What's new

Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

Don't you mean they attack the cold? Not to split hairs here or anything...

Why would you want to defend the cold? That just doesn't make sense.


(by the way, I used two spaces after each of those question marks - force of habit I guess)

Right, I would have thought it would be to defend against the cold, but that's not how it showed up at dictionary.com.

Sorry, but they are always right.
 
My new weapon! Beware!!!

Normal-fashion.jpg

Is that Jim Carrey? By the way, I am more afraid of your new weapon than that sword.
 
Does the same apply to cropped ears? That they are a weapon depending on how they are used? Or are they a weapon all the time no matter what?
No, cropped ears are a weapon (at least on pit bulls). They were "invented" for the purpose of being an instrument to win fights.

Some morons might not understand this, and get them for "cosmetic" reasons only. But it doesn't change the fact that it helps the dog win fights, regardless of the owner's intentions.
 
No, cropped ears are a weapon (at least on pit bulls). They were "invented" for the purpose of being an instrument to win fights.

Some morons might not understand this, and get them for "cosmetic" reasons only. But it doesn't change the fact that it helps the dog win fights, regardless of the owner's intentions.

So how is a helmet used that would be considered a weapon? How are cropped ears used that would be considered a weapon? What is the exact method of weaponization of each?
 
So how is a helmet used that would be considered a weapon? How are cropped ears used that would be considered a weapon? What is the exact method of weaponization of each?
Cropped ears prevent damage and blood loss, helping to maintain consciousness. It's a tool used to help win a fight, so it's a weapon.

Kind of the same thing with a helmet. It prevents damage/injury, therefore allowing you to inflict more damage/injury. Not always a weapon, but certainly can be used as a weapon.
 
... so we can stop the "only use them when they agree with you" nonsense.

Actually, my comment was about ranking the dictionaries, not using the dictionaries. I have no trouble believing you prefer dictionary.com (my preference is to start at OneLook and procede to the American Heritage). I firmly believe that when you see a definition you like, you will pick the dictionary that uses that definition and rank it as the mnost reliable for that discussion, feeling no need to be consistent from discussion to discussion, based on your history.

However, if you say that you always think dictionary.com is the best resource, I'll take your word for it.

Merriam-Webster may be the standard for print dictionaries, but dictionary.com is the standard for online.

Does the meaning of words change between being in print and being on-line? This ranks right up there with the stupidest things people have said on this forum. Taking your word for something only goes until you contradict your own position in the same post.

Personally, I like Merriam-Webster for inclusive English, Oxford for British English, and the aforementioned American Heritage for American English.
 
Cropped ears prevent damage and blood loss, helping to maintain consciousness. It's a tool used to help win a fight, so it's a weapon.

Kind of the same thing with a helmet. It prevents damage/injury, therefore allowing you to inflict more damage/injury. Not always a weapon, but certainly can be used as a weapon.

But you could argue that a helmet offers better protection than cropped ears, since it covers the ears and more of the head, but it is not always a weapon. But cropped ears actually leave more of the inner ear exposed, not to mention the rest of the head, so it is obviously less protection than a helmet, but it is still always a weapon? Interesting logic you got there.

Still comes down to your standard: If it agrees with Salty's opinion it is true, otherwise it is false. You need to change your name to SpeciousDawg.
 
Does the meaning of words change between being in print and being on-line? This ranks right up there with the stupidest things people have said on this forum. Taking your word for something only goes until you contradict your own position in the same post.

Personally, I like Merriam-Webster for inclusive English, Oxford for British English, and the aforementioned American Heritage for American English.
No, the meaning of words don't change if it's posted online, lol. I'm pretty sure Merriam-Webster doesn't put much focus into their online business. For example, of the 2 print dictionaries I looked up "weapon" one was a Merriam-Webster, and the definition was not the same as the one on their website.

The website is actually different than the print dictionary (at least different than the one I checked). Dictionary.com doesn't even make a print dictionary anyway, at least not one that I'm aware of.

When I was saying it's the "standard" I mostly just meant it's the most widely used. Dictionary.com is the most widely used online, Merriam-Webster is the most used print.
 
But you could argue that a helmet offers better protection than cropped ears, since it covers the ears and more of the head, but it is not always a weapon. But cropped ears actually leave more of the inner ear exposed, not to mention the rest of the head, so it is obviously less protection than a helmet, but it is still always a weapon? Interesting logic you got there.

Still comes down to your standard: If it agrees with Salty's opinion it is true, otherwise it is false. Youneed to change your name to SpeciousDawg.

Damn, you're brilliant! Helmets and shields for pitbulls!! Talk about rocking the fighting pit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top