UNTstormchaser

There are a couple things you guys have to remember about that though. For one, like I said above, unfortunately there are a much higher percentage of idiotic, worthless pit owners than there are idiotic, worthless golden retriever owners. Just because some lowlife trusts his dog doesn't mean that the dog was actually trained well and then freaked out despite that. The fact of the matter is that most problems with pits stem from the idiocy of the owners. The other thing that needs to be considered here is that the media LOVES pit attack stories. They jump all over every single one of them, because nobody gives a damn when a black lab bites someone, but if a pit (or rottweiler/any other "aggressive" breed) bites someone, it's an instant headline. So you're going to wind up hearing a lot more about those damn pit bull monsters than you are about any other breed of dog attacking someone. I'm not denying that any animal can snap at any time, or that pits have an especially dangerous bite due to their size, strength, and locking jaw. But the generalization of an entire breed of dog is just plain wrong, especially when the problem lies with people, and when that generalization leads to the straight-up killing of a countless number of innocent, nonviolent pits. Here's a couple links for you guys. The first is about pits specifically and setting the record straight on some misinformation and stereotypes, and the second is a study on the most aggressive dog breeds. http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-things-you-never-knew-about-pit-bulls.html http://www.dogguide.net/blog/2008/07/the-3-most-aggressive-dog-breeds-revealed-pit-bulls-rottweilers-youll-be-surprised/

I didn't say that animals and children don't mix, just that it needs to be a controlled environment. I'm a liberal hippie animal hugger (exaggeration), but if little Johnnie yanks on Fluffy's tail and gets clawed in the eye, who is at fault? Not the kid, he doesn't know better if he's a toddler. Not the animal, it's a defense reaction. It's the parents (or whoever is in charge) for not maintaining control over the environment in which the interaction occurred. Cats are obviously much safer than large dogs with children though.

I just reread this and realized how great it'd be to be a dog. Lucky bastards...(pun intended)

Firstly, animals and small children don't mix well outside of a very, very controlled environment, and anyone who fails to realize this is an ignoramus who shouldn't legally be allowed to reproduce to begin with. But, I digress... Pit bulls aren't the problem here, the same way guns aren't the problem when people get shot. People are the problem. You take an 80-100 pound dog with Schwarzenegger muscles and a locking jaw, and you put him in an environment with uneducated people who haven't the slightest clue how to own/train/take care of a dog, and there are going to be problems. Unfortunately, the uneducated people who haven't the slightest clue how to own/train/take care of dogs have an immense affinity for big, bad ass, defense dogs like pit bulls, so we get lots of problems. If you want to actually solve the problem, and not create a new one (which an outright ban of pit bulls causes), make it illegal to own an "aggressive" breed (or, better yet, ANY ANIMAL) without a background check of sorts that ensures the owners can actually handle the animal they're taking on. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that pit bulls are the nicest, kindest animals on earth, because saying that about any breed or animal is pointless. It all depends on the individual animal and the situation it is in. But what I can tell you is that every pit I've ever met, including my roommate's which is a boxer-pit mix that I've grown very close with, has been incredibly friendly and sweet. I can also tell you the other side of the coin, because my cousin's german shepard-pit mix, who is super friendly with people, nearly killed a small dog that was annoying him. My roommate's dog Captain, the boxer-pit mix, is the most loving dog I've ever met in my life though. I'm comfortable enough with him to have fairly intense play-wrestling matches with him. The trick is that he's well-trained and knows his role. My roommate is his alpha, his fiance is the matriarch with whom he must be very delicate, and I'm a level of authority within the pack only slightly below the alpha. If Captain shows any sign of aggression ever or he is misbehaving in some other way, all it takes usually is a light smack on the nose and he gets it. It never takes more than a second, harder warning smack. Usually at that point, he'll try to lick me to death to apologize, and life moves on. Could he someday have a problem, switch into animal mode, and bite someone, be it me, my roommate, or a stranger? Yeah of course, any dog could. But the thought of Captain being illegal because he's aggressive is laughable at best. Anyone with the daily routine of snuggle, eat, poop, play rope, sleep, snuggle, eat, poop, play bone, snuggle, sleep, is not aggressive.

