TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Description of your first forum.

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by v.. » Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:00:00



        There is a lot of really good advice that can be found on the net and
web from dog behaviorists and trainers and it's not on the low side of
smart as Robert claims.
        There is nothing at all wrong with a bunch of dog people talking or
arguing amongst themselves when it stays to a civil argument or
discussion.
        Squabbles, chit chat, recipes and making fun of people is fine as long
as it doesn't become harassment.
        I'm separating it into the regulars and the newcomers because both are
totally different people with different agendas on their mind. The
regulars give advice and suggestions and also point out things they feel
are incorrect. The newcomers, most anyway, come here to ask or find out
what they should do about their dog's problem or to discuss a behavior
situation.
        There is nothing wrong with giving advice which one feels is helpful
for the dog problem at issue. There is also nothing wrong with
expressing feeling to someone who you feel is mistreating or abusing the
dog. However, getting down right *** won't convince anyone of
anything. If I had a choice between reading and believing a civil reply
and a *** reply. I'd rather read and believe the civil reply. I mean,
wouldn't you? I'm not just focusing on the negative but I have a feeling
that there are a lot more people who had not received the help they
thought they would get from their post. If you choose to not care about
how many people leave, then this just proves my point that you'll wind
up here all alone.
        I have helped a lot of people who posted the need for help with their
dog or dogs behavior problems or even health problems. I just rarely do
it through the group because the majority of you disagree with my
training views and beliefs. I chose to avoid this confrontation when I'm
helping someone with their dog.
        Yes, I am clear on discussion and it doesn't have to be done in a rude
way. I have responded to my posts. It just takes me awhile because I
have better things to do than correspond to this group. Well, some I did
choose to not to reply because people choose to have their own opinion
and I choose not to argue. I will clarify and explain anything
misunderstood. I mean really, would my comment really make that much
difference. Especially if it's one of disagreement. What I have posted
mostly are not quotes from anywhere but me and my personal and
professional opinion on dogs and working with dogs.
        Why is niceness not a criterion? It should be for all the newcomers.
        Star Chavez you stated, "I also wouldn't rely totally
on an internet newsgroup to get my questions answered about my dogs
behaviour either. I rely on my trainer, good books, articles, and my vet
to help me get the majority of my questions answered." But then you
posted advice for your fence fighting situation. As far as your
statement about not relying on newsgroups for advice, the newcomers
don't know what they're getting into when they come here for advice.
Many do come here expecting advice that they can rely on to solve their
behavi***problem(s) or they probably wouldn't post here in the first
place. Maybe some are just asking for opinions but most are asking for
advice to solve their dog's problem.

        Who is the founder of this newsgroup?

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by Terr » Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:00:00


snip

Quote:

>         Who is the founder of this newsgroup?

People who have been around longer than most of us.
In fact, long before the group was split.

Geez,  go see a moderated group, will you? Just quit
wasting bandwidth and stop WHINING, okay?
Terri
Getting really po'd at the whiners/moderaters of the world..

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by Suz » Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:00:00


While good advice can be offered here (and often is with the exception of the
black box and wits end), Star IS right, no one should take internet advice as
gospel.  It is a good forum to hear others experiences and knowledge that others
have (and get some encouragement in trying times with our dogs).  Most people here
seem to care about the dog first.

But I wonder, are you more interested in dogs or being a control freak?  I lurk
here pretty often, post occasionally (and even when I've been "spoken" to
sometimes not so nice, I still find it pretty helpful and the regulars you refer
to knowledgeable).  You have posted several times regarding the happenings in this
newsgroup, what is your objective?  You are just creating more of what you are
trying to get rid of.  Maybe you should set an example by doing.

