Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

The Toronto Suns Worthington calls Pit bulls Stupid

Luvmypit
May 18th, 2006, 02:15 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/05/18/1586083-sun.html



I honestly welled up reading this. I found it so hypocritical especially after he says this
" They are afraid of nothing, and their "loyalty" is to be defensive over territory or against anything they see as a threat -- even when there's no threat. To me, that qualifies as somewhat stupid. "
ANd then goes on to tote on his JAck Russell who he says is smarter who in their breed description says they make good guard dogs and that they are fearless...... Exactly what he calls my dog stupid for.

Then he says this
Frankly, I think something is basically wrong with people who own these types of dogs. Especially in a city, or in an apartment. Sometimes, one is tempted to say that owners, rather than their dogs, deserve to be "put down."

I AM SO OFFENDED BY THIS ARTICLE!!!!! I feel like crap.... :mad:

Dukieboy
May 18th, 2006, 02:19 PM
the guys an idiot. Contradicts himself. Try not to get down. When will we have news about today?

Luvmypit
May 18th, 2006, 02:27 PM
Steve on his blog said he would have the outcome today at noon. Its not there yet so I guess he should have some update soon. Maybe its lasting longer then expected. I hope that means they gave Ruby some extra time.

Dukieboy
May 18th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Is that how it works? Do they usually get a chance at rebutal? I have been checking Steve blog periodicly since noon.

Luvmypit
May 18th, 2006, 02:47 PM
AS I understand it First day was ruby and then second day was the govt. Since the govt went to long on Tuesday with closing ruby gets his chance to wrap it up today. I am hoping that Steve will post sometime today... soon I hope!

Luvmypit
May 18th, 2006, 04:23 PM
Im hijacking my own thread so sue me...


LOL

Dukie as requested steve has uploded his blog. I pm'ed you. Sounds pretty interesting but it says we can expect it t take up to 2 - 3 months :eek: or at least that is what Steve said.

It sounds though as if this judge by her questions and comments are leaning more on our side of the issue but I wasn't there so i dont know.

babyrocky1
May 18th, 2006, 06:49 PM
Guys, it could take much longer than that, it could take up to nine months and six is around average, thats not as bad as it sounds though, we were told by Rubys assistant, Breeze, Im not sure if thats the right spelling that a quick decision in our favour leaves more room for the crown to appeal. Luvmypit, dont let some dumb a$$ from the Sun of all places, wreck your day, today was a good day for us, a really good day for us. What kind of a journalist calls a dog "stupid" The guys pulling stuff out of the errrr air, or maybe from somewhere else in his anatomy, but I dont use that expression lOL Pit bulls are not even a guardian breed his article is to stupid to even address.

twodogsandacat
May 18th, 2006, 06:51 PM
A journalist should deal in fact. Sadly not to many do anymore. Just half of a paragraph sould be enough to send this editorial to the trash heap and retire Worthington for good.

Despite Ruby's claim that only 4% of all dog bites are done by pit bull types, too often it's this 4% that result in deaths, or the neighbour’s kid having his face chewed off.

Too often it’s this 4% that result in death? The Canadian facts over the last twenty three years are 23 dead, 55 dogs involved in those deaths. One attack was by pit bulls. If a death ten years ago form pit bulls justify this law then where is the protection for the other 22 dead who died due to attacks from other breeds.

The numbers say it all no matter how you feel about it. Pit bulls are not running all over Canada killing people so why ban them? Because it's easy that's why and it provides a false sense of security while it distracts people from McGuinty's inadequacies to resolve anything else.

wdawson
May 18th, 2006, 07:43 PM
if worthington thinks pits are stupid....then he should check the suns archives for the nevill story.....headline says ontarios loss....forget the state he went to though...........worthington must be a liberal and a dalton and bryant supporter.......what a moron

babyrocky1
May 18th, 2006, 08:51 PM
I wrote a response to the guy but somehow cause I followed the link I couldnt send it:confused:
Its saved so Ill get someone to send it for me tomorrow, this is the computer at work so I cant mess with it too much.

I wouldnt have bothered to answer it but I couldnt believe the idiot said it would be a good idea to "put down the owners" ....As if we havent had enough people harrassed and asaulted. Talk about irresponsible journalism...sheesh!

wdawson
May 18th, 2006, 09:44 PM
i sent one also........mine went through........but we all know how they are creative with editing:mad:

babyrocky1
May 18th, 2006, 10:01 PM
I hope you get printed Wdawson, but I also hope you link it here cause Im not buying that rag!

Luvmypit
May 19th, 2006, 10:44 AM
Honetsly I wanted to call the paper and reem them out.

I called my fiancee and said did you see the Sun and he said "ahh I was hoping you didnt see it, you probably already wrote a letter..." lol And I did


The funny thing is what he calls my dog stupid for which arent even a pits traits his dog is famous for. I couldnt believe this pile of doo doo. And to think that not one letter was printed in the papers comment section today and I know they must have gotten responses.

Copper'sMom
May 19th, 2006, 11:36 AM
Stupid only knows stupid!

