Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the
proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but
figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.

IMO training & behavior go hand-in-hand with alot of training being
discussed here. From that aspect I think a *training ng would be redundant.

However, specific training methodology can be separate from behavior. For
example, you won't see people coming here, or thinking to go to a behavior
group, to ask how to begin their young Lab on field training. People
wouldn't think to come to behavior to ask questions on SAR, mushing, etc
training. I think the same generally applies to agility as well and that
the only real agility threads here are those posted by regulars but not by
newcomers.

So from that standpoint I think a *training ng would be beneficial. Where
things may overlap (as they occasionally do already between *behavior,
*breeds & *health) I don't see why it would be too much of a hassle for
someone to direct the poster to the more appropriate ng or to simply
crosspost between two relevant ngs. I think my strongest sense of dislike
for the proposal of *training came/comes from the fact that the proponent is
unknown, or is unknown here by that usenet handle.

So as it stands right now I'm on the fence. I can certainly see a benefit
to having a *training group as people looking to housetrain or do any other
kind of canine training will be able to spot an obvious ng for their
question vs going to *misc since *behavior doesn't automatically imply
training discussion to JQP. OTOH I can see a large potential for
overlap/redundancy but I'm no longer convinced that such a thing is
inherently bad.

--
Tara

"Tee" wrote:

IMO training & behavior go hand-in-hand with alot of training being
discussed here. From that aspect I think a *training ng would be redundant.

A training ng would be reinventing the wheel. Almost everything we discuss
involves training.

So as it stands right now I'm on the fence. I can certainly see a benefit
to having a *training group as people looking to housetrain or do any other
kind of canine training will be able to spot an obvious ng for their
question vs going to *misc since *behavior doesn't automatically imply
training discussion to JQP.

It's how I got here. I was looking for a training ng, and "behavior" seemed
appropriate.

Canine Action Dog Trainer
http://www.canineaction.com
My Kids, My Students, My Life:
http://hometown.aol.com/dfrntdrums/m...age/index.html

"Tee" wrote:

IMO training & behavior go hand-in-hand with alot of training being
discussed here. From that aspect I think a *training ng would be redundant.

A training ng would be reinventing the wheel. Almost everything we discuss
involves training.

So as it stands right now I'm on the fence. I can certainly see a benefit
to having a *training group as people looking to housetrain or do any other
kind of canine training will be able to spot an obvious ng for their
question vs going to *misc since *behavior doesn't automatically imply
training discussion to JQP.

It's how I got here. I was looking for a training ng, and "behavior" seemed
appropriate.

Canine Action Dog Trainer
http://www.canineaction.com
My Kids, My Students, My Life:
http://hometown.aol.com/dfrntdrums/m...age/index.html

"Tee" wrote:

IMO training & behavior go hand-in-hand with alot of training being
discussed here. From that aspect I think a *training ng would be redundant.

A training ng would be reinventing the wheel. Almost everything we discuss
involves training.

So as it stands right now I'm on the fence. I can certainly see a benefit
to having a *training group as people looking to housetrain or do any other
kind of canine training will be able to spot an obvious ng for their
question vs going to *misc since *behavior doesn't automatically imply
training discussion to JQP.

It's how I got here. I was looking for a training ng, and "behavior" seemed
appropriate.

Canine Action Dog Trainer
http://www.canineaction.com
My Kids, My Students, My Life:
http://hometown.aol.com/dfrntdrums/m...age/index.html

"Tee" wrote:

IMO training & behavior go hand-in-hand with alot of training being
discussed here. From that aspect I think a *training ng would be redundant.

A training ng would be reinventing the wheel. Almost everything we discuss
involves training.

So as it stands right now I'm on the fence. I can certainly see a benefit
to having a *training group as people looking to housetrain or do any other
kind of canine training will be able to spot an obvious ng for their
question vs going to *misc since *behavior doesn't automatically imply
training discussion to JQP.

It's how I got here. I was looking for a training ng, and "behavior" seemed
appropriate.

Canine Action Dog Trainer
http://www.canineaction.com
My Kids, My Students, My Life:
http://hometown.aol.com/dfrntdrums/m...age/index.html

"Tee" wrote in news:2t05baF1r5qf0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the
proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but
figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.


Why didn't you post this during the official discussion period? It is bad
netiquette to post opinion, or "campaign" one way or another during the CFV
phase.

--
Bill

"Tee" wrote in news:2t05baF1r5qf0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the
proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but
figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.


Why didn't you post this during the official discussion period? It is bad
netiquette to post opinion, or "campaign" one way or another during the CFV
phase.

--
Bill

"Tee" wrote in news:2t05baF1r5qf0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the
proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but
figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.


Why didn't you post this during the official discussion period? It is bad
netiquette to post opinion, or "campaign" one way or another during the CFV
phase.

--
Bill

"Tee" wrote in news:2t05baF1r5qf0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the
proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but
figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.


Why didn't you post this during the official discussion period? It is bad
netiquette to post opinion, or "campaign" one way or another during the CFV
phase.

--
Bill

"Woodchuck Bill" wrote in message
...
"Tee" wrote in news:2t05baF1r5qf0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the
proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but
figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.


Why didn't you post this during the official discussion period?

Which was from when to when? I don't recall being told I could only discuss
this issue during a certain timeframe. The CFV brought the issue back to my
attention hence the post today.

It is bad
netiquette to post opinion, or "campaign" one way or another during the
CFV
phase.

1. I'm not campaigning. If a new group does or does not join the ranks of
rec.pets.dogs then I promise I won't be losing any sleep over it nor do I
think many other regulars in *behavior would.

2. Since the original proposal I've had some time to mull it over and find
that I'm not entirely certain how, or even if, I'll vote.

3. Regardless of which way I vote I find talking about the proposed group in
a related ng like this, with regulars I know, to be beneficial. Some will
have points I didn't consider or counter points I already have considered.
Unfortunately its outside the specified timeframe but I wasn't aware there
was one in the first place.

--
Tara