# Is Woods fighting Pits?



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

I missed the bulk of the report but it looks like Q is being suspected of animal abuse and abandonment. Several witnesses saw him drop off his Pit Bull near MLK. The dog had obvious signs of injuries caused by fighting and hot tar on the wounds (a sign it was illegal pit fighting). One of the witnesses said she heard him say, "it wouldn't fight for me anymore. He was surprised at a photo shoot and tried to say he gave it to some guy, but the witnesses said he just abandoned it.

If this is true I hope he gets his butt nailed for this.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I think this is another attempt by the local media to bend the truth in order to get a story and make the Blazers look bad, but thats just my opinion. Woods said that he gave the dog back to the person who gave it to him because it wouldnt mate with his current dog. If he gave it back to the person who gave it to him, how is that abandonment?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I noticed that KATU removed the story from their website. Which could mean they now know the story isnt true. Since it was one of their exclusive storys, there must be a good reason why they'd remove it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I noticed that the "quote" from the person about dog fighting was very unclear in who said it. I thought they said that the guy who Woods gave the dock to (or back to) said it, not Woods.

I think this'll just turn out to be a mountain made out of a mole hill.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

wow portland media overreacts over everything


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Since when does a dog not breeding cause those kinds of horrendous scars?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Since when does a dog not breeding cause those kinds of horrendous scars?


What if it's just a fabrication?


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

I *saw * the scars.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

I think all blazers just need to stay home and only go to games period, because everytime they step outside someone is trying to nail them for something.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> I *saw * the scars.


were you the witness?


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

are you an ostrich? As long as he can play lets ignore all else?

Do you also cheer for Kobe?

And where have I said it's true? I'm saying *if* it is he should be nailed for it. I hope they look into it and get to the truth. But I'm sure not willing to bury it just because he plays a freaking game for a living.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

You know honestly I saw the footage and yes there were punture marks, but IMO nothing that would necessarily indicate a Dog fight type of scarring. Also when breeding dogs often there is a "submissive" type of behavior invloved, especially with more agressive types of dogs.

The scarring could have just been from the fact that she didn't submit to his male for breeding purposes. 

Of course he could be attempting to breed them for the sake of fighting too.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> are you an ostrich? As long as he can play lets ignore all else?
> 
> Do you also cheer for Kobe?
> ...


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> are you an ostrich? As long as he can play lets ignore all else?
> 
> Do you also cheer for Kobe?
> ...


DO you like to overreact?

Well since Qyntel cant play that has nothing to do with it, its called over reactive fans that like to nit pick about the the first thing that they can bust the blazers for.

How bout instead of being a cop just enjoy life


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

ah, so this is now personal?


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> ah, so this is now personal?


no, you called me out saying Do I like to cheer for kobe when this has nothing to do with the type of case esepically comparing a TRIED CASE in court(RAPE) compared to a "Witness" who says they saw him abandon a dog that may have been fighting.

That is absurd. You are trying to call me out because I dont agree with you jumping all over qyntel over a story that has been removed, which probably means its not true, or needs alot more investigation. 

Sorry we will agree to disagree.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Alleged puncture wounds, tar, and illegal fighting aside, Oregon has laws against animal abandonment.

When did Qyntel reportedly try to dump this dog on MLK?

PBF


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



tell me about it ,


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

The fact that KATU removed the story from their website should tell you enough about the situation. If they found out that their story wasnt true, they should step up and apoligize. 

And he didnt "dump" the dog, he gave it back to the person he got it from.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> If they found out that their story wasnt true, they should step up and apoligize.




but they wont the media hates the blazers . I remember last summer when Rasheed got stopped by police for driving with a suspended licence . The media made it seemed like he did a crime or something


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Do they know for a fact that the scars weren't there before Qyntel took the dog?

Better question: do they know anything for a fact?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> but they wont the media hates the blazers . I remember last summer when Rasheed got stopped by police for driving with a suspended licence . The media made it seemed like he did a crime or something


Driving with a suspended license *is* a crime. He did a crime.

I'm finding no mention of this Quintel story anywhere online. Anyone got a link?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

The story is back up on KATU.com. They changed some of the details from the story poster earlier.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Whoa, a witness says that Quintel said he was getting rid of the dog because "it wouldn't fight for me." 

I doubt anyone will prove that Woods fights dogs, but if they do it's a felony.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> are you an ostrich? As long as he can play lets ignore all else?
> 
> Do you also cheer for Kobe?
> ...


You just said you SAW the scars. Was there a picture of the dog that went along with the news story?? How did you see the scars.


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> I think this is another attempt by the local media to bend the truth in order to get a story and make the Blazers look bad, but thats just my opinion. Woods said that he gave the dog back to the person who gave it to him because it wouldnt mate with his current dog. If he gave it back to the person who gave it to him, how is that abandonment?


Out of all the things to defend....:jawdrop: So you take Qyntels word for it huh?:laugh: 

I wish I wouldnt have clicked on this thread. I hope there is an investigation, because I really dont care if he gave the dog back or not...Fighting any animal is wrong, and if he's involved with it I hope he goes to jail...I dont usually side with your local media because they worry about petty stuff like weed and Ruben dumping his trash at a local school...But animal abuse is far more serious then either of those offenses....:upset:


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Agreed if he did do it then fine send him to jail, release him from the blazers done..but as far as this goes it looks like the news is just scratching for something to report about.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I agree with ya Blazerfan024.

Backboard Cam - the women said that the person who Woods gave the dog too told her that. So KATU didnt get that straight from the source, and the truth is most often twisted the more times the story is told.

Who's to say that the person Woods gave the dog to didnt try to make the dog fight? Or the wounds didnt come from when Woods's male dog tried to breed with it.

I dont know much about Pit Bulls and their fighting, so I am curious to know if its normal for female dogs to fight? It seems to me like the male dogs would be the ones people would try to have fight. Anyone?


----------



## lie2me2 (Jul 27, 2004)

*KATU story about Qyntel is back.*

If this is true the guy needs to be booted off the Blazers now!

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71586


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Try checking the thread that's already been started about this topic before you open a new one.

DELETE


----------



## lie2me2 (Jul 27, 2004)

_Try checking the thread that's already been started about this topic before you open a new one._ 

I did - the other thread was speculation - this one had the link to the actual news story. sorry if it bothers you. Delete it if you want.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Why not just post the link on the original thread then?


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Cimalee, I agree the Portland media blows some stuff out of proportion. But, what Qyntel did was wrong. Fighting pits or any animals for money or enjoyment is just wrong! 

That being said, Portland just needs to get rid of Woods. We don't need anymore of this nonsense. With Sergie Monia coming over next year, Khrapa possibly returning this year, we dont' need Woods at all. WAIVE HIM!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> Cimalee, I agree the Portland media blows some stuff out of proportion. But, what Qyntel did was wrong. Fighting pits or any animals for money or enjoyment is just wrong!


Do you know all the facts? If not, why are you assuming he's guilty of this?


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

He may not be guilty but given his track record of making stupid decisions and the circumstance in the story, there's a good chance that there's some truth to it.

Admittedly, there are other explanations for instance, perhaps the reason the dogs didn't breed was because they instead preferred to fight.

However, that doesn't explain the tar (obviously Q could afford to take the dog to a vet) or just giving the dog away as he claims or abandonment which is more likely.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Woods is a complete MORON! The guy needs to be WAIVED immediately!


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> If this is true the guy needs to be booted off the Blazers now!


Ditto....this is sickening.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Looking at Qwoods track record, no one on this board should take his word for anything. I'll agree the media jumps quickly on the Blazers, but if he abandoned the dog or is involved with dog fighting, I've lost the little respect I had left for him. Dog fighting is a horrible thing and only complete criminals would involve themselves in this so called sport. If they prove he was involved in this activity, they should waive him or not pick up his option at the end of the year. I hate stories about animal abuse.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Also, fighting Pitbulls in Oregon is a felony!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

What a bunch of over reactionary lemmings. Many of you sound as bad as our "Blazer Bashing" media (seems to be all they live for). Where is the PROOF that Qyntel was fighting pit bulls? Huh? Just what one questionable source (not even a witness) had to say about it? 

Can you say overblown? If he did it, he should be punished accordingly, but unless it has been PROVEN to be a FACT, many of you are overeacting, BIG TIME, just like those IDIOTS on the FAN.

When did this become the country of GUILTY until proven innocent? Man I am sick of this media driven overeactionary crap.

Ridiculous.....


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> Why not just post the link on the original thread then?


Why make such a big deal about it? Three words...Let. It. Go.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> What a bunch of over reactionary lemmings. Many of you sound as bad as our "Blazer Bashing" media (seems to be all they live for). Where is the PROOF that Qyntel was fighting pit bulls? Huh? Just what one questionable source (not even a witness) had to say about it?
> 
> Can you say overblown? If he did it, he should be punished accordingly, but unless it has been PROVEN to be a FACT, many of you are overeacting, BIG TIME, just like those IDIOTS on the FAN.
> ...




youre so right on wheres the prove that qyntel did it .

Stop assuming blazer fans


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He only admitted it was his dog. 



> The female pit bull was found with fresh puncture wounds, scars, bruising and even worms. She was also covered with hot tar, a cheap antiseptic used by people who fight pit bulls.


^ explain this to me Cimalee. Did the dog fall out of a car? Did a cat attack it? It's obvious.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> I agree with ya Blazerfan024.
> 
> Backboard Cam - the women said that the person who Woods gave the dog too told her that. So KATU didnt get that straight from the source, and the truth is most often twisted the more times the story is told.
> ...



How in the heck can you get wounds from " breeding" LOL. This is not exactly the kobe case!


----------



## Blaze_Rocks (Aug 11, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!When did this become the country of GUILTY until proven innocent? Man I am sick of this media driven overeactionary crap.
> 
> Ridiculous.....


I would usually agree with you here but.....Dog fighting is something I really have a problem with. If he has any connection to it, he should be banned from the NBA.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Over Reacting.

BFreak.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I think that John Nash, Steve Patterson, Maurice Cheeks, Ruben Patterson, Qyntel Woods, and Shareef should all go on Jerry Springer.










What can't Jerry resolve. Atleast we wouldn't keep hearing all this *****ing.

BFreak.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Yes,and he picked the finest part of town to abandon the dog...:upset: :upset:


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

He didn't abandon it. He gave it to a man in the Alley, I'm pretty damn sure thats not abandoning it. Ever think that the guy in the Alley was fighting the Pit-Bull for money?

BFreak.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

As my shrink says, What can you do about it? Why get worked over something that you have no control over?

Who cares if he fought his dog, I don't. You guys have no control over this mans life and what he does. The blazers aren't gonna resign this fool anyway, so why make a big deal out of it. He will expire this year with the rest of them, and continue to warm the bench just like last year.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

There's some new info about all this on KATU's website.

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71605


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> What a bunch of over reactionary lemmings.


Who's the lemming? You're so intent in following athletes that you're willing to over-look something that is just plain sick. You'll even go so far as to call a bunch of people you don't even know names because they have offended your "out of sight out of mind" philosophy. Blindly following...that is a characteristic of a lemming. Does the shoe fit?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> However, when KATU News checked records with Clackamas County, the Pit Bull listed as belonging to Woods shows the dog is gold, not white.
> 
> KATU News had asked Woods how long he owned the Pit Bull and he had said a couple of days.
> 
> However, records show the dog has been living at Woods' Lake Oswego home since at least March 17, 2004, which is when a neighbor complained that Woods' dogs were being mistreated, a claim that Animal Control later ruled unfounded.



I'm glad that Animal Control found a claim of animal mistreatment not true, but Q tells the truth about as often as my 6 yr old when she knows she's in trouble. He gets to the point where you can't believe one word he says..


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

For the guys on the fence, does the fact that he's lying about the color of his dog and his ownership of it affect you at all? 

Dude can't even keep track of the color of his dogs.. am I the only one that thinks that he's either a ****ing retard or a half-assed liar. 

How about the dog having tar on it's wounds? How can you rationalize your way out of that?

"Oh yeah, my dog got in a little scrum with another dog and has some wounds, I guess I'll get some of that tar I happen to have laying around and put some on it. I don't trust vets.."

BS.

And giving the dog to a guy in an ALLEY?

AND an eywitness?

