Everything said here is true except for the "Nanny Dog" bit. That's a myth/propaganda that was probably started by Pit Apologists as a good explanation of all the vintage picture of Pit Bull Class of dogs and children. Don't take my word for it .. look it up. What Ms Stanley didn't go into is what it is that makes this class of dog so dangerous. It's their style of attack which is which is to grab on to muscle, shake their heads (head shaking is the part that causes the catastrophic damage - especially with children) and never back down - gameness. NO AMOUNT OF OBEDIENCE TRAINING, SOCIALIZATION OR HOW THEY WERE RAISED MAKES A PARTICLE OF A DIFFERENCE ON HOW THE PIT BULL CLASS OF DOG ATTACKS. The tragedy is that these are really awesome and wonderful dogs and the vast majority go their whole life without attacking anything ... but it doesn't change in any way how this class of dog attacks and the catastrophic damage they do.

Please, please, please, edit this post with the correct use of "there"! Your article is sweet, but it seriously loses its effect with mistakes like these, and no, it's not only grammar, it's about semantics too. Also, I feel pity for the bit bull pet of Thomas Edison, ahem....