Tara Green wrote:
Robin Nuttall wrote:


Ok. On this topic, I will let it go.

Its your past that's on the table here, and I respect your choice in
how that's handled.

People who know me understand the context, and people who don't, well I
really don't care what they think. I'm glad that I was able to learn
from that mistake. It has really helped shape what I have done with
every dog since, and I feel they have all benefitted.

Robin Nuttall wrote:
Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
William Clodius wrote:

I suggest not legitimizing any one you consider a troll by refering to
him or her or responding directly to their posts in any way.


I'm usually a major advocate for that but chard gives advice
that will kill a dog.

I do think whoever dragged her over here from rpdh needs a
kick in the heinie, though.

Yes, very bad advice is given. However, by constantly engaging her, not
only do you legitimize her (after all, such a passionate response must
mean she could be right, or at least that's what some people will think)
but you also make yourself look pretty much just as loony as she is.

Constantly screaming invective is not the way to convince anyone. And
honestly, anybody who can't see through her in a very few posts is not
real likely to be very balanced either.

Here is an example of "not real likely to be very balanced"

Robin posted:

"Many years ago I had a dog who had a liver shunt and also got
histoplasmosis. This was before shunts were thought treatable. I dragged
that dog through absolute hell for well over a year. She was a walking
skeleton with a distended belly that I'd get the ascites drained out of
every week or so. I just could NOT let her go. She ended up dying
horribly while I was on a trip."

Melinda Shore wrote:

In article ,
William Clodius wrote:
I suggest not legitimizing any one you consider a troll by refering to
him or her or responding directly to their posts in any way.

I'm usually a major advocate for that but chard gives advice
that will kill a dog.
Note that I did not say kill file her. (Though as a health non-expert
with limited time for usenet I have done so.) If you see harmful
information correct it but
1. if someone else has aready respoded to the post showing interest post
the correction to the interested post so that the someone that might
kill the dog is likely to see it
2. otherwise if the misinformation is in response to another post
respond to the earlier post, the one who is most likely to listen to her
advice
3. otherwise respond to her, but in any case try to avoid referring to
her by name, avoid name calling, and don't correct minor variations of
the same advice multiple times in the same thread. All show you have her
attention and that is what a troll wants. There is a limit to what you
can do to help anyone foolish enough to be tempted by her advice.


I do think whoever dragged her over here from rpdh needs a
kick in the heinie, though.
FWIW I think it was Jerry Howe.

--
Bill Clodius
los the lost and net the pet to email

Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Sharon Too wrote:

She comes here looking for a fight and gets one.

I come here posting on topic for the group. Nothing more, nothing less.

Disingenuous crap.

Well now we know where your interests lie....

Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:

I've never done anything like that to an animal. Here in Florida abuse
is against the law.

The only difference is she's honest enough to admit when she does
something wrong.

You can't even admit when you give bad advice.

You don't get to decide that I give bad advice. It's your opinion only
but I don't think you can grasp that concept.


So I certainly would never expect you to admit to half of what you've
done in real life.

Robin Nuttall wrote:


Tara, honestly, I don't need you to defend me. Anyone referencing that
original post knows the context.

Yep we sure do! The context consists of a dog being abused for well over
a year. This isn't one bad decision, it was an extended period of well
over a year that she put herself and her feelings ahead of a terminal
animal that should have spent the end of it's time in a peaceful
environment and without pain.

Robin Nuttall wrote:
I'm glad that I was able to learn
from that mistake. It has really helped shape what I have done with
every dog since, and I feel they have all benefitted.

A mistake doesn't last over a year. A mistake? That's really how you
think of what you did? Sicko! And it's obviously not an isolated incident:

"From: Robin Nuttall

"Those who slavishly devote themselves to one type of
training and who condemn others are the poorer for it.

I clicker train. I use choke collars. I shape behaviors.
I use drive work for focus and intensity. I use pinch
collars. I use harnesses. I use food. I use positive
and negative punishment.

Some of these things I use frenquently. Some very
infrequently. I tend to focus my training in the
quadrants of positive reinforcement and negative
punishment, and am far more likely to eliminate
undesired behavior through ignoring it than any
other way.

I'll also grab my young dog by the collar, lift
her up on her back feet, and tell her to KNOCK
IT OFF in no uncertain terms when the little snot
gets into overdrive and bites me."

Melinda Shore wrote:

snip
I'm usually a major advocate for that but chard gives advice
that will kill a dog.
snip
In thinking further rhe best advice you can give in this case, as in
most cases, is ..."Please check with a vet you trust first." perhaps
preceded by something like "I do not find it useful to respond to minor
variants of this topic."

--
Bill Clodius
los the lost and net the pet to email

In article ,
William Clodius wrote:
In thinking further [ ... ]

Fascinating.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

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