November 19th, 2004, 11:46 AM
You're going to love this...
November 20th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Im so glad you found this article because I completly believed that this ws exactly going on and its nice to see my views are validated! Im sure this means that they were participating fully in the media polls etc.
November 20th, 2004, 11:47 PM
& Joe T. of the Tories asks us to do another, schlepp it around, & get actual signatures, (in ink!) type poll. Bryant should Also have to do an actual signature type poll, too. (Then at least we will know if it's valid. And yes, with Bryant I Do believe we may want to be able to check :evil: Everything!! :evil: )
November 21st, 2004, 02:04 PM
Overwhelming support for putting responsibility on owner, in Toronto.
November 21st, 2004, 02:38 PM
That National Post poll sucked, though, in that it lumped "ban dangerous dogs and pit bulls" together in one response -- that taints the results because you don't know who is equating pit bulls as dangerous dogs, who is simply wanting the ban of dangerous dogs and what do they mean by that (dangerous dogs = ones who have attacked or threatened? ones who have failed a temperament test and assessment after an incident? dogs who have attacked repeatedly? breed-specific list?).
Sorry, just speaking as a social scientist, I'd be laughed at by my colleagues for putting forward such a lame questionnaire.
November 21st, 2004, 05:51 PM
Yeah, I know it sucked, but I have a feeling that this is the kinda stuff that they use to justify a ban.
On a good note, around October they claimed 80% in favour.
Even with the lame questions, opposition to the ban seems to be really growing in the past few months( now that some truths were revealed).
Here is another link to City tv's coverage of the posted story..