Is it April 1st?

Well *I* wouldn't no. But there are areas of Africa where the infection and
transmission rates for circumsised and non-cirumcised tribes have been
studied, and there is a significantly lower infection rate among circumsised
men.

 

Err - boxers were never fighting dogs. The breed is too modern for
that. And Rotties were never used for fighting either as far as I know.

Neither were Rotties (herding & guard dogs) or Boxers (guard & police
dogs).

Phil

 

They're misused sheepdogs for a guess.

 

The message <>
from Champ <> contains these words:

/snip/

Oh, sorry!

That assumes all males are fastidious enough.

I think a lot of circumcision is performed because of the mother's
reluctance to clean up after their menfolk's spraying straying.

 

The message <>

It's done to infants often because the foreskin is too long - allegedly.

 

Very true. The common thread here is that docked breeds are almost
always highly active and energetic working breeds, not dogs bred for
fighting. Cocker Spaniels are a great example of a smaller dog that
also fits the bill.

It's a bit of a vicious circle though, breeds that were docked weren't
necessarily bred with strong tails. People messing with the gene pool
where mother nature does a better job, one might suggest.

 

Too long for what? I've heard of it being done, usually to adults, if
the skin is too tight, but too long?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

You mean they don't fight Cocker Spaniels? And such a vicious breed
too!

Indeed.

When we got our second dog (rottie/dobermann cross) we specifically
went somewhere where they advertised the dogs as 'having tails'! Her
tail is not particularly thick but I suspect someone trying to grab it
would not enjoy the experience.

Phil

 

<Waves> - in the 'too tight' category.

All my brothers were done at birth but I wasn't - something to do with
being 6 week premature and spending a couple of months in an incubator.

Phil

 

Population has been defined as an ecological disaster

 

Pass. But that's just what i was told - by a medic.

 

That's rich, coming from someone with a handle like "Krusty"...

 

A septic, or Jewish, medic, perchance?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

My mother.

 

A woman? Oh right, so she'll have known all about it then.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

Bear said...

He's got big ears, but they ain't *that* fucking big

 

Bear said...

Do **** off, there's a good chap.

 

Bear said...

If you call that work, then you're a right lazy ****. Try a bit harder
next time, make a proper effort eh?

 

Bear said...

Complacency. You think you got a result, but so obviously didn't do your
homework, hence the "Bear-like" reply earlier.

 

Thing is, it's hard to prosecute someone for Doing Something
Contrary To Common Sense.

It's a lot easier to stand up a prosecution if there's a breach
of a law that defines certain actions as Things You Must Do, or
certain other actions as Things You Shouldn't Do.

If there's no such law, the prosecution has to argue "Well it's
perfectly bleedin' obvious innit", which gives scope for the
defence to argue "Not it's not" in an attempt to create
'reasonable doubt' [1].

Example here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/4666062.stm
where a prosecution under the hypothetical Leaving Toddlers
Unsupervised With A Box Of Matches Act (2007) would be
straightforward.



[1] "The consequences, tragic as they were, Your Honour, were
not foreseeable at the time by these defendants."

--
<8P Wizard
Suzuki GS550 "I like that. Nicely shite" - TOG
BMW 520i (RIP- Ebay item 4601147727)
Toyota Nondescript 1.3 Mobility Appliance (on loan)
ANORAK#17b BOMB#19 BOTAFOT#138 BREast#5 COFF#24
COSOC#8 DFV#11 STG#1
Remove location from email address to reply