I know you Blazer fans have had a hard time with the media scrutinizing your players' every flaw, but when you try to ignore this sort of thing it just comes off as ugly.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Mongonlian - I agree that things arent looking good for Qyntel, but how do we know that the dog didnt have tar on her wounds BEFORE Woods obtained her? There is no eyewitness, the girl they interview was told everything she knows by the guy who Woods gave the dog too.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Mongonlian - I agree that things arent looking good for Qyntel, but how do we know that the dog didnt have tar on her wounds BEFORE Woods obtained her?


"However, records show the dog has been living at Woods' Lake Oswego home since at least March 17, 2004, which is when a neighbor complained that Woods' dogs were being mistreated, a claim that Animal Control later ruled unfounded."

I dunno, so do you think the dog has had tar on it for half a year? That seems kind of weird but I confess to not knowing anything about "tarring" dogs so who knows.




> There is no eyewitness, the girl they interview was told everything she knows by the guy who Woods gave the dog too.


"I know this guy and I took my dog over there," he said. "And he saw my dog and he wanted it. So I gave it to him."* 

However, that is not what a customer who saw Woods drop off the dog told an employee at a nearby store. 

"He just left it because he couldn't take care of it and it wouldn't fight for him," the employee, Shannon Dortch, told KATU News. 


The quote is kind of ambiguous, but it doesn't mention anything about the witness talking to the supposed guy receiving the dog. . is there another article that I can check out?


*When Qyntel says "there" in that quote, is he talking about the alley? Like he knows this guy in an alley who likes dogs or something?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

No offense but who gives a crap, it is a freaking dog. Before you card toting PETA wannabees try to jump me for that remember what







and







are made of, unless you think cows are donating leather for the good of the NBA.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Follow the quote: Shannon Dortch heard from somebody who came in the store and claims they _saw_ Woods drop the dog off. This girl knows nothing but what some anonymous, never to be known, random customer supposedly told her.

Also, explain to me how you know Qyntel is referring to an alley when he says 'there'? NM. You spoke with Qyntel.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> Also, explain to me how you know Qyntel is referring to an alley when he says 'there'? NM. You spoke with Qyntel.


No, I read this:

"Woods says he gave the dog to a man in an alley off of Northeast Killingsworth and Martin Luther King Boulevard Saturday afternoon. "

From here: http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71586


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> No offense but who gives a crap, it is a freaking dog. Before you card toting PETA wannabees try to jump me for that remember what
> 
> 
> ...


And to be fair, I think most people would have a similar response to Q fighting cows and abandoning one on MLK.


OK, that's kind of funny.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

What troubles me the most about this is the inconsistencies between Qyntel's story and the county animal registration records. He said he only had "Hollywood" for a couple days, but the records say he's had her since March. He said that the dog he dropped off in that alley was white, but the records say "Hollywood" is golden.

Also, doesn't Qyntel have another pitbull? The one he said he was trying to mate with "Hollywood"? And if he does have another pitbull, shouldn't the people investigating this case (if anyone really is) take a look at his other pitbull for signs of fighting?

PBF


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

For those who say what's the big deal, it's just a dog:
1. If the charges are true, it's also a crime.
2. As PBF said, the inconsistencies are pretty odd. Most of us would know the color of an animal we've lived with for 6 months.
3. He gave the dog to someone in an alley? Was this someone he knew or did he just hand over a dog -- a pit bull mind, an aggressive dog -- to someone who just happened by?
4. Can this "just a dog" bull. Animals depend on their humans to care for and provide for them. They are not toys or possessions. They feel pain and fear. Anyone who is not willing to take on the reponsibility an animal involves should not have one. That is exactly what happened to my two cats, which may explain why I feel strongly. They were found at age 6 months, thrown down a dry well in Northeast Portland, malnourished and riddled with parasites. Apparently someone thought kittens were cute (they are) but then discovered them to be a responsibility and tossed them aside like a gum wrapper. Fortunately my friend found them and brought them to me "temporarily". In 1986. One of them used up her 9th life on March 1 but her sister is 18 1/2 (90 in people years) and still going strong. The idea of just handing her off to someone I don't know is as unthinkable as handing over a dependent child to a stranger because he/she is a nuisance.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Follow the quote: Shannon Dortch heard from somebody who came in the store and claims they saw Woods drop the dog off. This girl knows nothing but what some anonymous, never to be known, random customer supposedly told her.


Thank you....Someone else with a shred of OBJECTIVITY and intelligence. I think KATU and fans blasting Q need to have more information than what has been shown so far.

Let me see, how does this go?

"I heard from this person, who heard from this person that Qyntel said the dog wouldn't fight for him anymore...." Uh-huh, sure you did...right. Sounds perfectly believable to me. 



> Who's the lemming? You're so intent in following athletes that you're willing to over-look something that is just plain sick. You'll even go so far as to call a bunch of people you don't even know names because they have offended your "out of sight out of mind" philosophy. Blindly following...that is a characteristic of a lemming. *Does the shoe fit?*


If its your foot it does.......

I think I need just a little more EVIDENCE to go on, before I overeact...err...prosecute Qyntel and demand that POR mgmt get rid of him. You know, something more than a 2nd/3rd hand report, and an overzealous reporter. Something like...um...an official charge? Is that too much to ask? Or for him to be found GUILTY of said charge? Is that too much for a "lemming" to ask for?

I could give a frog's fat a$$ about Qyntel Woods, whether he is here or not. But what I DO NOT like is our Blazer bashing media & SOME overly hypocritical fans taking pot shots at players without the subsequent PROOF requisite of such scorn. What I have read and seen to date hardly qualifies as "Strong Evidence" that Qyntel was doing anything wrong. So yeah, you are a lemming if you blindly take ONE news report, and a rather dubious one at that, as reality, I'd call that being a lemming. Since when has the Portland media proven to be unbiased toweards the Trail Blazers?

I am still waiting to see\hear it...........


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

You probably need 2 different weather reports saying it's raining before you'll believe it's wet outside too. Careful....don't rearend that lemming in front of you.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> You probably need 2 different weather reports saying it's raining before you'll believe it's wet outside too. Careful....don't rearend that lemming in front of you.



Well said.

And all them fools who keep mumbling about "innocent until proven guilty" are just limp-wristed commies! 


Dude, switch to decafe or something. :whatever:


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I understand if its true dog fighting is not right , But the blazers media and fans jump the gun about everything .