Quote:

>         There is a lot of really good advice that can be found on the net and
> web from dog behaviorists and trainers and it's not on the low side of
> smart as Robert claims.
>         There is nothing at all wrong with a bunch of dog people talking or
> arguing amongst themselves when it stays to a civil argument or
> discussion.
>         Squabbles, chit chat, recipes and making fun of people is fine as long
> as it doesn't become harassment.
>         I'm separating it into the regulars and the newcomers because both are
> totally different people with different agendas on their mind. The
> regulars give advice and suggestions and also point out things they feel
> are incorrect. The newcomers, most anyway, come here to ask or find out
> what they should do about their dog's problem or to discuss a behavior
> situation.
>         There is nothing wrong with giving advice which one feels is helpful
> for the dog problem at issue. There is also nothing wrong with
> expressing feeling to someone who you feel is mistreating or abusing the
> dog. However, getting down right *** won't convince anyone of
> anything. If I had a choice between reading and believing a civil reply
> and a *** reply. I'd rather read and believe the civil reply. I mean,
> wouldn't you? I'm not just focusing on the negative but I have a feeling
> that there are a lot more people who had not received the help they
> thought they would get from their post. If you choose to not care about
> how many people leave, then this just proves my point that you'll wind
> up here all alone.
>         I have helped a lot of people who posted the need for help with their
> dog or dogs behavior problems or even health problems. I just rarely do
> it through the group because the majority of you disagree with my
> training views and beliefs. I chose to avoid this confrontation when I'm
> helping someone with their dog.
>         Yes, I am clear on discussion and it doesn't have to be done in a rude
> way. I have responded to my posts. It just takes me awhile because I
> have better things to do than correspond to this group. Well, some I did
> choose to not to reply because people choose to have their own opinion
> and I choose not to argue. I will clarify and explain anything
> misunderstood. I mean really, would my comment really make that much
> difference. Especially if it's one of disagreement. What I have posted
> mostly are not quotes from anywhere but me and my personal and
> professional opinion on dogs and working with dogs.
>         Why is niceness not a criterion? It should be for all the newcomers.
>         Star Chavez you stated, "I also wouldn't rely totally
> on an internet newsgroup to get my questions answered about my dogs
> behaviour either. I rely on my trainer, good books, articles, and my vet
> to help me get the majority of my questions answered." But then you
> posted advice for your fence fighting situation. As far as your
> statement about not relying on newsgroups for advice, the newcomers
> don't know what they're getting into when they come here for advice.
> Many do come here expecting advice that they can rely on to solve their
> behavi***problem(s) or they probably wouldn't post here in the first
> place. Maybe some are just asking for opinions but most are asking for
> advice to solve their dog's problem.

>         Who is the founder of this newsgroup?

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by star chave » Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
>>>>>Star Chavez you stated, "I also wouldn't rely totally

on an internet newsgroup to get my questions answered about my dogs
behaviour either. I rely on my trainer, good books, articles, and my vet
to help me get the majority of my questions answered." But then you
posted advice for your fence fighting situation. As far as your
statement about not relying on newsgroups for advice, the newcomers
don't know what they're getting into when they come here for advice. >>>>

Yeah, and your point is???? I again will state: I do not rely on this
newsgroup to get the *majority* of my questions answered. How am I
contradicting myself in any way???

I also stated that I do ask questions here. I have gotten to know many of
the ppl here and respect their wisdom. I asked for suggestions on fence
fighting here and I also looked into the problem elsewhere. I never said I
don't ever follow advice I get from here. I do, often! I have acquired
some great tips over time.

However, Most people have no idea who they are receiving answers from and
this can often be dangerous. IT is dangerous to rely totally on this
newsgroup (especially when you don't have a feel for who the people who
are replying are) in general.

Cheers,

Cin & Sid (85# spoiled lapdog---waiting for his gorgeous red sis to come
home---18 days and counting!!)

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by Robert Cr » Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

>    There is a lot of really good advice that can be found on the net and
>web from dog behaviorists and trainers and it's not on the low side of
>smart as Robert claims.

