A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog behavior
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

2 points about bad advice (in response to leah's detractors)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 6th 03, 07:17 AM
ChadL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 2 points about bad advice (in response to leah's detractors)

I've decided to post this after reading the thread, "help with german
shepard". There are 2 points that seem to be overlooked by the detractors
of chronic givers of bad advice. From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a person
who gives chronically bad advice.

Let us say that the detractors of leah, wish to (1) warn less experienced
people new to the group against leah's advice, preventing unnecessary harm
to animals; and perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)

Let's address the second, dog-lovers. I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective? I guess we'll see. If
not, then I would suggest a new method; because this one cannot justify the
premise of preventing harm to a naive owner's pets. Remember, when
"punishment" does not result in the decrease of the behavior, it's not
punishment, it's abuse. Ad hominem to be precise. And in some cases, I
imagine that this kind of abusive behavior is hypocritical (not to mention
ridiculous).

Now let's address the first. Do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going more likely to adhere to warnings that are
calm, rational and well-supported? Or do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going to be more likely to adhere to warnings
that are emotionally excitable, abusive, *and dismissive though not very
well supported with logical argument*? Do you think that some people might
be more likely to interpret the abusive people as simply rude, ignore them,
and possibly give the chronic bad advice giver a chance -- just to spite the
"mean" people? I think it could happen. And if it happens only once, then
that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use to
justify your abuse.


  #2  
Old December 6th 03, 10:53 AM
Charlie Wilkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:17:38 GMT, "ChadL" wrote:

I've decided to post this after reading the thread, "help with german
shepard". There are 2 points that seem to be overlooked by the detractors
of chronic givers of bad advice. From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a person
who gives chronically bad advice.

Yep. It's a lot of self-righteous bullshit.

I went back and read Leah's supposedly bad advice, and I didn't think
it sounded bad at all. Of course you don't want to settle down near
the dog if he's growling or behaving as though he might attack. But,
if he's fearful and nervous, sitting in the room, ignoring him, and
tossing some nibbles out on the floor sounds about right.

Charlie

Let us say that the detractors of leah, wish to (1) warn less experienced
people new to the group against leah's advice, preventing unnecessary harm
to animals; and perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)

Let's address the second, dog-lovers. I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective? I guess we'll see. If
not, then I would suggest a new method; because this one cannot justify the
premise of preventing harm to a naive owner's pets. Remember, when
"punishment" does not result in the decrease of the behavior, it's not
punishment, it's abuse. Ad hominem to be precise. And in some cases, I
imagine that this kind of abusive behavior is hypocritical (not to mention
ridiculous).

Now let's address the first. Do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going more likely to adhere to warnings that are
calm, rational and well-supported? Or do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going to be more likely to adhere to warnings
that are emotionally excitable, abusive, *and dismissive though not very
well supported with logical argument*? Do you think that some people might
be more likely to interpret the abusive people as simply rude, ignore them,
and possibly give the chronic bad advice giver a chance -- just to spite the
"mean" people? I think it could happen. And if it happens only once, then
that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use to
justify your abuse.



  #3  
Old December 6th 03, 10:53 AM
Charlie Wilkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:17:38 GMT, "ChadL" wrote:

I've decided to post this after reading the thread, "help with german
shepard". There are 2 points that seem to be overlooked by the detractors
of chronic givers of bad advice. From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a person
who gives chronically bad advice.

Yep. It's a lot of self-righteous bullshit.

I went back and read Leah's supposedly bad advice, and I didn't think
it sounded bad at all. Of course you don't want to settle down near
the dog if he's growling or behaving as though he might attack. But,
if he's fearful and nervous, sitting in the room, ignoring him, and
tossing some nibbles out on the floor sounds about right.

Charlie

Let us say that the detractors of leah, wish to (1) warn less experienced
people new to the group against leah's advice, preventing unnecessary harm
to animals; and perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)

Let's address the second, dog-lovers. I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective? I guess we'll see. If
not, then I would suggest a new method; because this one cannot justify the
premise of preventing harm to a naive owner's pets. Remember, when
"punishment" does not result in the decrease of the behavior, it's not
punishment, it's abuse. Ad hominem to be precise. And in some cases, I
imagine that this kind of abusive behavior is hypocritical (not to mention
ridiculous).

Now let's address the first. Do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going more likely to adhere to warnings that are
calm, rational and well-supported? Or do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going to be more likely to adhere to warnings
that are emotionally excitable, abusive, *and dismissive though not very
well supported with logical argument*? Do you think that some people might
be more likely to interpret the abusive people as simply rude, ignore them,
and possibly give the chronic bad advice giver a chance -- just to spite the
"mean" people? I think it could happen. And if it happens only once, then
that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use to
justify your abuse.