Remember the Zach situation with his brother , everybody was ready to trade him  and he didnt do anything


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> And all them fools who keep mumbling about "innocent until proven guilty" are just limp-wristed commies!
> 
> 
> Dude, switch to decafe or something. :whatever:


Ever been to court? It doesn't sound sound like it. Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal, but it rarely works that way. And we aren't talking about me being on a jury. This is a message board and opinions make it go around....differing opinions.

Dude, get out more


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Dudes, smile and hug more.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*More.....*

http://www.katu.com/team2/story.asp?ID=71639


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

In my opinion the evidence is overwhelmingly against Woods in this case. I believe he has engaged in pit-bull fighting. Whether he gets convicted of it or not is another story. Still, I am willing to give him a chance if he promises not to do it any longer. Clearly, his values are different than mine and he probably doesn't think there is anything wrong with it.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> "There is untapped talent with Qyntel. And whether he can tap into it remains to be seen." ~ John Nash on Qyntel Woods


Qyntel better hope there's some untapped common sense in that head of his. If he doesn't tap into it soon, his NBA career will be over.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> You probably need 2 different weather reports saying it's raining before you'll believe it's wet outside too.


And we all know how accurate those "pinpoint" weather forecasts are....."  

I need more information than what has been presented, before I jump all over POR mgmt and Qyntel. Glad to see how objective you can be. :no:


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Fighting animals is DISGUSTING and saying it's "Just a Dog" is also disgusting! It's a living, breathing, FEELING animal, like you are....only it's dependent on humans to care for it. If these accusations are true, which I'd bet my bank account on at this point he should go to jail. I have 2 dogs and 2 cats and I love them like my kids. I can't imagine being that cruel. 
By the way one of the Major signs of a possible serial killer is "animal abuse and torture"....not saying that Q is a serial killer or anything mind you, I'm just trying to point out how serious a charge this is. Some of you obvioulsy are not compassionate towards animals which is disturbing because if you think it's ok to treat animals like this, how do you treat people?


----------



## rattler-n-rollin (Jun 21, 2004)

*q is a criminal and should be cutt*

he is the cationary tale, from the drugs {weed} to possibly pitbull fighting he is a punk. simple as that " the best uniform he`ll look good in is a orange jumpsuit.

the only double team pick he`ll fight thru is his cell mates crack.
Quintell is JR riders love child.CUT HIS ARSE:upset:


----------



## rattler-n-rollin (Jun 21, 2004)

*the story is hot*

by the way KOIN and KGW did a short quip on their stations about the pit fighting woods,
whether they like it or not we still have a few punks around. 
and Q has not shown he is a BB player, but instead shown his ignoance, and self loathing propensity. to "DO the WRONG thing"

It must be the MAN thats keeping him down right? or is poor choices and ignorance? i feel the latter. 

woods is good as gone from the NBA, but not the PBFA{pit bull fighting assoc}were his allstar caliber play "Mames another dog in the name of stupidity". some people are meant to be dropped from the gene pool Q is one. anyone defending his actions is another.:sigh: :devil:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> Some of you obvioulsy are not compassionate towards animals which is disturbing because if you think it's ok to treat animals like this, how do you treat people?


I'm not sure your statement here makes any sense.

While it is true that animals are living, breathing, and feeling. Even if you can't see any differences between dogs and humans, that doesn't mean that most people cannot.

I love my dog, but I leave him cooped up in the house almost every day when I'm at work. He gets two walks a day, occasional treats and he even gets to sleep on the couch. 

If I had a child and treated him/her like I do my dog, I'd lose custody of the child.

This isn't to say that fighting dogs is right, but making a blanket "dogs and humans are the same"-type of comment is a bit silly.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I wish we had the LeBron James spinster media in our town.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Worst case scenario - Woods is a dog-fighting evil thug troll.

Best case scenario - Woods is a complete and total idiot.


Get rid of woods. He is not good enough now, and never will be because he is borderline retarded.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I will wait patiently for the outcome of the details of this alleged crime by Woods before searing into my mind......HOWEVER

I am glad I wrote Woods off earlier this summer. I surely hope that someone beats him out for a roster spot and he can crawl back into the Spider Hole he came out from.

The team, NBA, Community, City and State will be better off without any news of this type from Woods. It reminds me of Tanya Harding, Mike Tyson, and other lost souls.


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> ...making a blanket "dogs and humans are the same"-type of comment is a bit silly.
> 
> Ed O.


I don't think that that's what whiterhino was trying to say at all. I think he was trying to say that treating any living creature with cruelty (not mere neglect or indifference, certainly not leaving them home alone all day which is not a big deal) indicates that a person might not have the most compassion for ANY living creature (even the human variety) I think that's a very valid point. 

Like whiterhino said, one of the warning signs that a person may be a serial killer is that they will torture animals.

Lack of empathy is a warning sign that emotionally, not all is well.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I wonder if KATU will have a helicopter fly over this house and give it all the attention they've given to Q.Woods. We all know the answer to that question.



County seizes 67 dogs and cats from private residence

Multnomah County Animal Services seized 67 dogs and cats yesterday, after an investigation determined their owner failed to provide adequate care or facilities. The animals will remain at the shelter under the care of MCAS veterinarians pending the outcome of an administrative hearing.

The dogs and cats were removed from a private residence at 11730 SE Salmon in Portland. Animal Services Officers had worked with the owner, Ms. Vicki Lovvorn, since April 2004, to try and improve conditions at the home.

Following a cruelty complaint in April, officers again visited the home in May to conduct a facility inspection. Ms. Lovvorn refused to allow the officers in. Officers returned the next day and were admitted. Several Notices of Infraction were issued for failure to provide proper care and facilities. In August, officers again inspected the facility and determined that Ms. Lovvorn had not met facility requirements.

Last month, Animal Services Officers conducted another inspection. Joining the inspection team was a Multnomah County Animal Services Veterinarian and Ms. Lovvorn’s veterinarian. The facility again failed to meet standards of care. In addition, the veterinarians found that the majority of cats exhibited signs of contagious disease and parasite infestation (ear mites, fleas, GI parasites, ringworm), and one dog had a corneal ulceration. There were obvious signs of poor sanitation practices, including excess odor, poor ventilation, and no disease control or prevention.

On October 5, officers advised Ms. Lovvorn of their scheduled return the next day to inspect. On October 6, officers returned with a veterinarian to ensure that the animals were receiving the required treatment recommended by her veterinarian. The Multnomah County Animal Services veterinarian found that Ms. Lovvorn had failed to meet her veterinarian’s treatment requirements, sanitation conditions had not improved, and additional animals had been introduced to the facility.

