we forget that, as you said BST, 8 people do agree with Mr. Linke's statement. (post 7).

Yes I did say that the original 8 votes in favour of Mr. Linke's statement will be added to the final poll results as my above post goes to prove. I haven't kept on fiddling with the question/s. I tried to make a change once and only the once! What are you up in arms about anyway given that the results to date are not in my favour? lol.

Sorry but no, you didn't! And I'm not up in arms - actually I think this whole thread is hilarious!

[poodlefan]

On your next edit of the original post/poll Moselle, you might like to correct the spelling of Mr Linke's name in the thread title.

It's always polite to spell people's names correctly.

[poodlefan]

On your next edit of the original post/poll Moselle, you might like to correct the spelling of Mr Linke's name in the thread title.

It's always polite to spell people's names correctly.

[Moselle]

That is your prerogative, SBT. At the end of the day, I have nothing to lose or gain as I don't own a staffy or a mastiff. I simply feel sorry for those that do following Mr. Linke's statement.

Why? It's perfectly true that ANY breed or crossbreed can attack.

IMO Mr Linke is pointing out the bleeding obvious - most people can't tell one breed or crossbreed from another and can't seem to figure out that ALL dogs have teeth and can be aggressive in the wrong circumstances.

Oh, he is pointing out the bleeding obvious, is he? LOL...that staffies or mastiffs are to be held responsible for attacks on dogs instead of the pitbull? lol.

Yes, all dogs most certainly have teeth and prone to being aggressive, there is no disputing that one. Yes, quite a few members of the public have no idea in identifying one breed from another. Isn't just as easy to mistake, say, the japanese for chinese and imagine if someone of importance was to shift the blame from, say, the japanese to the chinese, wouldn't that serve to open a can of worms especially given that there was no proof to substantiate such.

[poodlefan]

Moselle:

Oh, he is pointing out the bleeding obvious, is he? LOL...that staffies or mastiffs are to be held responsible for attacks on dogs instead of the pitbull? lol.

That's the largest quantum leap of logic I've seen in quite a while. From a comment speculating as to the possible ID of the attackers to concluding that the comment means staffies or mastiffs OR CROSSBREEDS (cos you keep leaving that bit out) are to be held responsible?

Get real. You're seeing things that simply aren't there.

Edited July 21, 2010 by poodlefan

[Moselle]

Well then I think any answere prior to you changing the question should be void

I would have thought so but given that SBT implied that I made the changes simply because I was unhappy with the first 8 answers, I thought I would allow for it. At the end of the day, it doesnt appear to have made any difference anyway, lol.

[Moselle]

Moselle:

Oh, he is pointing out the bleeding obvious, is he? LOL...that staffies or mastiffs are to be held responsible for attacks on dogs instead of the pitbull? lol.

That's the largest quantum leap of logic I've seen in quite a while. From a comment speculating as to the possible ID of the attackers to concluding that the comment means staffies or mastiffs OR CROSSBREEDS (cos you keep leaving that bit out) are to be held responsible?

Get real. You're seeing things that simply aren't there.

I am not leaving the CROSSBREED part of the equation out as I do personally believe that dogs believed to be pitbulls could be crossbreeds in certain cases and LETS FACE IT - Mr. Linke's implicating crossbreeds does not exactly prove detrimental now, does it?

[blissirritated]

Mr. Linke's implicating crossbreeds does not exactly prove detrimental now, does it?

Then how does it prove detrimental to the pure breeds he mentioned?

[poodlefan]

I am not leaving the CROSSBREED part of the equation out as I do personally believe that dogs believed to be pitbulls could be crossbreeds in certain cases and LETS FACE IT - Mr. Linke's implicating crossbreeds does not exactly prove detrimental now, does it?

Actually, you ARE leaving the crossbred part of the equation out and have done so in both this thread and the one in News.

So "implicating" crossbreeds isn't detrimental but IDing two other breeds is? Once again I fail to follow your logic.

You do understand that Mr Linke does NOT support BSL don't you?

Edited July 21, 2010 by poodlefan

[Moselle]

I tried to make a change once and only the once!

That's a fib, you've changed it at least twice.

I had worded it wrong in the 1st place and when I made the changes to the current question I failed to delete the original question

Once to change the question, a second time to remove a question. ETA: And how could you add the results of a previous poll to this one if they were answers to a different question?

Why exactly do you think saying "it could have been x, y or z breed" is detrimental to any of them? If he'd said "It could have been a poodle or a maltese or a crossbreed" would you be so worked up over it?

Yes, you are quite right in that I changed the question firstly and then deleted the 2nd question as my quote above stipulates clearly. AS I SAID, I MISTAKENLY FORGOT TO DELETE THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WHEN I TYPED IN THE CURRENT QUESTION THEREBY THE POLL HAD TWO QUESTIONS IN PLACE WHICH ONLY CONFUSED PEOPLE!

YES, OF COURSE I WOULD BE JUST AS ANNOYED IF MR. LINKE HAD NAMED ANOTHER BREED OF DOG IN ORDER TO STEER PEOPLE FROM BLAMING A PARTICULAR BREED GIVEN THAT I DONT HAPPEN TO OWN A STAFFIE OR A MASTIFF, I THOUGHT THAT WAS RATHER OBVIOUS.

[casowner]

Another arena to slam what was more than likely an innocent comment from someone in the RSPCA who actually doesn't support BSL. Moselle, have you contacted Mr Linke regarding your feelings so that he may explain or respond or are they just for public airings only?

Moselle can you answer this question for me, just out of personal curiosity?

I understand that you seem to be frustrated but all capitals are hard to read

Edited July 21, 2010 by casowner

[Moselle]

Mr. Linke's implicating crossbreeds does not exactly prove detrimental now, does it?

