Ten Reasons Why You Can't Trust Pit Bulls

If this is such a huge issue can the mods not take care of it? This is what we have mods for, no? The passive aggressiveness coming out in threads this member posts is getting old. Are things like this going to be posted every time this poster states a thread? If so, Fran is right, it does make the forum look bad. I could ignore it, but I'm a member here too, and if this is so serious I'm curious why the mods are not handling it?

I asked if he had another dog... I don't get the biggie. He has come in to troll other threads, that is ok. No one comes and defends those he comes to troll

Yet dare anyone here point out some of his unethicalness? Why does it need to be moderated? I am sure he is capable of speaking for himself.

In a pm he specifically said he likes to stir things up. Yet you are going to let him stir things up in other threads, but if anything even LOOKS anti him by people who are known to be out spoken (like me) there has to be an agenda right? I just wondered if he got another dog...

If he is linking a to a blog on this forum and he has plagorized info on said blog, why should the mods NOT handle that?

I don't read every thread in here, but on the opinion thread it was you and a few ofhers that were "stirring things up" by passively aggressively posting things unrelated to the topic for what reason? To point out plagerism? You are right, that is a VERY serious charge, so serious that I can't help but wonder why it was not brought to the mods attention right away that a member whose blog is benefiting by being linked to Chaz has stolen intellectual material on it....

ETA: He did say that a low carb diet was not smart...if that's trolling than halfnof the fitness industry are a bunch of trolls because low carb diets are not something than everyone agrees on.

It's worth mentioning too that this dude's blog probably has three or four times the traffic it had before....

The mods are aware.

And how was it not on topic. The whole topic of that thread was unpopular opinions you normally don't state.

How were my (and other's) posts NOT on topic?

ETR (lol edited to reply) No its not that, others have debated the merits of low carb. Its the fact he contradicted himself, and either lied or is extremely confused. Doesn't care about any fact (as in facts are just opinions)

Trolls are people who stir things up with out actually wanting to have a conversation. Take Dober for example, she was/is pretty anti low carb. BUT it was part of a conversation. She didn't make up stuff (ie low carb is bad but I did it and lost lots of weight and it was great) or say that targeted low carb isn't a common thing in body builders when even a quick google will tell you it is.

A real forum conversationalist would go 'huh' I learnt something. Doesnt' mean you agree with everything. But when you claim X is not real and someone gives you proof one would think you would stop claiming X is not real..... But that is his MO. And that is a classic troll.

:rofl1: Have you ever read the political threads on here? If strong opinions based on iffy or non existant facts were the deciding factor of whether or not people were allowed to post on here without being called a troll I can think of quite a few fairly prolific members that would fall under that label. Sorry, but I went back and read all this guys posts and the only thing I can think you can possibly be annoyed about in his posts are his opinions on low carb diets. Ok, he is bad at forum conversation. Sorry, but that hardly makes him a troll. Actually, he has given decent advice to people about other things. Arguing with you using improper debate tactics does not make him an unproductive member...

And if the mods know about plagiarized material being passed off on his thread, I again wonder why it is still linked on the board? Doesn't he get something monetarily out of the blog? Screw his lack of message board decorum, I find it much more disturbing that he might be allowed to link from chaz to a blog where he benefits from people reading plagiarized material!

Its one thing to state things like opinions, and most people here do it really well. Withought saying democrats are horrible but vote democrat and its aweseome.. I mean really? At least try to make sense.

Its more like saying people don't compete with JRTs in obedience. And then when shown a video of it still going around saying people don't do it.

The word for word plagerism wasn't this forum. The soliciting of info to then put in his own words to make money on his blog HAS happened. I guess its a grey area.. shrugs.

I still say he is a troll. Why else would you go into a thread and say black is white, then agree black is black and then tell everyone facts are the same as opinions?

There is a difference. I am sorry if you have no interest in seeing it.

That might be a reason to be here, and to perhaps stir?

Moderation is just that -- moderation. It's not policing and it's not to dictate the ethical tone of the forum, although we'd prefer to see it continue to have the high standards it's always tried to uphold in the past. It is merely to maintain an open space for expression and keep discussions from escalating too far, hopefully with only some redirection (you have no idea how much we generally dislike having to send someone to cool off, even Eddie ) or a break stick when necessary, along with trying to maintain the safety of members from nasties like stalkers. Spam, sporn, cleanup, fixing posts, retrieving and general help when things go wrong.