On October 7, Animal Services officers returned with Multnomah County Sheriff detectives to serve an Order of Impoundment. Ms. Lovvorn complied with the order and assisted officers in removing 24 dogs and 43 cats. All 67 animals were impounded and transported to the Multnomah County Animal Services Shelter for veterinary care and treatment.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*More*

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71663


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

He has a 1/2 dozen Pitbulls, and is obviously not attached to them. You would think it could be as simple as showing some evidence that he is breeding. Does he advertise to breed? Does he sell puppies? Should be records if he does. If there aren't it sure isn't tough to conclude he probably fights them.


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> I wonder if KATU will have a helicopter fly over this house and give it all the attention they've given to Q.Woods. We all know the answer to that question.


Actually, the local news is so soft, a story like this ALWAYS gets big press. I'd be surprised NOT to see this one on the evening news as well. 

Come on man, any famous person who does something stupid and/or possibly criminal is going to get more attention from the press. If it were Vera Katz raising pitbulls to fight, of course the news would follow it more than if it's Joe Average. Why is that surprising to you? What does it matter? If he's fighting pitbulls, that's a FELONY. I think that is huge news. 

But, he is innocent unless proven guilty.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>go_robot</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think that that's what whiterhino was trying to say at all. I think he was trying to say that treating any living creature with cruelty (not mere neglect or indifference, certainly not leaving them home alone all day which is not a big deal) indicates that a person might not have the most compassion for ANY living creature (even the human variety) I think that's a very valid point.
> ...


Thank you Robot, that was Exactly what I meant : )


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't think this would ever be in the news anywhere else except Portland, and if it was... it would only be when someone was actually convicted of something.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>go_robot</b>!
> 
> I don't think that that's what whiterhino was trying to say at all. I think he was trying to say that treating any living creature with cruelty (not mere neglect or indifference, certainly not leaving them home alone all day which is not a big deal) indicates that a person might not have the most compassion for ANY living creature (even the human variety) I think that's a very valid point.


My wife tore up her rose bushes last year... what does that mean? I killed a spider last night. Am I to be condemned?

What about killing a rat? Or a pet rat? Or a wounded bird?

Blanket statements like you've attributed to whiterhino (and which whiterhino has accepted as consistent with the original comment) are a bit silly, IMO.



> Like whiterhino said, one of the warning signs that a person may be a serial killer is that they will torture animals.


You're getting causality and correlation mixed up, in my opinion.

Many serial killers are (or were) very intelligent... does that mean that intelligence is a warning sign that a person may be a serial killer? I don't think so.

In any event, equating fighting dogs with torturing them seems to be not a small stretch.

Some animals have been bred for racing, and some have been bred for herding. And some have been bred for fighting.

Does that mean they SHOULD be fought? Of course not. But it does mean that it's likely that the dog who's been bred to fight doesn't find fighting a torture any more than a dog who's been bred to race other dogs does racing.

There are obvious downsides for fighting dogs--both winners and losers--and I'm not arguing that it's acceptable behavior or that it's "good" for the dog. But it is, IMO, markedly different than lighting a cat's tail on fire or eviscerating a live squirrel.



> Lack of empathy is a warning sign that emotionally, not all is well.


People have a strong tendency towards anthropomorphism and because of this tendency I think that accurately measuring empathy towards people based on how they treat animals is often impossible.

And when people start using "emotional wellness" based on a perception of lack of empathy as a measuring stick for people they don't even know I find it a bit unnerving.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed I don't quite get what you are saying.

BTW an 8 year old boy was killed by 2 pit bulls today in florida. I don't think encouraging a fighting behavior is a good thing in these animals. 

There is something quite twisted with gambling on the ability of one creatures ability to kill the other.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Ed I don't quite get what you are saying.


What part are you confused about?



> BTW an 8 year old boy was killed by 2 pit bulls today in florida. I don't think encouraging a fighting behavior is a good thing in these animals.


71 people were killed in highway accidents in the first 7 months of 2004 in Volusia County, Florida. I don't think that reckless driving is a good thing.

I think we're all in agreement on both of our points.

Where we might disagree is the level of culpability or moral reprehensibility that someone who does fight dogs should be attributed.



> There is something quite twisted with gambling on the ability of one creatures ability to kill the other.


It's an age-old pastime. I don't know that it's particularly twisted--there's something innate in us that makes gambling exciting and there's a definite streak of bloodlust in us all.

Some people think it's twisted to watch two strangers have sex. Others think that it's twisted to eat pork, or take medicine.

Fighting dogs is illegal, and that's enough for me to comdemn it. 

Ed O.


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> In any event, equating fighting dogs with torturing them seems to be not a small stretch.
> 
> Some animals have been bred for racing, and some have been bred for herding. And some have been bred for fighting.
> ...


I volunteer at the Oregon Humane society. I've seen the aftermath of probably 30 dogfights. Wounded dogs rarely receive anything more than minimal care after a fight. Wounds are often left to fester. Broken bones routinely go untreated. Dogs are left to bleed and die in dumpsters and alleyways. And Pitbulls are DAMN strong. They can live for days with busted legs, ripped throats, torn ears, etc...

You can make theoretical arguments about whether cutting a rosebush is the same as leaving a hurt dog to die a long and painful death all you want. 

The treatment these dogs receive IS torture.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Let me quickly summarize what I read from Ed O....The guy is a moran, ship his butt out ASAP. Did I get it right, Ed?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>go_robot</b>!
> 
> You can make theoretical arguments about whether cutting a rosebush is the same as leaving a hurt dog to die a long and painful death all you want.


The statement that you made linked cruelty to any living creature with a lack of mental wellness.

A rose is alive. So is a spider, and a rat, and a dog, and a human.

If you want to argue that cruelty to dogs makes someone a bad person: fine. If you want to claim that "treating any living creature with cruelty (not mere neglect or indifference, certainly not leaving them home alone all day which is not a big deal) indicates that a person might not have the most compassion for ANY living creature (even the human variety)", it seems to me like you have to either include roses and spiders and rats or somehow explain why they should not be.

Ed O.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> The statement that you made linked cruelty to any living creature with a lack of mental wellness.
> ...