I've decided to break my prolonged state of silence on this site, because though this thread hasn't been touched in a month, I feel like what I have to say can legitimately contribute to the discussion here (and in the pit bull attack discussion). First things first, Sam Hurd is a moron and very much deserves a prison sentence. Whether or not its length is justifiable is a debate in the ethics of punishment that I'm just not interested in getting into, but the man is about as dumb as they come. And, for that matter, big time dealers who buy/distribute large amounts of illegal drugs of all kinds (none of them are doing just one, it's all or nothing in that business because profit is the only motive, and more drugs=more money) are scum who deserve what they have coming to them. Anyone who willingly partakes in the distribution of substances like meth that destroy lives is simply a piece of crap. But now to my real point: Sam Hurd wasn't addicted to marijuana. There is no substance in the cannabis plant that causes a human being to become physiologically addicted to it due to their repeated consumption of the plant in any form, be it through smoking or another method. Since my actual identity is in no way tied to my persona on this site, I have no problem admitting this here: I'm a daily marijuana smoker. I have been for about a year now, and the prior 6 or so months I was a 3-5 times per week smoker. Before I became a regular cannabis user, my GPA was 0.9 (no, seriously, it was that low). I was on the verge of failing out of UNT with no return on my initial $30,000 out-of-state tuition investment. Now? My GPA is up to a 2.95 after just 3 semesters of fixing things, I've had back to back semesters with a GPA of at least 3.25, and I made the Dean's List in this past semester. Am I claiming that marijuana saved my education? Absolutely not, and I'm not even insinuating a minor correlation between marijuana use and an increase in academic achievement, because that's just ludicrous. But what I am saying is that the long-held notions that marijuana makes one lazy, stupid, uninspired, useless, and a burden to society, are complete bullcrap. I can count the number of days that I smoked marijuana less than three times this past semester on one hand, and I made the Dean's List. I showed up to class high more than once, even got an A+ on two different precalculus exams that I did under the influence of marijuana. I could sit here and type out a 20,000 word essay on the history of the defamation of marijuana and the truth about the plant, filled with references to dozens of academic and medical journal publications backing up my information - I'm probably more knowledgeable about marijuana than I am about anything outside of weather, sports, and metal music - but that would be pointless. Instead, I'm just going to humbly ask all of you to seek out the truth about cannabis rather than buying into the propaganda that has led to the jailing of thousands and thousands of harmless people who have hurt nobody with their actions. It's a common saying within the marijuana counter-culture that the most dangerous thing about the plant is that it is illegal, and I completely agree with that. I can tell you from my own personal experience that the only withdrawal symptom I've experienced is slight insomnia, and that daily smoking has had hardly any effect on my lungs (the only thing I can note that has changed is an increase in mucus production, which is minorly annoying at worst), and that I've gone from nearly failing out of college to being a Dean's List student after becoming a regular toker. We're in the midst of a time in history where the public perception of cannabis is changing rapidly, which is great. But in a socially conservative state like Texas, that change is going to be met with extreme resistance, and the state will probably be one of the last to follow the "medical-decriminalization-legalization" model of marijuana legal reform. But it doesn't have to be that way. Look into the facts yourself, do some reading, some documentary-watching, hell even try some of the stuff yourself if you want. And then when the day inevitably comes that Texas finally starts putting some marijuana reform bills to vote, you'll have the knowledge to make a legitimate decision based on the facts. If you somehow come to the conclusion that it should be illegal after looking into it, then fine. But at least look into it. PS: I've never tried any other drug outside of medication prescribed to me from a medical professional, and alcohol. Marijuana has no link to cocaine and the harder stuff whatsoever. In my time smoking, I've never heard of anyone saying, "Man, weed just doesn't cut it anymore...I need some meth!" It just doesn't happen. People who smoke, like myself, do so for the effect, but also for the lack of after-effect. No other drug can offer an alternative state of mind without some kind of punishment later.

I've been wondering...do we have anyone on the team this year that could wind up being our first player to be drafted since...well, a long time? I've heard Antonio Johnson's name be tossed around, but that's going to be 2015 in all likelihood. What do you guys think?

