iNow

I apologize, then. It appears I've mischaracterized your position above. I just don't understand then, if this truly is your position, why you post the way you do on this issue?

The truth of the matter, truckrazy, is that even otherwise highly intelligent people seem to be falling prey to these weak arguments and emphasis on the propaganda. What is frustrating is how they believe their position so blindly that they dismiss all of the otherwise logical arguments made by the rest of us as somehow "emotional" and "irrational." It's almost like arguing global climate change with a denialist or evolution with a creationist. I'm slowly starting to lose hope as pertains to convincing SkepticLance, John Cuthber, and others who support the pro-breed-specific ban position that they are no better than racists on this issue. Oh well. Maybe we can ban them.

Yeah, all three per year. Peanut butter kills more. Bathtubs kill more. Countless other things kill more. The emotion in this argument is yours, sir. It's blindingly clear in the rhetoric you're forced to use in support of your weak attempts to convince others of the merit of your position. I will take that bet! All it takes is one, and your argument crumbles. Can I train the dog myself? Shit. What's the nicest animal you can possible think of? I'll train THAT to kill people. Also, care to define genetically "meaner?" I know you cannot, so I'm rather curious why you are using this as a point of argumentation.

Here's another argument. The problem you've described is with the people, not the dog. It's not the type of dog causing the problems you seek to ameliorate, but the owners. Your ban will not stop the problems you've described. Further, your post above left out my primary argument. It must be judged on the basis of "what percentage of this dog type is violent," and this is remarkably trivial. Please discontinue from strawmanning my position, as if I'm somehow suggesting that life itself is trivial. Treat the cause, not the symptom.

Have you never noticed shapes in clouds? Look, Timmy... That one there... it looks like insanity.

Two words: Status symbol. Also... Cool Toys.

How you gear it becomes important, too, like the transmission on your car.

That'd be an interesting case of the Wrong Stuff.

That's just it, John. It's about choice, and you're trying to remove the choice from others due to your own subjective preferences. You even admit that the absolute death rates are small, I can't see how this gives you the required justification to remove choices from others. No, there are countless reasons, actually, but regardless of what those reasons are, you CANNOT decide for ME. Also, "most dangerous" is some interesting rhetoric considering we are talking about 3 deaths per year. Again... Just because YOU cannot see their value does NOT mean they are without value. However, again... value is subjective in this case, and has no relevance. It's fine that you don't see the value in this type of dog. I'm good with that. All that needs to happen is you don't buy a dog of this type. However, the moment you try to prevent others from doing it you're going to have to make a much better case. You are misframing the question. Sure... they kill more than other dogs (we think, because as you've conceded yourself the identification of type is itself in question). The question though is, as a percentage of the type itself, how many are dangerous? We're talking millions of dogs here and 3 deaths per year. That's pretty damned safe. I know more people who die of peanut butter than pit bull attacks annually. It just doesn't follow that you want to ban this dog based on the data alone, and I guess you're either deathly afraid of them or a victim of propaganda. Not relevant. You're trying to take away a freedom. The onus is on you to prove that they have no "saving grace," not on us to give examples of some. Another weakness in your argument. This is what baffles me. You admit that you're missing important information, and you admit that nurture plays a role, yet you soldier on as if it's somehow not meaningful. Then just open your eyes, or start a new thread on learning theory and conditioning. It's of the UTMOST importance. Each one of us kills more people than that every day with the cancers caused by the exhaust of our cars. If you were truly looking out for "the people," you'd focus on other issues with greater impact. You are prejudiced against the dog, and you can't see it nor recognize it from what I can tell by your posts here. Your numbers are weak. You are misframing the question. Your subjective interpretation of their worth is nonrelevant. You are trying to remove a freedom. You need to do better than 3 deaths per year as your basis.

The larger point, of course, being that all dogs collectively kill very few people overall, so trying to ban the one type that seems to kill a little more than the others (by percentage) is odd. Dogs don't kill very many people, and yet you've chosen to focus on one specific dog type and try to ban that as if it's some great public health threat. It really just makes no sense to me, nor does your repeated need to have us tell you why these dogs are special. I just can't comprehend how that even begins to become relevant, nor how banning one type of dog is supposed to be such a good thing considering the vast assymmetry between dogs that are friendly and ones that cause problems. Further, your entire argument leaves out conditioning and environmental stimuli. I truly am baffled as to how anybody could argue in favor of a ban when the numbers are so insignificant, and the benefit of ban so lacking.

You are quite a biased fellow with your cranium fully lodged in your colon, aren't you? Clearly my presentation back at post #256 was a hazy bunch of emotional and irrational handwaving due to my attachment. Thank you, kind sir, for pointing this plainly obvious fact out to me and the other readers of this thread. Golly... I can't believe I've been so misled this entire time. The thrust of your argument has changed my ways. You are, quite simply, amazing. Yeah, I know. That's almost as weak as basing an argument on a mispresentation of the numbers which are truly important for such a decision. Gosh... two one hundreths of one percent. How have we collectively let such a scourge reign free for so long? Now... AFTER this post... You can accuse me of being emotional. Until now, however, all of your assertions toward that end have been patently false.

I think that's a no.

How is it that you tell us we are fighting for freedom in the world yet you condone and implicitly lead the actions of Guantanamo Bay and other sercret prisons?

None of your own, really, but you might be able to sweep the floors in someone else's lab! I don't mean this to distract you from the social networking and seminars and instructor talks from which you'd benefit by going there...

Seems simple, doesn't it? Now, if only we could snap our fingers to change our entire societal infrastructure, we'd be all set! Btw... welcome to SFN, whitefire. Enjoy.

Yes... lots of stamps to simultaneously give a "surge" to the post office, and their problematic finances.

Ah, not 100% the same, but good point.

Those ARE the normal ones (if normal is somehow related to the median).

Perchance, because we haven't officially declared a state of war with the sovereign nation of Iraq? <shrug>

Yes, because OF COURSE the best way to teach people that killing is wrong is by killing them.

It might be an exaggeration, though, to suggest that we are completely and absolutely siloed from his execution. My attachment is from December 30, 2006. Just a reminder that this is real, and not academic. [ATTACH]1774[/ATTACH]

Well, now that you put it THAT way, I'm convinced.

I have the same issue with mine. As Klaynos said, clean it, and clean it well. After that, you can try a cooling mat (aka a cooling dock). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop_cooler Something like this: http://www.nextag.com/targus-pa248/search-html You could also try a Laptop Water Cooler: http://folk.ntnu.no/bardlund/hack.jsp

Yeah, I saw the logo this morning after I noticed the jacked up text... I have to admit, it was fun seeing "ye" and "art" all of the time. Instead of "you are." Nicely played. I wonder if any noobs got confused? I know some more veteran folks did.

Also, try to sit in on a few of the physics instructor's lessons, and or visit them in their office to meet them and get a "feel" for them. Per differences in the schools themselves, I am not familiar enough with either to help with that. I do, however, wish you all the best.