Don't be offended, Ed. But why does everything have to be black & white with you? We don't live in a world of black & white. Every topic has a grey area.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> In any event, equating fighting dogs with torturing them seems to be not a small stretch.
> 
> ...



 Please, just read this part by itself. I have to be missing something. If I'm not you're comparing racing to a life and death struggle.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> A rose is alive. So is a spider, and a rat, and a dog, and a human.


are you seriously comparing roses and dogs?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Apparently Ed, you are talking to a bunch of PETA members. Who knew? 

Once again, IF proven true Qyntel should be punished accordingly. Fighting dogs is against the law, and inhumane to many. But in the world we live in today, there are far more terrible things happening to our fellow men, women and children, that people should be in an uproar about.

This case will play out, it is under investigation, why don't many of you save your condemnation of Qyntel until he is charged and found guilty?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> 
> are you seriously comparing roses and dogs?


Absolutely. They're both living, which is what the assertion I'm challenging involves.

Roses and dogs are arguably more similar than dogs and humans.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> Please, just read this part by itself. I have to be missing something. If I'm not you're comparing racing to a life and death struggle.


Why shouldn't I compare them?

Pit bulls have been bred to fight.

That means that the strongest, most dog-aggressive males have been bred with the strongest, most dog-aggressive females (or perhaps there's a slight variation of that... I'm no dog breeder, but the bottom line is that the goal was the toughest fighting dog.)

They are born to fight. Whether it's a compulsion or an actual feeling of excitement and joy when they do is something I don't know and I am not sure we'll ever know. 

As I've said repeatedly, I'm against fighting dogs. Period. But arguing that some dogs don't enjoy fighting and that some dogs aren't genetically predisposed to doing so seems out of touch with reality.

Ed O.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> Roses and dogs are arguably more similar than dogs and humans.


Not a PETA member, but statements like this are laughable.....please tell me you aren't serious.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Back peddaling a bit Ed? You used the term "torture" and said fighting isn't more torture for a dog bred to fight than racing is for a dog bred to race. That is just ridiculous and I'm betting you realize that. I've been excited about a scrap too, but it doesn't make the receiving end any less painful.

And roses and dogs are more similar than dogs and humans?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NBAGOD</b>!
> 
> Not a PETA member, but statements like this are laughable.....please tell me you aren't serious.


Do dogs go to heaven?

Do roses?

Do people?

I'm not sure I believe in heaven, but I'd guess that most people in this country would say, "No, no, and yes."

If that's not a good argument for putting people into one category and every other living thing in another, I don't know what is.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Back peddaling a bit Ed? You used the term "torture" and said fighting isn't more torture for a dog bred to fight than racing is for a dog bred to race. That is just ridiculous and I'm betting you realize that. I've been excited about a scrap too, but it doesn't make the receiving end any less painful.


I'm not backpeddaling on that at all. My positions (and not the arguments that I am using) have been met with confusion or incredulity. If you want more clarity, ask me specifics. If you don't get specifics you want from a general question it doesn't mean that I'm backpeddaling.

People who call fighting dogs "torture" are incorrect in my opinion. Torture is, to me, the infliction of pain for the sake of the pain itself or to extract something as a result of the pain. 



> And roses and dogs are more similar than dogs and humans?


You either don't read closely or you have difficulty understanding nuance. I said "arguably more similar than dogs and humans". See my previous post for one obvious argument for that position; it'd be easy to think of a half dozen more.

Ed O.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Obviosly someone hasn't seen "All Dogs Go To Heaven" 

or All Dogs Go To Heaven 2.

where is the cinematic integrity of this board?


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Do dogs go to heaven?
> 
> Do roses?
> 
> ...


so,

bad people that don't get to go to heaven are comparable to dogs and roses?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> 
> so, bad people that don't get to go to heaven are comparable to dogs and roses?


I hope that you're joking (and have been all along), and are just trying to push Ed's buttons... because if you're not...:uhoh:.. that would be something.

STOMP


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

well, isn't that a straight logical conclusion of Ed O's post?

but I admit I am bit baffled with him putting dogs to the same category as roses, when thinking about "the level of living"...


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm always amazed at how often a thread will degenerate from the original topic so rapidly.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> well, isn't that a straight logical conclusion of Ed O's post?


sorry I can't believe you're being serious about your supposive confusion, so I'm going to refuse to play along. 

Hopefully the facts come out soon on what actually happened, so one way or another we can be done with all this hysterical bleep. As I see it either this was much to do about nothing, or this mediocre team might lose the services of one of the guys at the end of the bench. 

Big whoop.

STOMP


----------



## rattler-n-rollin (Jun 21, 2004)

*im sending twelve dozen dogs to my freind*

becuase, their is no difference between the two.

i probably will loose my freind due to this thinking. but ED O is right 

"And roses and dogs are more similar than dogs and humans"

i tried his theory and my buddy threw them away. oh well..........COME ON THE PARALELS ARE SO close to fact . BWAAAA


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Roses and dogs are arguably more similar than dogs and humans.





> Originally posted by <b>rattler-n-rollin</b>!
> "roses and dogs are more similar than dogs and humans"


why are you attributing a quote to poster that they didn't say? By omiting the word *arguably* you've drastically changed the meaning. Such a debate tactic could be used to make just about any statement seem ridiculous. Maybe it's good for a cheap laugh by yourself, but thats probably where you should keep it...

STOMP


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With it or without it the statement stands on it's own as ridiculous. Yes, you could argue it...but that's part of the ridiculousness.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> With it or without it the statement stands on it's own as ridiculous. Yes, you could argue it...


I could and I do. When posters choose to stoop to disingenuous techniques (like changing around/omitting words) so as to be able to mock the other guy... sorry, but I have no respect for that. None nada zero.

Nitpicking at the fringes of an argument (especially at things a poster didn't even state) to sidestep the greater/obvious points, and then trying to claim that the other guy is the one being ridiculous... yeah right 

The point that Ed was going for didn't require me a 2nd read to gather his meaning. This seems (to me) like a whole lot of petty bleep because you want to come out on top in this silly tangent matter of the thread topic. 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> 
> Ever been to court? It doesn't sound sound like it. Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal, but it rarely works that way. And we aren't talking about me being on a jury. This is a message board and opinions make it go around....differing opinions.
> ...


btw an fyi... Oldmangrouch, the poster you're condescendingly telling about the law of the land on page 5 of this thread, is a lawyer.

