Jump to content

Dingfelder

Top Members
  • Content Count

    1,197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Dingfelder last won the day on November 9 2018

Dingfelder had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,086 Excellent

1 Follower

About Dingfelder

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I loved life a lot more after seeing this video. You are living the dream for sure.
  2. It's very unfortunate, but people being people, they do the people thing. In the same way that people who are sick tell you they aren't contagious --are they doctors? how the heck would they know? -- people like to pretend their dogs are harmless and/or well-behaved. Unfortunately, some (most?) of those people spoil it for the rest of us. This same mentality was mentioned in a recent thread about dogs I was just reading elsewhere ... people tend to excuse their dogs no matter what, in the same way they excuse their children. In reality, they are excusing themselves. We will never get full honesty about this. We'll get plenty of poorly-disguised defensiveness and righteous indignation, though. The "emotional support animal" schtick is wearing pretty thin by now in our town. But you can't actually ask someone with an emotional support animal what their disability is. I forget the specifics, though I could probably find them out pretty quick, as my mother had to deal with the licensing to go to Europe a few days ago. They take pet responsibility seriously there in a way Americans aren't used to. Suffice it to say, international travel with dogs doesn't have the same low standard that walking though your local Walmart does. Thank goodness, because that latter standard can be so low as to be useless. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen an obviously poorly trained, or even aggressive dog brought into a store. Sometimes they even have a harness on, sometimes with some sort of little jacket that says they are this or that kind of certified or whatever. The truth is, you can buy such vests/harnesses online for cheap. I've seen these lunging, anxious, dopey dogs (lovable though they may be) in stores countless times around here. I believe it's become a problem. I would certainly hold back children from such dogs. There is so much difference between a truly well-trained and docile dog and ... well ... maybe your best friend. Even though they may be equally lovable. To you, anyway.
  3. I had enough falls but much moreso simply failures to thrive that I switched to regular unicycles to learn the supposedly higher-level skill that would make this one fairly easy; upon which I crashed backward so hard repeatedly and with so much blood and scarring that I'm still good at neither. I have accepted that I may never be able to do either. But I still want to try. And I still will. Whether I succeed or not is an entirely different matter.
  4. I think there is a very broad range of gun ownership. I grew up shooting guns and have done so all my life. To me they were a sport, and a tool, like a hammer. Nails need a hammer; rats need a .22. For me, the rest was about shooting at the range, but whatever. There was nothing scary involved, and I took my brothers to the range when they were still very small. They had a good time. I've never fired a machine gun, never gotten a AR-15 or whatever. I don't care if I get one or don't. Among people who grew up with guns, I don't think guns are a "thing" all that much. I think people who did not grow up with guns are the ones who find guns a "thing." And maybe get all wound up about them one way or another. I believe people who get cars should pass a strict license test, that people who get guns should past a strict license test, and that people who get dogs commonly bred for attack should get a strict license test too. No real difference between them, IMO. Anyone who takes on extra liability and extra danger to the community should take on extra responsibilities to go with those rights of ownership. The test shouldn't be burdensome, costly, depend on the whim of individual political appointees or law enforcement officers, or involve unnecessary delay. But I don't believe making light of cars, guns, or dangerous dogs is responsible, about freedom, or clever in the least, nor passes for being intelligent, experienced, or open-minded, much less being in the slightest admirable or community-minded. Responsibility is a serious thing, dangers should not be made light of, and people should behave responsibly within the purview of reasonable laws. Even if you do like to blow the shit out of things with 50 calibers or breed dragons in the basement.
