Tara wrote:
diddy wrote in
:


Taking cheap shots at someone simply because they haven't had time to
absorb the language,

While I don't disagree that people shouldn't be expected to automatically
know local custome, you might try really taking a look at who was taking
the cheap shots there. She made fun of the use of PP, was corrected in what
it meant here, and then she continued to belittle how it was being used
here. No one took pot shots at her for not getting it right. She, hewever,
was full of cheap shots in return.

But the fact is, I don't know any legitimate trainers who call
themselves "purely positive" do you? I certainly don't consider myself
to be one. I think it's one of those "strawman" arguments you keep
going on and on about. If you consider that belittling how it is used.
I guess so. I find the use of it disingenous.

That's not at ALL why she was being accused of being disingenuous. Not
knowing the local lingo had nothing whatsoever to do with her
disingenuousness....not by a long shot.

Tara

Sandy in OK wrote:


But the fact is, I don't know any legitimate trainers who call
themselves "purely positive" do you? I certainly don't consider myself
to be one. I think it's one of those "strawman" arguments you keep
going on and on about. If you consider that belittling how it is used.
I guess so. I find the use of it disingenous.


Haven't followed this whole thread--I'm swamped. But IIRC the term,
and the aggravation associated with it, has a lot to do with some
individuals who were on here for awhile, calling everyone else a lot
of names, advocating what seemed to be an ideologically-pure,
reward-only form of training. Their evident desire to impose their
views on everyone and the low standards they had for their dogs'
behavior and training were part of the picture.

I think any time someone comes on and appears to promote strongly
reinforcement-based training, many of us tend to associate them with
those harangues--and what appeared to be unrealistic views of dogs
and their capabilities.

FWIW I am on another list one of whose members claims to use
no P+. Other members have seen her dogs work and say they
are highly trained, the methods they've seen are what she's stated
they are, and she appears to have good enough self-knowledge not
to be deceiving herself about what she does (I mention that because
I've known a lot of people who say they never do X, and they
appear to believe it, and they darned well *do* do X).

Amy dAhl

diddy wrote in
:

in thread : Amy Dahl
whittled the following words:

Sandy in OK wrote:


But the fact is, I don't know any legitimate trainers who call
themselves "purely positive" do you? I certainly don't consider
myself to be one. I think it's one of those "strawman" arguments you
keep going on and on about. If you consider that belittling how it
is used. I guess so. I find the use of it disingenous.


Haven't followed this whole thread--I'm swamped. But IIRC the term,
and the aggravation associated with it, has a lot to do with some
individuals who were on here for awhile, calling everyone else a lot
of names, advocating what seemed to be an ideologically-pure,
reward-only form of training. Their evident desire to impose their
views on everyone and the low standards they had for their dogs'
behavior and training were part of the picture.

Actually i believe the only PP trainer here was Leah.

No, there were planty more before her.

I don't think
there was A N Y ONE who considered her credable. And yes, she had low
standards. I wonder if she ever got Maddy to heel off lead?

Irrelevant, since to a lot of us who have been here a long time, she
doesn't really represent the trainers tauting the PP hilosophy.

I don't think Leah ever called anyone a lot of names. She was
remarkably gentle. She was called a lot of names.

Once again, she's not really the one who is being referred to here.

So that's where the
name calling came in. But she never called anyone names. She is of the
aging hippy culture, formerly living in communes. As far as i can
tell, she lived/s her beliefs as fleetingly transient as they were.
But her motives were deeply felt and thoroughly believed by her. Her
circuit board had some serious "open's" in it. But i don't ever think
she deviated from her beliefs at the time for a moment. She lived her
convictions, whatever they were. And proselytized them.
But from all practical purposes, even mentioned by herself, her
methods didn't work very well.

Oh, there is one other person that I forgot about.
He-who-must-not-be- named. Another figure who claims PP, and whose
"followers" have low expectations and for whom ANY type of training at
all would improve their dogs behavior.
That's TWO PP'rs. BOTH local of this group . Both much less than
credable. Both leading credence to PP'rs being quacks.