STOMP


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> btw an fyi... Oldmangrouch, the poster you're condescendingly telling about the law of the land on page 5 of this thread, is a lawyer.
> ...


FYI

So am I. My point still stands - there is a big difference between proof and allegation.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> 
> 
> FYI
> ...


and, just so everyones clear, I'll let you guys in on a little secret. Oldmangrouch is a lawyer.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> FYI
> 
> So am I. My point still stands - there is a big difference between proof and allegation.


 sorry if I wasn't clear (too wordy or something), but I was pointing out that you were a lawyer (I'm not), and trying to show that RG has been offbase with his mud slinging through much of this thread. 

btw, I completely agree with your point, and am generally worn a bit thin by fans jumping to conclutions on sketchy allegations by the hype obsessed media. Hopefully management will take the appropriate action(s) when the actual facts are uncovered.

STOMP


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> When posters choose to stoop to fabulous techniques (like changing around/omitting words) so as to be able to mock the other guy... I have respect for that.
> 
> STOMP


Whatever :grinning: 

This thread is now closed. Oops, I can't do that.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

"Like whiterhino said, one of the warning signs that a person may be a serial killer is that they will torture animals."

This is one of the classic traits that pop up with these people as youngsters.
It is amazing how many of them tortured dogs,birds,cats,pulled wings off butterflys,needless mean,cruel acts that had only one motive.

Death by torture.

They are scary..

Very hard to treat,if at all..


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

"No offense but who gives a crap, it is a freaking dog. Before you card toting PETA wannabees try to jump me for that "

Now this is a statement for you..

Yes,I would do anything in my power to prevent an animal from
abuse,pain and or suffering.
I donated money for the two precious kittens thrown from the bridge,and many other cases.

"a freakin dog"

I feel sorry that you have not experienced the incredible love
you can have for an animal.
It has to be one of the most satisfying experiences in my life.
Many of my most precious memories with my family involve one of our many pets.

Try it,you may feel regret for that statement..


All you get back from them is pure joy..
You can't impress them,they can't get you a better job by buttering them up..there is no gain to your sucess in having them.

But your heart gets bigger,and the peace and calm of having a 
pet greet you at the door is just the top of the pops .

I can't comprehend my animal fighting for money,or abandoning
it somewhere. Particularly cruel where he dumped it is the high traffic area through there.

Shame Shame Qyntel and to any one saying"just a freaking dog"


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> This is one of the classic traits that pop up with these people as youngsters. It is amazing how many of them tortured dogs,birds,cats,pulled wings off butterflys,needless mean,cruel acts that had only one motive.
> 
> Death by torture.
> ...


As a kid in school my Pops used to collect and pull the wings off of bugs and put them on the desk of the girl seated in front of him. She then would jam her sharpened pencils into his knees... the broken led tips are still there.

Without any treatment for this classic trait "these people" exhibit  he somehow was able to mature into a guy who put himself through Med school (willingly enduring 20+ years of big debts) because of a deep desire to help people. As a first hand witness, I doubt there is a Doc out there with a truer calling.

As a kid I burnt ants with a magnifying lens, shot songbirds with my BB gun, and killed fish for no reason other then to watch what would happen. Somehow... without treatment for my scary psyche, I now work as a biologist, donate a lot of $ to http://nature.org/, and catch and release most every time I go fishing (I try not to touch them to avoid damaging their protective slime cover as I remove the hook). Violence isn't a part of my makeup.

IMO, young boys are often charged/aggressive, curious, unsympathetic, and a blank slate lacking the impressions necessary to form their views. Q isn't a little boy anymore, but how about we go easy with the speculating/profiling/hysterical nonsense until the facts come in? IMO, any adult presuming they know the facts based such a spotty report as this KATU job is truely a lot scarier then a kid acting like a kid. 

Just curious, it sounds like you watched the recent Dr Phil special I heard advertised on the radio. Did you?

STOMP


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

And my point still stands. Innocent until proven guilty is a joke. And posters aren't held to the same standard as a jury.

And how would I come out on top Stomp? If he's convicted of this ignorance guys like you aren't returning to this thread. I'm offering an opinion, you taking an attitude with me because you don't like them doesn't change a thing.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

*-*

-


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I have never watched Dr. Phil for one second..just the sight of his
mug makes me run for the remote..
I don't have a clue as to what you mean by that remark.

I could care less if you toss my post out the window and don't believe it.

I know of what I speak,and believe it or not..that is a classic warning sign of what can come in the future:

NEEDLESS CRUELTY AND TORTURE FOR FUN as a child.

Read up,you might learn something.
I didn't say it was the only sign. It gets much more complicated
than that. But that seems to be a very important thread that
shows it self very early on. When little kids exhibit no emotion
for cruelty and torture for fun without remorse or compassion..LOOK OUT AND GET THESE KIDS SOME HELP.
Talk to folks who study these creatures..you don't seem to credit me for anything here.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I have never watched Dr. Phil for one second..just the sight of his
> mug makes me run for the remote..
> I don't have a clue as to what you mean by that remark.
> ...


Most things I'm exposed to stick with me for some time... I only wish I could selectively delete some things I've experienced off my mental hard drive (like some extremely awkward 1st dates). 

Glad to hear you don't put any stock in that irresponsible TV quack. The promos I heard on my morning commute for some special of his last week paralleled some of what you were speaking to about precusors/signs of kids turning into serial killers. Of course he was going to expose these kids to a national television audience and lable them as such. Hardly the way to help a kid having a tough time IMO, more like the way to exasperate the situation. So there, that was the nature of my Dr Phil question.

I actually took a couple of college courses on child phychology and have done some independent reading as well... though of course we could all learn a thing or two more. That said, the personal stories I relayed were to counter what you seemed to be implying about kids being cruel to animals being a direct link to future criminal activity. As you just stated...



> I didn't say it was the only sign. It gets much more complicated than that.


...so it seems we're probably on the same page. Move along, nothing to see here  

STOMP


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Stomp..well said.

:yes:


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> Glad to hear you don't put any stock in that irresponsible TV quack.
> 
> ...


No offense Stomp, but Dr. Phil has BS, MD and Ph. D. in clinical psychology. He's been practicing clinical psychology since 1978.

On the other hand, you've done some reading and taken a couple classes.