Then how does it prove detrimental to the pure breeds he mentioned?

It only serves to convince people that most pitbull lookalikes could instead be staffies or mastiffs and could start a tyrade of people wrongfully pointing the finger at these two breeds.

[Moselle]

Another arena to slam what was more than likely an innocent comment from someone in the RSPCA who actually doesn't support BSL. Moselle, have you contacted Mr Linke regarding your feelings so that he may explain or respond or are they just for public airings only?

Moselle can you answer this question for me, just out of personal curiosity?

I understand that you seem to be frustrated but all capitals are hard to read

Capitals were used simply because I am getting sick and tired of having to repeat myself.

No, I have not contacted Mr. Linke but will try to do so tomorrow! Good idea casowner.

[blissirritated]

Yes, you are quite right in that I changed the question firstly and then deleted the 2nd question as my quote above stipulates clearly. AS I SAID, I MISTAKENLY FORGOT TO DELETE THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WHEN I TYPED IN THE CURRENT QUESTION THEREBY THE POLL HAD TWO QUESTIONS IN PLACE WHICH ONLY CONFUSED PEOPLE!

YES, OF COURSE I WOULD BE JUST AS ANNOYED IF MR. LINKE HAD NAMED ANOTHER BREED OF DOG IN ORDER TO STEER PEOPLE FROM BLAMING A PARTICULAR BREED GIVEN THAT I DONT HAPPEN TO OWN A STAFFIE OR A MASTIFF, I THOUGHT THAT WAS RATHER OBVIOUS.

OKAY. I was just clarifying because you were saying that you'd changed it ONCE AND ONLY THE ONCE!!! and I read it that you'd changed it at least twice from your previous post.

As for being OBVIOUS, I honestly have no idea what your point is. It's sort of like someone has said "Have a free pony" and everyone else is saying "Ooh! A free pony! I don't have to pay! By jove what a brilliant state of affairs!" and you're standing in the corner bashing out "I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THE PONY, THIS IS CONFUSING, WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR THE PONY". I'm not sure that you've understood what was said by Mr Linke or the context he said it in?

[Moselle]

I am not leaving the CROSSBREED part of the equation out as I do personally believe that dogs believed to be pitbulls could be crossbreeds in certain cases and LETS FACE IT - Mr. Linke's implicating crossbreeds does not exactly prove detrimental now, does it?

Actually, you ARE leaving the crossbred part of the equation out and have done so in both this thread and the one in News.

So "implicating" crossbreeds isn't detrimental but IDing two other breeds is? Once again I fail to follow your logic.

You do understand that Mr Linke does NOT support BSL don't you?

Of course, id'ing crossbreeds is not detrimental, how can it be? it isnt exactly pointing the finger at any one breed, is it? a crossbreed could be a conglomeration of god knows how many breeds, lol. This is the reason WHY I haven't bothered with the xbreed part of his statement.

I could pose the question to you....LOL. So does that go to say that you think that the xbreed part of his statement is indeed detrimental??? I would safely assume that you would answer NO to that question which is even better reason for you not to pose that question to me.

Yes Mr. Linke does not support BSL but he has a lousy way of showing it. Aren't staffies or mastiffs just as likely to end up victims of BSL just as well as the pitbull???

[Moselle]

I am off for the night, lots of things to do and all I have done is sit on my arse practically all day, lol.

[poodlefan]

I could pose the question to you....LOL. So does that go to say that you think that the xbreed part of his statement is indeed detrimental??? I would safely assume that you would answer NO to that question which is even better reason for you not to pose that question to me.

Yes Mr. Linke does not support BSL but he has a lousy way of showing it. Aren't staffies or mastiffs just as likely to end up victims of BSL just as well as the pitbull???

Clearly I don't think any part of the statement is detrimental Moselle.. and clearly I'm not alone. Like others here I have absolutely no idea what you're seeking to prove with this poll or any of your statements on this issue.

As it stands "staffies" and "mastiffs" are not likely to end up the victims of BSL in the ACT.. and that will be due in very large part to the actions of the gentleman you say has a "lousy" way of warding off BSL.

Once again, another who seeks to "defend" breeds, shoots themselves in the foot in the process. What part of Mr Linke's failure to support any kind of BSL aren't you grasping???

Edited July 21, 2010 by poodlefan

[MolassesLass]

Yes Mr. Linke does not support BSL but he has a lousy way of showing it. Aren't staffies or mastiffs just as likely to end up victims of BSL just as well as the pitbull???

Not as long as those who believe in "deed not breed" (like Mr Linke) are supported. In fact if everyone thought like Mr Linke, BSL wouldn't exist for the pitbull either.

[StaceyB]

That is your prerogative, SBT. At the end of the day, I have nothing to lose or gain as I don't own a staffy or a mastiff. I simply feel sorry for those that do following Mr. Linke's statement.

Why? It's perfectly true that ANY breed or crossbreed can attack.

IMO Mr Linke is pointing out the bleeding obvious - most people can't tell one breed or crossbreed from another and can't seem to figure out that ALL dogs have teeth and can be aggressive in the wrong circumstances.

Oh, he is pointing out the bleeding obvious, is he? LOL...that staffies or mastiffs are to be held responsible for attacks on dogs instead of the pitbull? lol.

Yes, all dogs most certainly have teeth and prone to being aggressive, there is no disputing that one. Yes, quite a few members of the public have no idea in identifying one breed from another. Isn't just as easy to mistake, say, the japanese for chinese and imagine if someone of importance was to shift the blame from, say, the japanese to the chinese, wouldn't that serve to open a can of worms especially given that there was no proof to substantiate such.

How on earth did you manage that conclusion?? Oh, thats right, you keep ignoring the words "could" and "might". Of course it's easy to get that conclusion when you take things out of context and ignore parts of the scentence.