Then what is being referenced is clearly before your time. No crime in
that, certainly, but you're arguing the wrong thing because of it.

Oh, and I use clicker on Tuck. Or verbal bridges when I don't happen
to have a clicker handy.
I am anything BUT Purely positive. I happen to think clickers can be a
useful tool. I also teach heel as a position. I also use target
training. i also use choke collars. And e-collars if necessary.

Ok. And they seem to work well for you. That's great.

Needless and un deserved insult in the other thread was certainly noted,
by the way.

Tara

snip crazy crossposting


wrote:
HOWEDY diddler,

diddy wrote:
in thread : Amy Dahl
whittled the following words:

Sandy in OK wrote:

But the fact is, I don't know any legitimate trainers
who call themselves "purely positive" do you?

That's curiHOWES, comin from broom sandy, the clickeroo.

How is that curious? (OH - THAT'S how it is spelled. They DO provide
courses for adults who have no grasp on the English language. Would
you like to to find one in your area for you?)



I certainly don't consider myself to be one.

Well THAT'S on accHOWENTA when you clicker trainin
FAILS you gotta HURT the dog to train IT {}: ~ (

I think it's one of those "strawman" arguments you keep
going on and on about. If you consider that belittling
how it is used.

Yeah. Perhaps she means we're usin "too many words".

Sure. Everyone "means" what you want them to mean.


Like in lying frosty dahl's posts "clicker project FIZZLES".

I guess so. I find the use of it disingenous.

Yeah. DisingenuHOWES {}'; ~ )

You still feel it's cute to make words up? GOD you are pathetic.



Haven't followed this whole thread--I'm swamped. But
IIRC the term, and the aggravation associated with it,

lying frosty dahl means

Here we go again with the "someone means" bullshit...

"the aggravation associated with"
incompetent violent lyin dog abusing mental cases who can't
compete in the real world of dog trainin so they gotta LIE
abHOWET HURTIN dogs to train them.

Where have YOU competed with dog training (that's how it's spelled -
TRAINING. Oh - sorry, it's "funny" or "clever" to spell words
incorrectly, right, child abuser? No. It's simply stupid, which suits
you well).

WHAT'S YOUR REAL NAME?!? Why do you avoid this question, child
molester???? Everyone else is a child abusing anonymous mental case,
are YOU the same???

WHAT IS YOUR NAME????????

I'll ask this damn question every ****ing day until you respond. I'll
post new topics every week asking this question. Anwser it and I'll
not ask anymore.

Tara wrote:

Actually i believe the only PP trainer here was Leah.

No, there were planty more before her.

I don't think
there was A N Y ONE who considered her credable. And yes, she had low
standards. I wonder if she ever got Maddy to heel off lead?

Irrelevant, since to a lot of us who have been here a long time, she
doesn't really represent the trainers tauting the PP hilosophy.

I don't think Leah ever called anyone a lot of names. She was
remarkably gentle. She was called a lot of names.

Once again, she's not really the one who is being referred to here.


That's my recollection. The "PP" term and concept were
established prior to Leah, and I never thought they applied
to her. Mind you, her stealing someone's dog and constantly patting
herself on the back for being such a good person gave me
fits, but she wasn't part of the "PP" phenomenon.

Amy Dahl

In article ,
Amy Dahl wrote:
That's my recollection. The "PP" term and concept were
established prior to Leah,

Yes, but

and I never thought they applied to her.

She went (or "zoomed," rather) through a PP phase. She
became frustrated with it pretty quickly.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Melinda Shore wrote:


She went (or "zoomed," rather) through a PP phase. She
became frustrated with it pretty quickly.

I could easily have missed it. Reading her posts and trying
to discuss anything with her were both un-reinforcing, so I
paid her little attention.

Amy Dahl