What gives you the expertise to call him a quack?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>go_robot</b>!
> What gives you the expertise to call him a quack?


I've claimed no expertise, and have in fact listed how little I do know. It's just my opinion that outing a troubled kid on national television is being done for ratings, and not at all with the best interest of the child in mind. There are good reasons why most every professional phychologist conducts their therapy in privacy and takes an oath to keep their discussions private. 

Just refering to common sense sets off alarms that the kid's classmates are not going to go easy on them from here on out. It's my guess that the kid's relationship with his parents will become more strained each time they are confronted by their peers. It's got to be the talk of the school for a while... nothing like being ostracized to help out eh?__

IMO, from what little I know about what Dr Phil does on TV is flat despicable. If you've got another opinion or facts to share, I'm open to hearing how he's different from the other daytime talkshow hosts who out young kids with issues for ratings.

STOMP


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> sorry if I wasn't clear (too wordy or something), but I was pointing out that you were a lawyer (I'm not), and trying to show that RG has been offbase with his mud slinging through much of this thread.
> ...


Sorry Stomp. I totally misread your post. My bad.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Well something about that guy just doesn't set well with me..
I really can't explain why..(Dr. Phil)


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> I've claimed no expertise, and have in fact listed how little I do know. It's just my opinion that outing a troubled kid on national television is being done for ratings, and not at all with the best interest of the child in mind. There are good reasons why most every professional phychologist conducts their therapy in privacy and takes an oath to keep their discussions private.
> 
> ...


"Behavior with Eric has definitely improved since we met with Dr. Phil," Eric's father said in a statement provided by the spokesman. "We are taking it one step at a time. Part of what I realized is the problem didn't lie with Eric, it involved the entire dynamic of the family." 

Sounds like the family is happy with the results.

I think there's great value in showing a thing like this to the millions of people out there who have kids and are content to just let this kind of stuff go as 'typical childhood behavior' or to medicate a child, hoping to find a cure in a mass marketed pill.

The cure is family time, just as was outlined in the course of that show and I think that is a great message in a day and age where many parents pass their kids problems off.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

The problem with these glimpses of "what to do if"..
is that it just barely touches the surface of really big issues.

Old Dr. Phil turned out to be quite a liar also..
remember when he used to be the "expert" on marriage??
This was about the time he had a little sweetie on the side.

Like I said earlier,he just doesn't interest me,and I try to avoid 
having to hear him.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm pretty much positive that when the network goes prime time with a Dr Phil special that was taped sometime in the past, that they aren't going to air something that didn't work out. I'd find a birdseye view of how all of his former "patients" who were blindsided on TV much more credible then a single prime time case from last week. I bet there would be trust issues for many of those kids with their parents.

Of course he's done some good for some people, but give me a break... ambushing kids on national TV (like he's done for years) violates a fundamental principle of medicine...

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4610.html

If the parents of this particular troubled kid needed Dr Phil to tell them to be involved with their child, it's not that surprising to me that they were dumb enough to bring him on a national stage to discuss his problems. I am glad for them if things are working out though. Sadly like many American parents, they probably raised little Eric in front of the boob tube with a bag of cheezy poofs by his side... they're probably lost as to why he's so fat and docile too.

STOMP


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Looks like KATU just isn't giving up on their witch hunt of this poor millionaire athlete who is unfairly persecuted. Even worse they now have the police in on the whole "let's pick on the Blazers" conspiracy. 

Of course watching the news it was all pretty hard to sort out. Probably because there were people, dogs, and what could have been roses.....very tough to differentiate (arguably of course).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Looks like KATU just isn't giving up on their witch hunt of this poor millionaire athlete who is unfairly persecuted. Even worse they now have the police in on the whole "let's pick on the Blazers" conspiracy.
> 
> Of course watching the news it was all pretty hard to sort out. Probably because there were people, dogs, and what could have been roses.....very tough to differentiate (arguably of course).


not to take sides here, but a millionaire can be unfairly persecuted. And if the Police are given evidence (even if it's full of holes) they're required to do stuff about it. 

Required you say? 

Yeh. It's a named athlete in Portland, who a local news show had "broken" the story. And it almost seems like they're not going to retract the story no matter what comes out. Like, if it turns out that he's not fighting dogs but he's doing something else (say he's not as off the pot as he claims) KATU will puff out it's chest to proclaim themselves great and powerful.

Lets say it turns out that the scars on the dog are normal/breeding related (which is possible. Ask someone who deals with dogs on a regular basis and they'll know that). What is KATU going to do about the whole story? You think they'll do a whole story apologizing? 

Hell no, they'll just ignore it, and hope no one ever remembers it.

I had some other epiphany, but Ive forgotten it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

here is a direct quote from someone who works with dogs on a daily basis (she owns some kind of dog related company, I'm having a brain fart on what she does actually)..



> I have seen a lot of pictures of APBs after fights, seen a lot of fight
> wounds from accidental fights both in my own huskies and as a vet tech.
> I already said what I thought about the wound pictured.
> The dog has no ear crop at all. Not a fighting crop.
> ...


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Is KATU reporting this?


Press Release from: Vancouver Police Dept.
VANCOUVER POLICE SERVE SEARCH WARRANT AFTER DOG FIGHTING TIP COMES IN
October 12th, 2004 12:48 PM

On October 12, 2004 at 9:45 a.m. Detectives from the Vancouver Police Department served a search warrant at 8612 NW Lower River Road after a tip came into Clark County Animal Control related to possible dog fighting and animal cruelty at the location. Animal control officers followed up on the tip and then contacted Vancouver Police. Today, Detectives, with the assistance of Animal Control officers, found 16 adult Pit Bull dogs and 5 puppies along with other evidence related to dog fighting. 

Dog fighting and animal cruelty are both felony crimes. There was no one at the scene when officers arrived and so far no arrests have been made.


----------



## go_robot (Sep 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BEER&BASKETBALL</b>!
> Is KATU reporting this?
> 
> Press Release from: Vancouver Police Dept.
> ...


They will be, guaranteed. Just like they reported about the other incident that you posted about, though you never acknowledged that they did.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> "No offense but who gives a crap, it is a freaking dog. Before you card toting PETA wannabees try to jump me for that "
> 
> Now this is a statement for you..
> ...


Sorry to barge in like this, but i can't help saying this is a great, great post... :greatjob:


----------

