Now this is just stupid...

by **Buliwyf** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:56 pm

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908908393.html

what a wack.

by **Murgatroyd** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:03 pm

Word.

by **Jeffro** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:17 pm

by **shockwave203** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:36 pm

he is a wack. no matter how much of an expert you are with dealing with crocs, they still do things that you don't expect. Anyone remember Sigfried and Roy? they had complete control of their pets...until it bit one of them. too dangerous, too many wrong things could have happened. stupid move on steve irwins part.

by **Evan** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:57 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
he is a wack. no matter how much of an expert you are with dealing with crocs, they still do things that you don't expect. Anyone remember Sigfried and Roy? they had complete control of their pets...until it bit one of them. too dangerous, too many wrong things could have happened. stupid move on steve irwins part.

But what most don't understand (that according to Sigfried and Roy themelves), is that the tiger was protecting him (or so they said I believe) - as odd as it may sound.

by **shockwave203** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:59 pm

Nothin keeps ya safer than a gouged neck, I always say

by **{GAG}Night** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:18 pm

Dont get mad at me because I am a weirdo but I think the guy should do what ever the hell he wants with his kid. Its like letting your kid play with your dog, you can tell when the dog is going to bite, and thats just what he did.

by **Mugzy** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:32 pm

When Steve was feeding that croc, that kid was 100x safer then he would ever be in a car on a highway.

Steve has worked with crocs all his life and with that specific one for many years. He knows what they can do and knows his limits. The difference between Steve and Sigfried and Roy is that he always treats crocs like the wild animals they are, Sigfried and Roy seemed to loose that respect.

Would you think of someone as being crazy for taking their baby on an American airlines flight? That would be worse then this photo. With an airline, you would be putting your son's life in the hands of many people you have never met.

by **Ryan** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:21 pm

Exactly, Mugzy.

Well said.

Now, the whole MJ and the Dangling Baby act.. thats a whole different story!

by **Fat Bastard** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:32 pm

it's still screwed up

by **Buliwyf** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:48 pm

still messed up

by **Hellacious** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:58 pm

WTF..That is messed up. Steve needs some help.

by **Chacal** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:02 pm

Originally posted by {GAG}Night
Dont get mad at me because I am a weirdo but I think the guy should do what ever the hell he wants with his kid.

Errr.. no. Kid doesn't belong to him. It's a human being, and as such has the right to be protected from reckless acts. Even from his own parents.

by **Chacal** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:06 pm

Originally posted by Mugzy
When Steve was feeding that croc, that kid was 100x safer then he would ever be in a car on a highway.

Yes, but he would have been even safer in his crib or in his mother's arms.

[/B]
Would you think of someone as being crazy for taking their baby on an American airlines flight? That would be worse then this photo. With an airline, you would be putting your son's life in the hands of many people you have never met. [/B]

People put their babies in airplanes because they don't have a choice. This guy did it just for show. That's reckless endangerment.

He acted as if the kid belonged to him. We don't OWN kids, they're not things.

by **residue** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:55 pm

http://g.msn.com/0VD0/10/00?m=tdy_lauer_hunter_040105&csid=Msnbc

Now this is just stupid...

Now this is just stupid...

Who is online