And can you say PREJUDICE??
Definition - strong feeling for or against something, formed without any real knowledge or reason

Schwinn
May 19th, 2006, 01:15 PM
The one thing to remember about the Sun is that, the editorial stance has been against the BSL, while they do allow thier columnists to write what they wish, even if it contradicts the papers stance. I'm sure they'll get lots of letters, it'll be interesting to see how the editors respond to them.

babyrocky1
May 19th, 2006, 06:30 PM
The one thing to remember about the Sun is that, the editorial stance has been against the BSL, while they do allow thier columnists to write what they wish, even if it contradicts the papers stance. I'm sure they'll get lots of letters, it'll be interesting to see how the editors respond to them.When I read that article I thought it would take more than a really stupid editorial to get me going after having a realtively good day in court, the article was pure crap, sure, but when a journalist actually says, in a climate like the one were in especially, one is tempted to say the owners should be put down" I think thats the quote, thats quite simply dangerous and I would think illegal. how many reports have there been about "pit bull" owners being harrassed and asaulted, and the Sun prints something like that:eek: Two Dogs has just posted an example of harrasment today, we have all been through it for almost two years and the court case has set lose a bunch of wackos all over again. Clayton Ruby ws being harrassed in the courtroom by a woman with obvious problems! I cant imagine any other scenario were a reporter would get away with musing about having people executed! This deserves more than a few letters, thats why there probably not printing what we have to say. There must be a body that oversees this type of thing and I think we should lodge a complaint with whomever it is. Anyone know of an avenue for this?

babyrocky1
May 19th, 2006, 10:06 PM
Honetsly I wanted to call the paper and reem them out.

I called my fiancee and said did you see the Sun and he said "ahh I was hoping you didnt see it, you probably already wrote a letter..." lol And I did


The funny thing is what he calls my dog stupid for which arent even a pits traits his dog is famous for. I couldnt believe this pile of doo doo. And to think that not one letter was printed in the papers comment section today and I know they must have gotten responses.Another site that Im on has sent 92 letters so far and that doesnt include mine or anyones here. Theres lots more sites and lots more people not on internet sites so why havent any letters been printed? (BTW I finally got mine sent)

mummummum
May 19th, 2006, 10:29 PM
I don't read this particular rage-rag but I'm wondering if perhaps it has an Ombudsperson as does the The Star. It would be worthwhile writing a letter of complaint to them given the execution commentary and the harm such irresponsible "journalism" has done and can do. I also hope that all of you who are writing letters make it clear that you are withdrawing your patronage (either cancelling your personal and/or professional subscriptions or refusing to buy at the newsstands) until a letter of retraction and apology is printed by the paper. Money talks.

babyrocky1
May 19th, 2006, 10:58 PM
Great thoughts MUMUMUM, One of my friends just did exactly what you are suggesting, she wrote a letter pulling her advertising from the paper siting the article as the reason and also explaining a few facts about bsl at the same time. Thing is for me and although Schwinn is absolutely correct in pointing out that the paper has printed articles with opinions against bsl, this letter has crossed the line. Its stupididty is predictable but the sheer irresponsibility of suggesting that the owners be euthanized, while Im sure he thought of it as wit, is just too reprehensible for words. Its not something that I like to dwell on , but there are definately people out there that hate us enough to do harm, when they see these things it just adds fuel to the fire in there feeble minds. Alot of people are just looking for reasons to hate someone else, this kind of crap just sets us up further as targets.

mummummum
May 20th, 2006, 03:49 AM
Okay, I've sent off my letter to the editor. I searched the website but couldn't find an Ombud. It may be worthwhile calling the paper though as not all things make it to the website. If you are having difficulty sending your letter via the email address given it is because there is an error in the addy, this is the correct address: editor@tor.sunpub.com
The one on the website has an extra . after com.

I also had another thought - email the advertiser's and let them know you won't be patronizing their services/ establishments. Copy them the column and your letter to the editor and note that you will be happy to resume dealing with them once The Sun issues a retraction and an apology. It may be worthwhile to start a Boycott list if any respond negatively and Another B Word - Best of ? - for those who respond positively or at least empathetically.

Loki
May 20th, 2006, 10:31 AM
I'm not completely sure of the process, but I think you might be able to lodge a complaint here:


http://www.ontpress.com/

wdawson
May 20th, 2006, 11:56 AM
does anyone know if any letters to the editor have been printed ? and does worthington only write on certain days of the week ?

Maxine
May 21st, 2006, 03:15 PM
This article is **** to me, even though I felt like crap too about that "owners put down" or something like that. :mad: I'm so glad to live in Quebec right now, even if the closest neighborhood to mine banned pitbulls from their streets.... I really feel sorry for you guys in Ontario that have to fight against that stupid law. :sad: I don't know what else to say, it touches me and in those times, I lose my english. :sorry:

Maxine

LL1
May 21st, 2006, 04:10 PM
Peter has always been in Tim Trow of the THS's corner,makes me think there is trouble in paradise given Tim's beliefs.

wdawson
May 22nd, 2006, 10:08 AM
Well they printed one small letter to the editor in todays paper,from Gwen Preece.

I work at the toronto humane society.i disagree pit bulls are mentally challenged. they're highly intelligent and can be extremely dangerous.the problem is dominance. they see what they want and go for it-other animals or a childs face. even raised lovingly they still pose a threat. i have met many innocent pitbulls due to this epidemic of neglectful or overwhelmed owners that do not do research before making the commitment.



the sun replies

bottom line is,they can be dangerous

wdawson
May 22nd, 2006, 12:24 PM
just found the link

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2006/05/21/1591558.html

Stacer
May 22nd, 2006, 12:54 PM
I don't own a pitbull, and I haven't been following the court case very closely, but if I was reading that article as my first introduction to the BSL fiasco, I would be inclined to side with the anti pitbull side of it, as unintelligent as it was. That article definitely did an injustice to the cause. And I would take anything that the Sun prints with a grain of salt, they're a rag, second rate journalism.

JessXx
May 22nd, 2006, 01:09 PM
I can't believe how ignorant PEOPLE ARE !:mad: