WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(37 posts)

Pit Bull Attack in Shorewood


  1. luckymom30
    Member Profile

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/92218378@N03/8392947880/in/photostream

    This happened January 14th and the dog is still on the loose so everyone please be careful and very watchful for this dog.

    Here is a weblink for the story KOMO TV just aired on this attack:

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Burien-man-and-his-dog-survive-vicious-pit-bull-attack-187416331.html?tab=video&c=y

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  2. i expected a pit on the loose story here..
    but was surprised to find that the owner did have his dog on a lead...

    what he did't have was his dog under control

    if you just watch the video you will miss something troubling

    "People stopped and called 911, but the pit bull and his owner took off as soon as the attack was over. A witness followed them to a nearby church, where deputies eventually questioned the man. Unfortunately, the deputies were called away before animal control could arrive. When they did get there, the man and his dog were gone"

    what i want to know is why the deputies considered this only a matter for animal control?

    is there no citation that could have been issued at the scene against the owner of this dog?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  3. guidosmom
    Member Profile

    guidosmom

    This is so sad. :( My dog was attacked and almost killed by an off leash pit in Redmond 10 years ago. The owners (who laughed as their dog was attacking mine despite several witnesses and I trying to get the dog to let go) also took off. The police would not do anything at the time, and animal control would only take a statement.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  4. WSratsinacage
    Member Profile

    Hi JoB. I guess only animal control can cite an owner for a dog bite? Police should be able to in my opinion. I hear it's $150.00 plus the dog gets quarantined for 10 days.

    How much longer is this sort of thing going to go on? The lack of accountability and the injuries inflicted have been going on for decades and are both totally unacceptable!

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  5. That is just awful. Poor dog.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  6. I was attacked/threatened by a loose pitbull—though not injured—and it was one of the scariest things that's ever happened to me...and I've always owned and loved dogs. It also made me furious.

    Pro-pitbull people always talk about the "bad rap" pitbulls get and the "misconceptions" people have against them, but the fact is, they are only well-behaved and sweet toward their owners/families. Toward people they consider a threat they are killing machines. And it can be you, your kid, your elderly parents, or your own dog. And once they decide to attack, there is no way they can be controlled, not even by their owners.

    A few months ago the West Seattle Herald's "pet of the week" featured a bull terrier that was being fed ham-hock bones to "get his jaw muscles in shape". It was written as if it was cute! Am I the only one that finds this appalling? What other reason does a dog need strengthened jaw muscles for but as in training to kill?

    Dog breeds that were specifically bred as attack or killing animals should not be allowed as pets. There are plenty of other non-aggressive breeds to choose from. You won't get rid of all dog attacks, but it's a place to start.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  7. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    Denise:

    "Pro-pitbull people always talk about the "bad rap" pitbulls get and the "misconceptions" people have against them, but the fact is, they are only well-behaved and sweet toward their owners/families. Toward people they consider a threat they are killing machines."

    Strong words. That's pretty much the opposite experience I have with pitbulls. It would be interesting if you had some well researched study to back-up something as inflammatory as that.

    For the record, I'm not a pitbull owner.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  8. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    How about some facts from an incredibly reputable source:

    http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/dogs/facts/statement_breed_specific_legislation.html

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  9. luckymom30
    Member Profile

    Any dog breed can be dangerous, after searching under banned dog breeds in Washington State here are the results:

    Washington breed-specific laws ::

    If you know of a pit bull ordinance that is not listed here, please send us a link to the ordinance or published news article so that we can update this web page: ordinance@dogsbite.org.

    Dangerous dog ordinances

    Pit Bull Ordinances in Washington

    City Website

    View Ordinance

    Type of Ordinance

    Auburn

    Section: 6.35

    Fighting breeds declared "potentially dangerous" including: Akita, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Dogue de Bordeaux, Kuvasz, Pit Bull Terrier, Presa Canario, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Tosa Inu

    Brewster

    Section: 6.10.20

    Bans: pit bulls

    Bridgeport

    Section: 6.10.020

    Bans: pit bulls

    Buckely

    Section: 9.30.090

    Bans: pit bulls

    Cathlamet

    Section: 6.10.020

    Bans: pit bulls

    Connell

    Section: 8.08.010

    Pit bulls and rottweilers declared "potentially dangerous"

    Enumclaw

    Section: 7.08

    Bans: pit bulls

    Everett

    Section: 6.08.010

    Pit bulls declared "potentially dangerous" | 1987 legal notes

    Everson

    Section: 6.08.020

    Restricts: pit bulls

    Grandview

    Section: 6.06.010

    Pit bulls declared "dangerous"

    Kennewick

    Section: 8:02.320

    Pit bulls declared "potentially dangerous"

    Mattawa

    Section: 6.04.010

    Pit bulls declared "dangerous"

    Pasco

    Section: 8.02.320

    Pit bulls declared "potentially dangerous"

    Prosser

    Section: 6.40.010

    Pit bulls declared "potentially dangerous"

    Quincy

    Section: 8.06.010

    Pit bulls declared "potentially dangerous"

    Othello

    Section: 6.06.010

    Bans: pit bulls

    Raineer

    Section: 6.04.020

    Pit bulls declared "potentially dangerous"

    Rosalia

    Animal control

    Bans: pit bulls

    Royal City

    Section: 6.04.020

    Bans: pit bulls and rottweilers

    Seatac

    Section: 6.05.120

    Pit bulls declared "dangerous"

    Selah

    Section: 5.07.080

    Bans: pit bulls

    Sumas

    Section: 6.02.045

    Bans: pit bulls

    Toppenish

    Section: 6.06

    Pit bulls declared "dangerous"

    Wapato

    News article

    Bans: pit bulls, rottweilers, mastiffs, and American bulldogs.

    Yakima

    Section: 6-18

    Bans: pit bulls

    http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-washington.php

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  10. WSratsinacage
    Member Profile

    I've been around a lot of dogs, only bitten by one though, a pit bull. SHA also bans them.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  11. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    Yeah, I read the dogs bite website too. Seemed pretty biased against certain dogs or dogs in general. Not one positive section on the entire website. That's when I decided to go to the Humaine Society's website. Real and thoughtful discussion on the topic that I linked to above. Here's an excerpt I think fits into the discussion pretty well:

    "Banning one breed just creates demand for a new "killer" dog
    Two decades ago, pit bull types and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time, it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog."

    Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.

    Breed bans create new problems:
    Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be. In some areas, media hype has actually increased the demand for dogs whose breed is in danger of being banned. Furthermore, animal control agencies, even those that are well funded and equipped, have found the laws to be an enforcement nightmare.

    Breed bans don't address the problem:
    Restrictions placed on a specific breed fail to address the larger problems of abuse, aggression training, and irresponsible dog ownership. Again, breed alone is not an adequate indicator of a dog's propensity to bite. Rather, a dog's tendency to bite is a product of several factors, including, but not limited, to:

    Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.

    Sound obedience training to help the dog recognize where he or she "fits" with regard to dominance and people, or mistraining for fighting or increased aggression.

    Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.

    Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept chained outside?).

    Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.

    Behavior of the victim.

    Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered."

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  12. WSratsinacage
    Member Profile

    I should say attacked/mauled. Bitten is too tame.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  13. A pitbull is a loaded gun with a one year olds brain. It's not that they are all bad. Its the fact that they can inflict deadly force. Especially with bad owners, if they feel threatened or if they "perceive" their masters to be threatened. Any rational human would want stiffer regulation (if not an outright ban) for animals capable of inflicting gross bodily harm to a human (and have demonstrated consistently that they will).

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  14. ok Diane, you are sooo wrong about this.

    As a former Rotti (she died) owner and a full and pit mix, I take full offense to your comments.

