- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


Check this out!

December 19th, 2005, 01:19 AM
Get a load of this:

It is important to recognize that pitbulls, rotweillers and mastiffs are all essentially the same breed. These are all mastiff cross breeds.

The creator of this site is obviously an idiot!

December 19th, 2005, 01:47 AM
His "4 cowardly reasons" or whatever are really dumb. Really. What a loser.

December 19th, 2005, 11:03 AM
This site is registered to an individual in Ottawa, ON and is only 10 days old.
If anyone would like to politely contact him to make him aware he is making a fool of himself by spewing innacurate info:

December 19th, 2005, 11:14 AM
The ridiculous letter he wrote to the Ottawa Citizen:

Pit bulls are prime source of dog-bite fatalities
Published: Sunday, December 18, 2005
Re: Pit bulls victims of injustice, DEC. 9.

I strongly support Ontario's new dangerous-dog legislation.

The law gives preventative protection because dangerous breeds are
required to be leashed and muzzled. The law reacts when any dog of
any breed causes serious injury. Euthanizing an animal that attacks
is the responsible thing to do. Attorney General Michael Bryant put
this common sense into law.

Columnist Kelly Egan asserts that pit bulls are unfairly
discriminated against. His sources are special-interest groups that
oppose the legislation on behalf of breeders. All his statistics
ignore the difference between bites and maulings. Breeds related to
pit bulls are responsible for the majority of death, disfigurement
and hospitalization.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found: "Rottweilers and pit
bull-type dogs accounted for 67 per cent of human dog-bite-related
fatalities in the United States .... It is extremely unlikely that
they accounted for anywhere near 60 per cent of dogs ... thus, there
appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Enforcing the new Ontario dog-bite legislation only costs money if
an owner refuses to euthanize a dog that has already harmed someone.
If the new legislation is costly to enforce, it is only because of
the stupidity and cowardice of dangerous-breed owners.

Owning a mastiff-type breed is a cowardly choice and should be
branded as such by society. Harbouring one of these animals requires
a conscious decision to endanger the safety and security of innocent
people. What could be more cowardly?

Similar to the initiative to brand smoking, I'd like to
see the Ontario government launch to brand dangerous-
breed ownership.

Paul Cassandra, Ottawa

December 19th, 2005, 11:25 AM
Yikes, what a creep! How did you come across this site? I hope it isn't easy to find!

December 19th, 2005, 11:44 AM
babyrocky1, you should really tell this creep to include your neighbour's poodle in his stupid list of dangerous dogs !

December 19th, 2005, 12:51 PM
This guy is absolutely brilliant.
I mean the connection between Mastiffs and pitties is SOOOO obvious. They look exactly the SAME. AND it's a well known fact that Mastiffs are vicious, vicious dogs :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

December 19th, 2005, 01:08 PM
********** is an apartment building. No apartment number.

The phone number is a long distance provider number for the Ottawa area.

The email is for not .ca and does not exist. It's registered in Australia but nothing has been done with the site.

There will be no contacting this individual because this individual doesn't want to be found.

The guy obviously wants attention and I don't think that he should be given the attention. He's a troll. Don't feed him.

December 19th, 2005, 01:13 PM
he's right you know...and did you guys know that pit bulls are also in very close relation with the big horn sheep of north america?


December 19th, 2005, 04:01 PM
To bad that site could not be just taken out of commission.

p.s. sorry for posting that info Mods, didn't realize the rule. Won't happen again.

December 19th, 2005, 05:24 PM
Anyone know a hacker ?

December 19th, 2005, 05:51 PM
I wonder if Knows people are registering websites using false ID ? Do they not verify addresses ? If not this could be very dangerous , not just for dogs but for anyone that a person or company had a beef with . I searched the address the person gave and no such person as PC lives there also a search found no such person to live in Ottawa , at least a listed person .
If they "webhost" with no ID required I guess it is open territory to slam any person place or thing with no accountability .I find it hard to believe this is possible.
I emailed netfirms asking what their policy is re this matter ,others should do the same . Pitbulliest ????