Actually, if you go back and read what I said, it was:
"Point #1:  If you come to the internet for advice ("really good or
otherwise") you are already on the low side of the *smart* scale.  "

NOT, that the dog behaviorists and trainers are on the low side of the
smart scale.  BTW, I don't include you in the behaviorist/trainer
category because I believe those titles are *earned* by years of
experience, not bestowed at the end of a 90 day course.

Quote:
>    There is nothing at all wrong with a bunch of dog people talking or
>arguing amongst themselves when it stays to a civil argument or
>discussion.

<<snip a lot of hubris and patronizing juvenile blather>>

Quote:
>    Who is the founder of this newsgroup?

God and all her Angels.

Robert

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by April Qui » Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:00:00


:       There is a lot of really good advice that can be found on the net and
: web from dog behaviorists and trainers and it's not on the low side of
: smart as Robert claims.

But the deal is - newcomers don't know who knows what they're talking
about, and who doesn't but gives advice anyway. There are (IMO) many more
of the latter than the former.

:       There is nothing wrong with giving advice which one feels is helpful
: for the dog problem at issue. There is also nothing wrong with
: expressing feeling to someone who you feel is mistreating or abusing the
: dog. However, getting down right *** won't convince anyone of
: anything.

Just like in "real life," some people are more tactful than others. Some
people know how to communicate differences without offending others, and
some people don't - and some people just don't care.

: If you choose to not care about
: how many people leave, then this just proves my point that you'll wind
: up here all alone.

These groups have been around for a long time. I, personally, have been
reading them (and their predecessor) since 1992 or 1993. There has
always been a mix of very rude and/or abrupt people, and very helpful and
tactful people (and everything in between), and the number of posts keeps
growing.

:       Why is niceness not a criterion? It should be for all the newcomers.

Again, who's "nice" and who's not is the same here as it is in "real
life," except that some people are braver about being rude when they
don't have to see the person they're being rude to face-to-face. There's
no moderator for these groups, so you just have to expect some people to
be rude. Flames are a tradition on the Internet! If you want "nice,"
stick to moderated email lists that have rules against flaming.

: As far as your
: statement about not relying on newsgroups for advice, the newcomers
: don't know what they're getting into when they come here for advice.
: Many do come here expecting advice that they can rely on to solve their
: behavi***problem(s) or they probably wouldn't post here in the first
: place.

These people need to make *sure* they understand that they're going to
get a wide range of good and bad advice, and everything in between. If
they think ever bit of advice they get her is good advice, many are going
to end up with really messed up dogs.

:       Who is the founder of this newsgroup?

Well, way back when (before I was reading newsgroups), it all started
with rec.pet, which branched out into rec.pets.dogs (and rec.pets.cats
and rec.pets.birds, and rec.pets.herp...). I have a feeling the only one
here who would be able to tell you who started those is Cindy Tittle
Moore, and maybe one or two others. When rec.pets.dogs got too diverse
and hard to read, Cindy did the work to split it between all the
rec.pets.dogs.* newsgroups we have now. I'm just taking a wild guess, but
it was probably around 1995 or 1996.

But again - they have always been unmoderated, so people have always been
free to say whatever they want. In spite of the problems, many of us like
it this way. We've learned to pick out the good stuff and ignore (or
flame :-) the bad stuff. Either that, or we leave.

Actually, I think if you look in rec.pets.dogs.info, there's a history of
these groups posted regularly. I think.

April with Levi, Caper, and Epic, the Border Collie Hurricanes

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by April Qui » Sat, 03 Apr 1999 04:00:00



: That's a meaningless question.  rec.pets.dogs was group'd sometime in
: 1986 or '87 when most anyone could issue a group request and have it
: honored.  I don't know who that was, it's just a bit  before my time
: and I didn't have a dog then.  In 1994, rec.pets.dogs was reorganized
: into the current set of groups where according to the conventions then
: (and pretty much now), they were voted into existence by a majority of
: potential readers in sufficient numbers to indicate viability.

