Moon's Graden

Man, I was gone all day at my brothers wedding. What the F*ck did
I miss? Was this supposed to have meaning? Is it piggybacking on
a thread I totally missed out on? Boy, leave this place for
several hours and I come back all confused.  :^P

--
~Darlene & Renegade~
 (I love my blue GSD!)
Scamp's Internet Resources, lot's of great links!
http://members.tripod.com/scampsite  Pet links!
Join my German Shepherd Inc. Web Ring!

 >wedding. What the F*ck did I miss? Was
 >this supposed to have meaning?
            ****************************
  B't why do you assume it isn't SP'M?

Sorry, Darlene.
It was spilling out of that "positive only" thread. I had just responded
to a rather hostile and combative post by Mr. Hassen, pasted below, in
addition to a couple of tag along commentors. Note* the P.S. portion of
my reply is all you need read to understand the "never-the-less..."
reference. The rest is pasted for the purpose of context.

It was difficult for me not to react to Mr. Hassen's aggressive posture
and personal attacks in kind, even while knowing how counter-productive
a reaction of that nature would be. At any rate, the mysterious post you
were subjected to was just me yelling into the canyons of the net with
the last bit of subdued hostility I wandered off with from that
"positive only" thread.

So the mysterious post was entirely self-serving. I needed to do it on
some emotional level. Sorry for the confusion, and for the waste of your
time.

canis55

                    Canis-expecting us to accept total nonsense writes:
                    >Any correction, whether verbal or physical, that
                    >can be associated by the dog to the trainer or
                    >the desired behavior, will foster a social
                    >resistance and a resistance to the commands
                    >themselves. Any correction, whether verbal or
                    >physical, aimed at stifling an instinct or
                    >suppressing an impulse will result in an
                    >eventual neurosis.

                    Fred, then not only disputes--but cites a few
examples by saying:
                    >Ever seen a field trial dog go after a bird 100
                    >miles an hour, and then a 'sit whistle' is blown,
                    >and the dog stops on a dime, then resumes at
                    >100 miles an hour----another whistle, another
                    >stop on a dime etc. This wasn't done with
                    >"please doggy 'sit' when you get around to it". It
                    >does not nhibit drive at all. Ever watch a police
                    >dog do a 'call-off?'. Ever watch a border collie
                    >get called off sheep, and then go back harder
                    >than ever?? Ever watch a ***hound get
                    >called off a track?

                    Canis then with his obvious limited exposure writes:
                    >Actually, yes (exaggeration of speed aside), no,
                    >but I have seen a dog trained for protection
                    >purposes called off during an attack, no, but
                    >something very similar, yes, but they didn't
                    >respond very well--respectively.
                    >Is there a point you're working up to here, Fred?

                    Fred replies:
                    >Yes, you need to get out and see some real
                    >dogs sometime.
                    Obviously seeing that Canis has never seen a high
performance dog.

                    Canis, then seeing that he is getting nowhere in
convincing Fred about his supposed fact,
                    mumbles:
                    >At which point canis55 shakes his head in
                    >disbelief and is absolutely convinced that
                    >Hassen has a huge problem following threads
                    >and comprehending text.
                    >Fred, I must say that given this and several
                    >other threads you have contributed to, you're
                    >really having a problem with this text based
                    >medium. I'm not saying this to be cruel. I'm
                    >saying it out of frustration. I don't think I'm
                    >capable of having a coherent converstaion with
                    >you. I just can't see how you get from one
                    >thought to another. I'm reluctant to follow you
                    >from one post to the next, as I'm failing to see
                    >any real connection between them. I have
                    >worked as a copy editor at several New York
                    >magazines, and I'm still having difficulty
                    >following your line of reasoning. I don't know
                    >what to tell you, other than that if you have not
                    >experienced this communication problem with
                    >other people, then it must be my short-coming.
                    >What ever the case, I think it's best we do not
                    >try to attempt this again. I just find it too
                    >frustrating.

                    I guess I have to slow down a bit for you.  A long
time ago, people said unequivocably that the
                    world was flat.  Someone proved it wrong just ONCE,
and for MOST PEOPLE, the 'world
                    being flat" was no longer a 'fact'.  I'm sure there
were still 'canis 55's" back then though that
                    continued to debate it.  I have taken the time to
give you NOT
                    ONE-----but a few examples.  Maybe you need a few
more.  ONE is usually sufficient to
                    disprove something that someone is claiming, but in
your case, three won't do the trick---so
                    let's try a few more.  That's all you get though,
even though I know you will continue to utter
                    your rediculous paragraph.  Ever watched someone in
protection 'build drive' in a dog?  The
                    dog is kept from getting to the person by either
being held by a leash, or tied to a fence or
                    something.  This makes the dog go harder than ever.
 "Any correction, whether verbal or
                    physical, aimed at stifling an instinct or
                    suppressing an impulse will result in an
                    eventual neurosis" that you state as fact, is proven
wrong again. Police people do it all the
                    time, and it doesn't make their dogs neurotic.  I've
corrected my dog tons of times if it ran
                    through a 'call-off', and I promise you that I have
one of the hardest charging dogs in the
                    country.
                    Take a dog that loves to catch a frisbee as another
example.  One of my clients is the world
                    frisbee dog champion.  We can throw a frisbee, and
hold the dog back from going-----when we
                    let him go----he's like a rocket and no neurosis.
Now listen, I've been patient enough to list
                    numerous examples-----and there are many more, but
I'm not spending any more time on
                    this.  One, should have been sufficient.  As long as
you get on here and start babbling a
                    bunch of ***as FACT, you will hear from me.  The
reason you are having trouble
                    comprehending what I say, is because you need to get
out more.  Jethro's dog down the
                    street, shouldn't be providing all of your info.

Well, it took you getting angry, but now I understand what you were
trying to say. This is a break through in our communication. It seems
you didn't understand what I meant when I used the expression stifle.
None of the examples you've given, with the possible exception of the
scent hounds, would be considered by me to involve a
correction--assuming one was used in the training process--aimed at
stifling an instinct or suppressing an impulse, for the very reason you
stated. That reason being, that the dog is released, as is the energy,
to pursue that same and natural course.

If you have actually been following my posts, instead of dismissing me
outright, you would recognize that although I know very little, and care
even less about, the world of Schutzhund Competition, the way I train is
founded upon Schutzhund philosophy. You already know Stephanitz predates
Lorenz, so you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to be working within
a Schutzhund mindset. I have, of course, tossed out the first rule: Find
a good working dog. I work with the washouts and rejects, "Jethro's dog
down the street" is one way of saying it. These represent the normal
dogs in this country at the present time. If you told me what you meant
by a high performance dog, I could tell you if I've ever seen one,
though I'm not sure how important that would be.

 Mostly my clients and I are just interested in having dogs who don't
bite the children, don't ***in the house, don't mount and hump the
mother-in-law, don't try to attack everybody and everything on the
street, don't eat the furniture, don't bark excessively, respond to a
recall like it's the biggest thrill in the world, heel on or off lead,
do an automatic sit stay at curbs, and remain in a sit or down stay
while their owner's enjoy an over priced coffee beverage at Starbucks.
No fancy stuff, Fred. If somebody remarks upon how well trained my dogs,
or my client's dogs are--and it does happen, Fred (because most of the
dogs in this city are totally untrained), I just thank them and kind of
shrug my shoulders because I know the difference between a well trained
dog, a dog trained well, and a well behaved dog. I don't consider any of
my dogs ...

read more »