Things like plagiarism and blatant (and even dangerous) misinformation? In the past you guys have done a stellar job of sniffing that out and calling it out and there's no reason for that to change.

We'll be here for you when you need us, and, like the Talamasca (read your Anne Rice ) "we watch and are always there."

I was going to work this into a tattoo . But seriously you all need this on a shirt! well not that we would see it but yeah a shirt

Yeah, reread his posts from the low carb thing again and I don't see trolling. Its not that I have no interest in seeing it, I just disagree with you. We will just have to agree to disagree I suppose.

If this is all a ploy to get people to read his blog (and if that is the plan it has worked brilliantly, btw), thus allowing him to make money from plagiarized material, it just concerns me that the link is allowed to remain on Chaz. But if the mods are fine with it, that's that I suppose.

*Like*

For her part, Sally cannot be trusted not to hog the couch---which she is as I type this--lol!

It's not a question of "mods being fine with it," it's a question of links within certain parameters being fine and he's staying within those parameters, which don't include posting idiotic drivel or purloined words. It's up to readers to see it and call him out on it, and if he's using us as a source then members have every reason to expose it.

Traffic to a blog doesn't necessarily translate to money. You have to have sponsors. A large volume of traffic helps you attract sponsors, but doesn't guarantee it.

If you see a blog that is a pile of drivel and plagiarism and it has sponsors, let the sponsors know.

Jesus half the internet is drivel and plagiarism. Deal with it.

I'd rather read plagiarised words than people just being smug and knobbish. Because that's how it comes across..... Smug and knobbish.

"I won't say anything directly, I'll just make an obtuse comment to show everyone my disdain and make the person look like a liar/ignoramus/idiot".

People keep saying "ignore it if you don't like it". Perhaps they should take a leaf out their own books.

It's defintly got him blog traffic,I went on it myself and could'nt find anything I thought was fake or plaugerised.
I do wish he would comment back though,since he is obviously reading what we say,but thats because I'm nosy!

I did. But I also guess its the science nerd in me. When making an argument one brings up proof. So that is why I quoted. In stead of just telling Fran she was wrong. Which likely would have just made her a bit upset, I quoted the OP to show I wasn't 'against' her. I was just repeating what he had said.

Renee is right, blog traffic isn't the end all and be all. If there is enough rumblings that you are sponsoring someone who is spreading misinformation (like poodles don't have tear ducts, and that many shedding breeds don't shed) or copying verbatim from forums they might think twice.

I agree with ignoring people who have unpopular opinions. Thats no biggie. But why should someone who doesn't want to ignore someone being unethical?

On another forum basically I got told off for not being squeee byb puppies. NOr for being yay loads of JRT misinformation. Why should I have to ignore what can affect me? Its like, to a lesser degree, ignoring people who say pitbulls are evil. We are down with not ignoring that right?

If an opinion is harmless sure ignore. But IMO a lot of the problems in this world are due to apathy, and disinterest.

Or, the sponsor looks at how much more traffic the blog is getting and how many more eyes are seeing their ads. Loads of insane and untrue things are spouted off by bloggers all. the. time. and these people still have sponsors. Why do you think that is? Out of curiosity, have you contacted the sponsors?

I guess I just find it ironic that the general feeling is that the best way to make someone shut their blog down is to allow them to link it to a dog forum and then have tons of controversy surrounding said blog so that TONS of members who would have never even bothered before go and read the thing. If I didn't know better I would think that you were his publicist....

I know this is old, but I don't find misinformation to be "cute" nor do I believe it should be applauded because the person is "just trying to help".

It's misinformation that's the problem with the "pit bull" image. These dogs would do wonderfully based upon the TRUTHS about them.

And a Boxer/American Bulldog is a mutt. It's not a rare "Bullboxer", and it's only a "pit bull" thanks to misinformation and lies and government idiots who wrote the "characteristics of 'pit bulls'" in order to push BSL.

For a bit of education, the modern day AB was created using the APBT (along with mastiffs, other bully breeds, and even St. Bernards depending on the bloodlines.....the APBT is a hodgepodge of breeds). The Boxer has no more relation to the "pit bull" than a Yorkshire Terrier does.

So to the OP, quit saying your dog is a "pit bull". And for all us "pit bull" owners' sake, quit implying that being a "pit bull" is a "shame". I'll take my purebred gamebred APBTs over a mixed breed dog any day.