  5. What's this "Slim" stuff? Is this some form of name-calling? At any rate, my and our family's qualifications were listed. They are national and international. Of course we have been breeders, and for decades. Of multiple breeds. Why would any of that matter? Could you really have thought we weren't? Our level of expertise is solid. It has been beyond yours for half a century. Or .. you can poll some veterinarians if that's not good enough. Your post started off really weird and I don't engage like that, so we can talk when you come back down to earth, if you like. At any rate, the terrier breed is what it is. Bred properly, it isn't as volatile. But of course, as you know, it has often been bred for precisely the worst qualities. The dog's genetic qualities are not its fault, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I like plenty of questionable or outright dangerous things. If I recall correctly, this forum is about one of them. That doesn't mean I'm going to tell myself or others stories about the the risks involved or put on an attitude about it. It is what it is. So what? I don't see why the truth is something to take offense about, or why we should have to whitewash it or insist others follow along.
  6. There's no right or wrong here. I wound up torn up and in a sling for weeks as a teenager because the tiniest rock appeared before my racing bike when I was going pretty fast. I was a very attentive rider with all the concentration of a hyper-fit and perhaps unusually responsible young person. The tiny rock just appeared too fast. I bet I could have cut my speed in half and still been in serious trouble. I don't think you can determine the measure of disaster you're due. Riding virtually anything is inherently dangerous. If you're smart, you gear up, and are attentive, and ride or drive prudently. And then sometimes it doesn't matter much and you eat gravel. You're not going to safety your way out of bad luck, but safety helps. Does paranoia help? Probably. But even that's not enough. Face it. Accept it. You're doing something risky. It may come around to bite you in the ass. Sorry. And if you were doing something less risky, that might hurt you too. You can't count on getting away with this thing. If you need to, don't do it.
  7. What about him? I am confused. I wasn't asking for a break and don't know what would be the point of one? I'm not asking for one now. Your post is confusing to me and seems contradictory. I'm only responding to what you said here. If you meant elsewhere besides New Zealand, I guess I misunderstood. But it sounds like you want to hold a gun to my head because of it. What gives? I did enjoy the history lesson otherwise. In fact I just bought a book on cannibalism last week, but haven't cracked it yet. I had no idea Hawaiians were cannibals, though I knew the Pacific was so full of cannibals that sailors might risk death rather than seek shores there. A book that in part discusses it is the recounting of the original episode that inspired Moby Dick, "In the Heart of the Sea" by Nathan Philbrick. I've read about cannibalism throughout the American Southwest and putatively wider in North America and central America, as well as elsewhere, but, as stated, am not knowledgeable about New Zealand. I doubt I ever intend to be, but I wasn't trying to yank your chain somehow.
  8. This sounds a lot like Micronesia and Hawaii where I was raised, actually. Racial violence (I'm not even allowed to say racist anymore) was common and approved and excused.
  9. LOL dead give-away and fatal mistake. P.S.: My family owned a quarantine, kennel, pet shop, and pet boarding facility. I've been involved in pets longer than you have and much more deeply. Maybe longer than you've been alive. My mother is a national and international judge in rally, agility, and obedience. She's off to judge in Vienna next week, free and pre-paid. We've trained in scent-tracking and herding, etc. She has multiple championships in everything you could think of. Your anecdotes do not run that deep, nor counter to the basics of breeding. Your denial of the basic nature of terriers speaks worlds about your willingness to embrace denial. Does that help your cause? I'd suggest quite the opposite. It just makes you look woefully out of your depth at best. That, and your approach otherwise, is very counter-productive. It may fool some of the people some of the time, but there is no way you will convince most people unless you come from a more sound and reasonable place. Yours is a very counter-productive approach. Do reconsider. Passion is cute and all, but it's not even close to what you need to defend your point and advance your agenda.
  10. Well I'm sure happy to cheer you on! Very happy! Super niche sport/hobby/? for now, but with the help of you and people like you, one day it might not be as rare or thought of negatively at all. Keep on going, great for you! At this point every single EUC rider is an ambassador, for good or evil, remember that.
  11. I am intrigued by this post but don't understand it. Perhaps too much insider baseball with the assumption everyone follows the game and knows the stats? I can assure you most people around the world have zero or effectively zero understanding of anything relating to New Zealand. It is an extremely large world. Care to explain? I ask because I am legit curious. You are saying cannibalism was going on up to or into the 60's in New Zealand? And that those phrases -- none of which as an American i have any acquaintance with outside the extraordinarily rare hearing -- are from NZ? And maybe related to cannabalism? Please explain. This is simply outside the cultural ken of most people, though it might seem so familiar to you as to perhaps seem to go without saying.