    It is ALL ABOUT THE HUMAN NOT THE DOG.

    I rescued a 2-3 week old PIT BULL. I had a friend foster (bottle feed) it and it is now a wonderful 5 month old sweetie. Would not harm a fly, he hangs with cats AND a small breed dog.

    Now my OWN pit was ABUSED by kids and guess she doesn't like kids. SO since I am a responsible dog owner she does not go around kids. Remember the kids abused her so that was NOT HER FAULT.

    My Pit mix,(80 lbs) well she let 2 thieves in my house with out hurting them. SO needless to say she is NOT aggressive.

    Sadly you don't hear about the small breed attacks because they are not as "harsh" just little bites.

    I did not see the "pet of the week", but you are right a ham hock should have not been displayed, but raw bones are very good for ALL DOGS TEETH. plus a bull terrier is a not the same at a pit bull terrier.

    There is a post on the blog right now for a pit mix that needs to be rehomed. That is not that good with kids under 7,(as she is playful), cats especially if they run, and needs to be around submissive dogs. So are you going to blame the dog or the owner of that dog?

    Dog breed bans do not work. AS for the animal control issue. It is a catch 22, personally the officers should NOT have left that guy alone. I guess even they think it was that not that big of deal, or some thing more important came up. I don't know that part. Animal control, had they gotten there in time., would have taken the dog in to their custody, and quarantined it for 10 days and asked for proof of rabies vaccines. Then it depends on what the owner of the dog would have had wanted to do and to make some decisions.

    Lions, tiger and bears should NOT be allowed as pets. Dogs, all dogs are fine as long as the owner is responsible and knows how to handle that dog of any breed.

    There are specific breeds that are better for police work a Belgian Malinois, German Shepards and Rotties, they are TRAINED to be aggressive. Again see, I say TRAINED. They are NOT using Pit bulls and they too are an "aggressive dog." HMMM

    HH

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  15. Diane

    here is a thread about the pit bull puppy that was rescued AND my pit who is cleaning/playing with a kitten

    http://westseattleblog.com/forum/topic/i-wanna-have-pamelas-baby

    Again it is all about how you raise them

    HH

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  16. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    EdSane:

    Al large dogs can inflict deadly force.

    Let's remember, dogs are pack animals and if they feel their owner or "pack leader" is being attacked or harmed, it will instinctively protect it. This is not a pit bull trait exclusively.

    As hammerhead said very astutely, it's the owner, not the dog that is the problem. Owners need to train their dogs, socialize them with humans at an early age, give them attention and exercise and discourage any aggressive tendencies toward any other animal, including (especially) humans.

    This is what is NOT happening far too often in our society. Neglecting these ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY steps is what leads to what we consider bad behavior in these animals. The whole pitbull are bad thing is because people who want aggressive dogs have bought into the idea that these dogs are nothing but aggressive bad-asses and treat/train them as such. It's not the breed, it's the idiot owners that have given the breed a bad name.

    Now, if you see a pitbull, unfortunately there's likely a higher chance that it will behave aggressively than if you see a pengkinese because not as many people treat pengkinese like a fighting animal. But, I guarantee you if you did, that little thing would be a terror who would go out and bite everything it could. And just like the pitbull, it would be a crying shame, and just as disgusting.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  17. So it is ok to ban pit bulls or any "aggressive" breed but god forbid banning an actual assault weapon which causes WAY more harm than any pit bull.

    Please note I am very sorry that another dog was injured.