December 19th, 2005, 07:10 PM

I was being sarcastic...

I already emailed him too..don't worry.. :D

December 19th, 2005, 08:51 PM

I was being sarcastic...

I knew you were ! But I thought they were more genetically matched with sharks ?

I got a reply from the web server . They said that the credit card and address of the person paying for the site would be verified .
So far during all of this BS in the past year or so the only people going to as much effort as this guy has been the Liberals and the media . I wonder which he is ?

Me and Kayla
December 20th, 2005, 01:18 PM
I emailed netfirms asking what their policy is re this matter ,others should do the same .


Me and Kayla

December 20th, 2005, 05:15 PM
"Please be advised the name that purchased the domain coincides with the name on the domain. Therefore we have every reason to believe that the information provided is accurate"
That was the reply I recieved today from the complaints department of the webserver.

December 21st, 2005, 08:48 AM
The domain name '' is registered to one ********with address of:

And email address of: *******
The email bounces so don't waste your time. The name and address are most probably ficticious. (no one of this surname in the Canadian whitepages), Reverse lookup of the phone number also returns nothing.

We have also being onto this here in Australia, disgusting piece of garbage.


December 21st, 2005, 08:57 AM
So the person who owns the site is too cowardly to use thier real name. Ironic...

December 21st, 2005, 09:23 AM
What about pressuring this web host to cut this site. I don't know exactly what you would do but maybe flooding them with emails or something that may cause them to take another look at what this site will do for their business.
I also thought there had to be a valid email.

December 21st, 2005, 10:48 AM
Hi there,

I think we've pulled his fangs. When you go to the site and hit refresh the following error message comes up.

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

* If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
* Open the home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
* Click the Back button to try another link.
* Click to look for information on the Internet.

HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer

December 21st, 2005, 10:53 AM
Unless the web host has specific rules he is breaking, they have no reason to do anything. There is no rule that a person has to identify themselves, or even identify themselves properly. I'm afraid in this case, the only way to do anything would be to have so many people go to the site at the same time that his bandwith goes above his allocable, in which case they would either charge him for more bandwidth, or block his site. Unfortunatly, "free speech" is working against us in this case.

December 21st, 2005, 10:57 AM
Specifically, from CIRA's registrant agreement:

"Throughout the Term of this Agreement, the Registrant shall:"

3.1(f) at all times ensure that the Registrant Information is complete and
accurate, communicate to the Registrant's Registrar (for communication to
CIRA) any changes to the Registrant Information and promptly confirm to CIRA
when CIRA so requests in accordance with the Registration Rules that the
Registrant Information is complete and accurate;

3.1(h) not engage in any direct or indirect activity which in CIRA's opinion
is designed to bring, or may bring, the Registry into disrepute, is designed
to interfere, or may interfere, with CIRA's operations or designed to
expose, or may expose, CIRA to prosecution or to legal action by the
Registrant or a third party including, but not limited to, any of the
following kinds of activities:
(i) directly or indirectly, defaming or contributing to the defamation
of any other Person,
(ii) unlawfully discriminating or contributing to the unlawful
discrimination of any other Person; or
(iii) committing any other actionable wrong against any other Person
including, without limitation, any other infringement of the Person's

I'd say he's breaking the rules.

December 21st, 2005, 10:57 AM
Hi there,

I think we've pulled his fangs. When you go to the site and hit refresh the following error message comes up.

Uh, never mind.

(You typed this while I was typing mine:) )

December 21st, 2005, 11:13 AM
I'd say he's breaking the rules.

I'd say someone agrees with you.

I didn't read the whole site, so I may have missed something, but I don't think there was really anything in there that broke any of the rules under section 3.1(h)i through iii . That being said, I think what happened was we brought the site to the providers attention, and either someone at the provider didn't like the message and yanked the site, or the contact info was incorrect, breaking rule 3.1(f). Either way...:thumbs up

December 21st, 2005, 11:32 AM
Way to go!

December 21st, 2005, 04:34 PM
Awesome!!!!!!!! :thumbs up Let's hope it really is gone.