I don't get why this is such a complicated issue. Anyone who doesn't think Benford is a terrible coach isn't rational. But anyone who thinks Tony Mitchell isn't to blame for Tony Mitchell's effort, or lack thereof, isn't rational either. I don't care how terrible a season is going. I don't care how much the rest of your team sucks, how much your coach sucks, how much your life sucks. The only one controlling a person's effort is that person, nothing and no one else dictates that. I'm incredibly disappointed that Tony mailed in this season to some extent. He should have enough respect for himself as a talented basketball player who had the potential to go top 10, maybe even top 5, and enough respect for his teammates and university, to give it his all this season. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that everyone takes a play off every now and then to catch their breath or whatever, that's human. But when it becomes noticeable, like it has here, there is definitely an issue. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. I may be 20 years old, but I'm not an idiot and I'm not naive. Giving anything but your best at whatever it is you do is to do a disservice to yourself and to those around you. Tony did a disservice to himself as his stock is lower and he has to deal with VERY avoidable questions being asked to him at this point. He did a disservice to his teammates by being a lazy excuse of a leader. And he did a disservice to his university by not respecting it enough to represent it to the best of his ability. This all seems negative and hateful. It isn't. I lived in the same dorm as Tony this year. He's a good guy, a kind-hearted and humble person. I wish him nothing but the best in the NBA and will absolutely be rooting for him going forward. But, I am absolutely disappointed with his lack of effort this season. He had the talent to overcome any bad coaching situation, but he let the bad start of the season and iffy coaching decisions get the best of him when it should have only motivated him to try even harder.

You aren't kidding. Yao Ming 2.0, just from India instead of China. Add another billion+ to the NBA's international market if he can make even a small name for himself in the NBA.

I don't fully agree with what your expectations are. With that being said, I think that we really could surprise some people this year. I'm guessing the 4-5 win range. But, I could see a max of around 8 or 9. The players are INCREDIBLY confident. You'll see a difference in their play this year I think. Whether or not that translates to wins on a tougher schedule, we'll see.

I'd seriously doubt they'd schedule it at noon. Whoever is in charge of that HAS to know that we'd be lucky to get 10,000 in the seats for an August game at noon. Gametime temp 100...rising to 110....yeah, they better not do that.

Eh...I get the argument about tradition and culture with uniforms. I do. But Oregon is unique. The constant changing of uniforms IS their culture, and new tradition. I don't know, maybe it's because I'm young and am not as partial to the older style uni's as some of you are. But, to me, we have no place to say Oregon lacks culture or tradition when they have 60,000 in the seats every weekend and have won more games in the past 2 seasons than we have in the past 8.

No offense, but I think it really might be only you who cares. Recruiting rankings are fun and all, and they're meaningful at the top where you have the 100 or so "elites". After that, everyone can play basketball and it is all about finding diamonds in the rough. Take soon-to-be rookie of the year Damian Lillard's case for example. 2 star prospect according to Rivals, best school to offer him was Wichita State, ended up at Weber State. 4 years later, the kid is a lottery pick, and going to be rookie of the year. Those rankings meant nothing. Oh, and what of Wichita State? They couldn't recruit Lillard over measly Weber State...surely they must be awful and still feeling the repercussions a few years later...oh crap, that's right, they went to the final four this year. My mistake. Looks like the schools that you beat out or lose out against in recruiting don't mean anything either. Seriously, you just sound like a whiny little girl. Get over it, you hate Benford. We all f'ing hate Benford...95% of us on this board would rather see the team coached by a TAMS student than Benford. But you don't see the rest of us making something out of nothing.

Hopefully this will spur Mac finally agreeing to change our hideous uniforms.

I watched the WAC championship game between UT Arlington and New Mexico State last night, as I'm sure at least a few of you guys did, and I was absolutely blown away by NMSU's freshman big man, Sim Bhullar. For those of you who don't know who he is, he's a 7'5" 355 pound center of Indian descent from Toronto. When I flipped on the game and saw him, I instantly was expecting a big, slow, clumsy, easily tired goon who was in there to take up space and rebound anything within his reach. Boy was I wrong, and I'm assuming every big-time college scout and coach was wrong about him too, otherwise he'd be on a much better team than NMSU. Double double by halftime, finished with something like 16 points and 15 rebounds, at least 4 or 5 blocks...the kid is legit. Relevant to UNT for a few reasons. One, I remember seeing a thread that said NMSU would announce a conference move sometime soon. If it, by some miracle, is C USA, be stoked, because you've then got 3 years of seeing this beast in person when we play NMSU. Two, WHY DIDN'T WE (and everyone else) GO AFTER THIS KID?? Three, WHY AREN'T WE GOING AFTER HIS 7'3" YOUNGER BROTHER, who is also being under recruited assuming he's remotely on the same level as Sim. Thoughts anyone?

I'd be so disappointed to see him hold this season against UNT...he's done a lot for the university already, but the university has also done a lot for him. UNT didn't have to take a chance on an academic nonqualifier with a shady academic past.