Another Unlawful PDB Ad - Page 6

Here is a little hint, and look at the posts, he posted. I read the post he had posted on the Civil dog discussion before he deleted it. We all know him under a different handle though.
I'm not surprised at all how the add was worded. But to get hung up on it, is ridiculous.

Beetree, the ad says "absolutely no physically impaired handlers" not "physically incapable." Which clearly covers disabled people. Might you be reading the wrong ad?

BE, Beetree is right--sounds like you know this guy? Could you let us know who he is?

BE for sure he is not Dach Haus. Unless you know for sure who he is you should not be making accusations. That is slander.

Oh Jon, get over yourself. Stop with all the "Slander" this and "Unlawful" that BS. This entire post is a farce. He owns one of their dogs. The dogs registered name is Noah vom DachHaus and not Congo. Congo is his call name. It's Shawnicus!

"It's Shawnicus!"

Now we're getting somewhere. Why didn't you just say so from the start instead of making with the coy little hints that suggested Dach Haus was to blame?

But not sure it helps. Does anyone know who Shawnicus is?

Your comprehension is not where it should be. It wasn't a coy that DachHaus was to blame, it was a hint at Congo and I said read the posts, which further would have given you information who it is. If it was DachHaus there would have been way more dogs under Edit Rights being granted and also created Pedigrees, don't you think?

Where did she suggest Dach Haus was to blame?

As for Shawnicus, do some research and look at his posts.

LOL! Well, Shawnicus just happens to be a male chauvinist pig! He's the type that believes Gangsta dogs are what the standard for GSDs should be. Too bad for his bank book that his oversized and now dangerous dog was rejected by the Navy, because all he has now is a potential lawsuit on his hands. No wonder he wants to screen potential owners.

Still, I really don't think he is breaking the law by defining his criteria to exclude people who are physically impaired (you were right, that was the exact wording, my oops!), but really we are dealing with semantics. The issue for a suggested lawsuit is based on the use of the word for civil laws that are made irrelevant to this advertisement and when the IMPORTANT point of the verbiage use is as a descriptive word for finding someone who can physically handle his dangerous dog.

When you read his posts and read the classifieds it's quite hilarious.
And when you look up the older classifieds it gets even better. Same dog from three months ago... this whole post, the classifieds from Shawnicus... pure comedy...

 "...as he was selected for naval special warfare mwd but due to his size wasn't the right choice, ..."

Due to his size ?????

Sold 3 months ago, and got him back ?

That's what makes me wonder...