  12. Last I read, chihuahuas were the breed most likely to bite. I'm not much of a reader, though. Re terriers being small, this doesn't matter much. It's the temperament that counts when thinking of their cohabitation with humans, and the type of humans they are cohabitating with. A lot of history has people with their dogs outside, rather than in the family home. Things change. These days, a former vermin dog that lived outside running randomly between the barn and the house, or silo if you were lucky, is now in the house in the face of your baby, a queer pink juicy little fleshy tasty thing roughly the size of their natural prey. Dogs are not humans, and terriers are markedly and historically understood and verified as aggressive by breeders from random to top of the AKC and similar. It doesn't make them a bad thing. It does make them more suitable to some tasks than others.
  13. You are mistaken in refining your reaction to my response so narrowly. Obviously most terriers were not bred specifically to attack humans, so ... why is this an objection? They were bred to be extremely aggressive toward smaller prey, as well as very quick, relentless, and determined. That is why they have long been the subject of gambling, from people betting on how many rats they could kill how fast to their fate in dogfights to their being bred specifically to fight bulls. It was their temperament that was bred. Temperament doesn't have to be specifically directed against humans, and it likely hasn't been ... but an aggressive, prey-directed temperament has been selectively bred into them over a huge number of generations. Not only history but many vets will confirm. If you have to go to any lengths to twist what I am saying, then what I am saying gathers value rather than loses it. Or, as said, just ask some vets or read the history of the terrier lines and what they are bred for. I am a huge dog lover myself, but no breeder or handler who is both experienced AND knowledgeable divorces any breed from its genetics for purposes of publicity or favortism. As to experience, I grew up with a family having a quarantine, kennel, and pet shop. We have had virtually every kind of dog popular at the time. My mother is an international dog judge in multiple categories, and we have had a long line of champions in multiple categories up to the present day. There is little in the dog "field" so to speak that my family has not done with dogs and that I have not been a part of. But that is of no matter. Genetics count and facts do not care about your feelings. Or mine. That's great that you are a champion for what you like. But being a champion for something doesn't necessarily make you an authority on anything. And even authorities can get things wrong and should certainly be subject to question.
  14. Sounds like they matter to you. I'm of mixed minds regarding this thread. First it was introduced as a quote out of nowhere by travsfo, which was odd and, especially with no framing and context-setting explanation, seems odder still and makes me wonder first why the near non-sequitur and then why the breach of expectation wasn't somehow "healed" by softening it with a little context before launching into argumentation. Then Langham came in and seemed pretty combative throughout, which didn't help much, but I have to wonder if he had fairly been set off by what reads almost like a kind of ambush by the OP. Also, I enjoy general misanthropy even for a laugh when I don't agree with all its particular ventings, and I usually agree with at least a good portion of its ventings and so find some of Langham's typical posts funny and fun and with a good bit of the biting truth I find a relief in the face of the the usual facade society insists we present to each other and sometimes pretend at the cost of considerable effort to believe. Re any specific posts, it looks like Langham was getting at the metaphor about the influx of muslims that a politico (forget who?) used a few years ago: If someone gave you a bowl of (some kind of small tasty little things) and said only a small proportion was poisoned ... would you grab a handful? Surprised this might have faded out of the public consciousness this quickly, as it provoked a bit of an uproar at the time. Anyway, this conversation veered so far away from a lovely conversation, IMO, about the inherent beauty and utility of general misanthropy, which I believe is highly underrated. I'd go so far as to say I go out of my way to be kind to people I meet as well as people I've met, including ones I dislike ... but that doesn't mean I like them. The balance between manners and ... well ... everything else is endlessly interesting and difficult to manage. In person, I generally muster exemplary manners. But they don't necessarily reflect what I think, and I would be horrified if they did. I had been optimistic this thread would touch more on more interesting nuances such as this than on the usual muslim vs. Trump undercurrents running tirelessly through society, such as it is, at the moment.
×
×
  • Create New...