No way! It was *that* long ago????

Oh man... I gotta get a life!

(Guess I should have waited to post my last post... I should have known
Cindy would jump in here.)

April with Levi, Caper, and Epic, the Border Collie Hurricanes

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by saxo » Mon, 05 Apr 1999 05:00:00


Quote:

>         Who is the founder of this newsgroup?

Me.  It's me, I confess.

Saxon Brown (I also help Al***invent the internet... yea, that's the
ticket)

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by WebbWea » Tue, 06 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
I also help Al***invent the internet...

Did you also have a yukky romantic novel written about you?
heh heh
Jane Webb
Mudpie & Moonpie

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by Jennifer Johst » Tue, 06 Apr 1999 04:00:00


I'm sure the writers of romantc novels might take offence to that.  I
myself am an avid reader of such drivel.  oh, and Robert, I take
exception to your comment about people who ask for advice from
newsgroups.  I am a newcomer, who just sincerely loves dogs but doesn't
know a whole lot about them.  I asked for advice.  Does that make me at
the low end of the smart scale? I don't think so.  I don't think any of
my profs would think so when I earned my masters degree from U.of M.  In
fact my I.Q. was tested on the very high end of gifted.  Not tooting my
own horn, just refuting that very insulting comment. Go ahead, roast me
if you will.
 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by Robert Cr » Tue, 06 Apr 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
>Did you also have a yukky romantic novel written about you?
>heh heh
>Jane Webb
>Mudpie & Moonpie

Romance is NOT yukky.  And it IS novel.......if approached with the
proper attitude.

Robert
I had a romantic novel written about me one time.  
It was called "Alien"

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by Robert Cr » Tue, 06 Apr 1999 04:00:00



Quote:

>I'm sure the writers of romantc novels might take offence to that.  I
>myself am an avid reader of such drivel.  

And you're a webtv'er too.  No surprises so far.

Quote:
>oh, and Robert, I take
>exception to your comment about people who ask for advice from
>newsgroups.  

No surprise there either.

Quote:
>I am a newcomer, who just sincerely loves dogs but doesn't
>know a whole lot about them.  

To know them is to love them.  To not know a "whole lot" about them is
to have a long road ahead.

Quote:
>I asked for advice.  Does that make me at
>the low end of the smart scale?

Yes.

Quote:
>I don't think so.  I don't think any of
>my profs would think so when I earned my masters degree from U.of M.  

Let's see how many "M's" we can come up with.  The "U" could stand for
"U"nion, but some people use it as short for Univ.  Which is usually
short for University.

Assuming the U. stands for University,  let's see how many "M" type
places we can come up with.

1. Maryland
2. Michigan
3. Maui
4. Mississippi
5. Missouri
6. Montana
7. Mt. Olivet
8. Mt.Holyoke
9. Montevideo
10. Montenegro
11.  
12........etc, etc, fill in your own.

What is it about *your* particular M that's makes yo believe that it
is immediately obvious to the rest of the world?  

Quote:
>In
>fact my I.Q. was tested on the very high end of gifted.  

By "gifted", I assume from your performance so far, that you mean
someone that got at least a birthday present in the last 20 years.  If
you are at the high end of that scale, you must have gotten some
really good ones.  

Maybe a boxed set of romance novels with Fabio's picture on the
front??  I look a lot like Fabio, BTW  (BTW means "by the way", BTW)

Quote:
>Not tooting my
>own horn, just refuting that very insulting comment.

Tooting your own horn will make you crazy.  

If *that* was refutation, then you must have gotten it from one of
thoe Fabio novels you love so much.

Quote:
>Go ahead, roast me
>if you will.

Why?

Robert and Rollei (yawwwn)

 
 
 

TO GROUP: My replies to your replies

Post by WebbWea » Tue, 06 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
 Not tooting my
own horn,

Yes, you are.
Jane Webb
Mudpie & Moonpie