    HH

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  18. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    But, just as it would not be the fault of the pitbull, it would not be the pengkinese's fault either.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  19. true that WorldCitizen:)

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  20. Rainier
    Member Profile

    We have gone round and round on the WSB about this subject. Instead of regurgitating the falsehoods you hear, how about doing as WorldCitizen and researching the facts from a reputable source? Or doing as Hammerhead and gain personal experience and knowledge? If it had been another breed involved, I guarantee it would not have been mentioned in the headline. "Pit bull" is practically an inflammatory phrase these days, I dare say purposely used in this headline to get people's blood up. Something terrible happened and the breed is of no matter. What we are witnessing is the difference between a dog raised with care and one raised with negligence and abuse. It is the owner that is the source of the problem and therefore these cases would be better handled by the police, not animal control. What that dog needs is to be rescued, not quarantined and for the owner to be punished and banned from owning pets.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  21. @hammerhead, its not the gun its the owner...its not the pitbull its the owner. Same logic. For one we call for regulation (lately)...the other...

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  22. EdSane, yes I know it is the same logic trust me.

    It is just that it easier to ban a breed than a gun, because people feel their "rights" are being taken away.?

    You are right there is no difference, both can hurt, maim, kill some one.

    HH

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  23. WorldCitizen
    Member Profile

    zgh2676

    The same logic, yes, but with the gun a perpetrator can mow down many, where as with the dog the victim is usually but one..and rarely death follows.

    Not that this is an especially groovy distinction, but one that should be made.

    I would also like to say that a gun isn't exactly the same thing as a dog, but the owners of both should most definitely be held accountable. And if they are mentally unfit to handle either responsibly, they should not be allowed to do so.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  24. muchlove
    Member Profile

    Read about this on the b-town blog a couple days ago. Apparently its the man that panhandles with his dog @ WWV near the McDonalds.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  25. @HH, as with firearms. I'm not for an outright ban, but reasonable legislation in regards to ownership. i.e. muzzling animals in public, stiffer fines and jail time (mandatory) for owners who's dogs escape and maim or injure. As well as jail time and fines for those who fail to register/license dogs considered "dangerous"...Personally, I own a german shepherd chow mix. With owning a larger dog, there comes a greater responsibility then say a pug. Especially when it comes to the life and safety of my community.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  26. BrassyMomma
    Member Profile

    BrassyMomma

    We discovered there's a guy on 35th near Kenyon who always has his pit off-leash in front of his house.

    Since then we don't walk on that side of the street, ever. And that damn dog is out there, with the owner occasionally watching, usually not. It's venturing further and further out of the yard nearly every time I see it. Oh, but "the neighbours are the problem"...not himself, not the dog.

    Ugh.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  27. anonyme
    Member Profile

    It seems to me that there are primarily two kinds of 'problem' pit bull owners: the ones that are irresponsible and actively seeking a vicious animal, and the equally irresponsible ones who are in complete denial that a pit bull can be anything but a love muffin. In some ways, the latter group is even more dangerous than the former (as well as more likely to allow their "don't worry, he's friendly!" cutie pies to run off leash).

    As most regular readers of this blog know, I'm a huge advocate of animal rights. I don't "blame" pit bulls for their nature, and I feel badly when these animals have to suffer due to human stupidity. However, I do think that the breed has a genetic disposition (as well as the physical capabilities) for lethal attacks, and that appropriate measures should be taken to protect people and pets. By appropriate measures, I mean breeding restrictions, special licensing, and muzzles in public.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  28. "pit bulls" have not been the fighting dog of choice long enough to have been genetically bred as a breed for aggression.

    It's nurture at work here.. not nature.

    I have spent a lifetime rehabilitating what other people consider dangerous breeds.. rottweilers, dobermans, akitas, german shepherds, etc...

    in many cases i have taken in dogs that were trained to fight and rehabilitated them as family pets who could be trusted with the neighborhood dogs and kids.

    The greatest challenge i have faced in loving good dogs treated badly by people is when my husband decided he wanted a smaller dog and i rescued a couple of shiba inus.

    look them up.. they are the cutest sweetest looking little set of furballs...

    with some very heavy duty canine teeth, prey instincts that won't quit, strength, speed, agility and even after 6 years of daily training, a mind of their own.

    after being used as guard dogs... they are rapidly becoming the new macho badge of honor :(

    these are the most difficult dogs i have ever trained
    and it truly frightens me to think of them in the hands of the same people who currently walk with their big aggressive badges of honor...
    i haven't many of those humans who are smart enough or dedicated enough to handle this breed.

    i fondly describe mine as having the temperament of a jack russel on steroids..
    and it's not too far off the mark.

    my dogs were both badly abused by humans before they found me.

    shiba inus raised in a loving home by humans who train them can be incredibly loving and friendly ...
    just like any of the dogs that we currently think of as the aggressive breeds.

    Recently dog genomes were mapped..
    the canine with the closest genetic connection to wolves?
    appearances are deceiving.. it isn't what you would think...
    it's the cute cuddly little shar-pai...

    we were once taught that nothing is as vicious as grandmas little lap dog.
    it's possible those old guys knew what they were talking about.

    appearances can be very decieving

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  29. for those who are interested in what the genome study discovered..

    i found it pretty interesting...

    http://www.hilltopanimalhospital.com/dog%20genome.htm

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  30. I agree with EdSane and WorldCitizen. I think the gun analogy is apt. Arguments used by gun defenders and pit defenders are remarkably similar.

    By way of finding common ground, would the pit bull fans here be willing to go along with a special licensing/training requirement for pit bulls?

    With such a requirement in force, responsible people could still own a pit bull, but anyone who just wanted a big, potentially aggresive dog could not.

    That seems like a good compromise. The good guys would win and the bad guys would lose.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  31. DBP..

    i would be willing to go along with required training classes for all registered pets

    not just pit bulls

    the least that a training class will do for a pet owner is give them realistic expectations

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  32. kittyno
    Member Profile

    The study was done in 2004. Things are rapidly changing on the DNA testing front. It would be interesting to know what genetic markers they used and what data resampling techniques were used. You can get some variation in terms of relationships depending on your markers and the resampling. So...while very interesting, not to be taken as absolute gospel until follow-up studies etc.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  33. >>DBP.. i would be willing to go along with required training classes for all registered pets. not just pit bulls

    –I'll take that as a "no" vote, Jo.

    The idea here is that there is a higher level of risk associated with pit bulls – a demonstrable fact – so they would require a correspondingly higher level of caution. If you equate pit bulls with chihuahuas by imposing the same requirements for both, you're missing the point.

    Any other pit bull fans wanna weigh in?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  34. Rainier
    Member Profile

    Anonyme, pit bulls "genetic disposition" once created a reputation of being the nanny dog because of their gentle and mindful nature with children. You're unwarranted fear that every pit bull is a bad pit bull doesn't make responsible owners dangerous, it makes you ignorant. I find it incongruent that you label yourself an animal rights advocate while at the same time holding tight to misinformation. They are getting a bad rap because they are the breed of choice of too many shady people. When I was a kid the doberman and rottweiler were the vicious dogs of the day. Around that same time a book about a sweet rottweiler came out- Good Boy Carl (what kind of bs was that author feeding us cause everybody knows rottweilers nature is to be vicious..) Wait, what? Not so? These days nobody bats an eye when they encounter a rottweiler-hmm. DBP, by putting restrictions on the ownership of a specific breed all you are doing is driving people who want to be abusive to another breed. As mentioned above, the police dog, guard dog, and fighting dog of choice has changed over the years, pits are just today's fad. We need stronger laws on animal ownership in general and on abuse and neglect and an animal abuser registry. Those things would bring noticeable change for people and dogs alike.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  35. Pro Pit lover here and an owner of 2. NO I will not muzzle my dogs. I have seen it done at the park and congrats on the owners or dog walkers in knowing what their dogs can do.

    I will not deny that there are pits out there that are bad, I do actually believe that breeding can/does play a part, but mostly it is the humans fault.

    Most of the local shelters are pretty proactive in educating people about any dog they adopt and do encourage people to go to training classes.

    I took all of mine to a training classes. It is my responsibility to keep the training going. I also know my dogs. One is bad with kids, so again she does not go near them.

    Registering pit or mixes or any "aggressive" is just not logical, just like registering everyone's gun. I would not register my dogs.

    An old kids tv show , Our Gang, well that dog was a pitbull. It was a sweet, right?

    I would call the police department and report that, the police officers left. They are totally responsible for this falling threw the cracks. It even says on the shelters voicemail, call 911 if there is an emergency. I don't fault the animal control officers in getting there "late".

    It is just terribly sad no matter how you look at it. People love to breed pits and just give them away or use has pit bull fighting bait or to raise and fight them.

    I am a firm believer that if ANY breed of dog attacks a human or animal it should be put down as soon the quarantining is done. UNLESS some one comes on the dogs PROPERTY, Just like if some one comes on my property and I feel threatened, I have the right to shoot him.

    We can not regulate mentally ill people from getting a gun nor will be able to figure out if some one is bad owner or not. That is just a fact.

    HH

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  36. Talaki34
    Member Profile

    Talaki34

    There are a lot breeds that have an assertive personality and require extensive knowledge to own and handle. I would suggest that people go to the breed section on the AKC website and take a look at ALL the breed descriptions when formulating an opinion. Many of the breeds have flaws or strengths in their temperaments (depending how you look at it) that can be exploited by really nasty people or unintentionally enhanced by lack of knowledge or laziness.

    I personally do not advocate breed restrictions, but I do support special licensing for all types of pets. I think every pet owner should be required to take an intensive class pertaining to the type of animal they are adopting. Upon completion of the class they would sign a legal document that states they will spay/neuter and chip their pet. Unless they fall under the heading of “Breeder” (and the laws need to be tightened here too) failure to have the pet neutered or spayed would result in heavy fines and for repeat offenders or illegal breeding there should be mandatory jail(no parole) time. For those who use any dog for illegal purposes, for fighting or as a weapon, then all fines and mandatory jail (no parole)terms should be tripled. Upon exiting from jail the perpetrators then should be permanently paroled (hours) to work in some form of support for animal rescue. No exceptions. I also believe that all dogs and cats should have access to low or no-cost spaying/neutering and basic obedience (good luck trying this with your cat) training.

    Classes should be made available for people to learn how to interact with animals. Many bites or attacks could be avoided by us learning and teaching our kids the art of talking to animals through gestures, facial expressions and body alignment.

    It is true that “Pit” types have the highest fatality rating of any breed even when you break them into separate groups. However this is not how it has to be. The fighting dogs of long ago were not human aggressive. 1. They didn’t want the dogs to turn on the handlers. 2. A dog that loves his master will fight longer and harder so he can be the “good dog.” This aggression towards humans who are not threatening their master is a recent development and the Bull breeds are not the only ones affected. There are the Doberman’s, the American Cocker, Miniature and Toy Poodles, Labradors and Chihuahua’s to name a few. Over breeding, breeding for money, breeding for my dog is bigger and tougher than yours or the cute factor has led to a multitude of health and temperament issues across a wide range of dog breeds. Unfortunately, whichever variety becomes the “Dog of the Day” is usually found at the shelters in the highest numbers because of these issues.

    As with most things when concerns arise, the blame always falls at the feet of those unable to voice a response in their own defense. In truth the blame should be shared by both the owners and the rest of us. We lack the laws to protect the animals we profess to love and ourselves. Laws that are already in place are hardly enforced until the situation is so bad we cannot ignore it.

    In our effort to be “politically correct” and not interfere with the “rights” of the individual, we have abandoned our furry, feathered and sometimes slimy friends. When you give any thinking and feeling creature the same rights as a garden rake (just another possession) it isn’t hard to understand how when things go wrong we look for the easiest and most expeditious way to resolve the problem. Get rid of it.

    We want results fast, without personal culpability and we want it cheap. Right and wrong get lost.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  37. yes

    Posted 1 year ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^