  #4  
Old December 6th 03, 10:53 AM
Charlie Wilkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:17:38 GMT, "ChadL" wrote:

I've decided to post this after reading the thread, "help with german
shepard". There are 2 points that seem to be overlooked by the detractors
of chronic givers of bad advice. From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a person
who gives chronically bad advice.

Yep. It's a lot of self-righteous bullshit.

I went back and read Leah's supposedly bad advice, and I didn't think
it sounded bad at all. Of course you don't want to settle down near
the dog if he's growling or behaving as though he might attack. But,
if he's fearful and nervous, sitting in the room, ignoring him, and
tossing some nibbles out on the floor sounds about right.

Charlie

Let us say that the detractors of leah, wish to (1) warn less experienced
people new to the group against leah's advice, preventing unnecessary harm
to animals; and perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)

Let's address the second, dog-lovers. I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective? I guess we'll see. If
not, then I would suggest a new method; because this one cannot justify the
premise of preventing harm to a naive owner's pets. Remember, when
"punishment" does not result in the decrease of the behavior, it's not
punishment, it's abuse. Ad hominem to be precise. And in some cases, I
imagine that this kind of abusive behavior is hypocritical (not to mention
ridiculous).

Now let's address the first. Do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going more likely to adhere to warnings that are
calm, rational and well-supported? Or do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going to be more likely to adhere to warnings
that are emotionally excitable, abusive, *and dismissive though not very
well supported with logical argument*? Do you think that some people might
be more likely to interpret the abusive people as simply rude, ignore them,
and possibly give the chronic bad advice giver a chance -- just to spite the
"mean" people? I think it could happen. And if it happens only once, then
that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use to
justify your abuse.



  #5  
Old December 6th 03, 10:53 AM
Charlie Wilkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:17:38 GMT, "ChadL" wrote:

I've decided to post this after reading the thread, "help with german
shepard". There are 2 points that seem to be overlooked by the detractors
of chronic givers of bad advice. From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a person
who gives chronically bad advice.

Yep. It's a lot of self-righteous bullshit.

I went back and read Leah's supposedly bad advice, and I didn't think
it sounded bad at all. Of course you don't want to settle down near
the dog if he's growling or behaving as though he might attack. But,
if he's fearful and nervous, sitting in the room, ignoring him, and
tossing some nibbles out on the floor sounds about right.

Charlie

Let us say that the detractors of leah, wish to (1) warn less experienced
people new to the group against leah's advice, preventing unnecessary harm
to animals; and perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)

Let's address the second, dog-lovers. I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective? I guess we'll see. If
not, then I would suggest a new method; because this one cannot justify the
premise of preventing harm to a naive owner's pets. Remember, when
"punishment" does not result in the decrease of the behavior, it's not
punishment, it's abuse. Ad hominem to be precise. And in some cases, I
imagine that this kind of abusive behavior is hypocritical (not to mention
ridiculous).

Now let's address the first. Do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going more likely to adhere to warnings that are
calm, rational and well-supported? Or do you think that the typical
new-to-this-group person is going to be more likely to adhere to warnings
that are emotionally excitable, abusive, *and dismissive though not very
well supported with logical argument*? Do you think that some people might
be more likely to interpret the abusive people as simply rude, ignore them,
and possibly give the chronic bad advice giver a chance -- just to spite the
"mean" people? I think it could happen. And if it happens only once, then
that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use to
justify your abuse.



  #6  
Old December 6th 03, 02:39 PM
Sionnach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a

person
who gives chronically bad advice.


Wrong. In the first place, nobody "attacked" Leah in that thread. Second,
it wasn't a matter of "warning against chronically bad advice".
Leah often gives good advice; it's just that she's new to dog training,
and has a habit of also giving advice on matters she doesn't have sufficient
experience with. One of the problems with that is that because she's
employed as a low-level beginning obedience/puppy trainer at PetsMart, she
has a title to add to her name which gives that bad advice more weight.
And because she DOES work at PetsMart, and has many people approach her
in RL for advice as well, many in here feel it's important to let her know
when her advice is off-base.

On top of that, she has a very long history - a history that goes back
several years before she got the job at PetsMart- of starting controversial
threads in here. Many people (I am not one of them) feel that she does so
deliberately.

perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)


Nobody wants to "punish" Leah's bad advice, and nobody called her names.
Geez- where's Marshall Worth when we need him to continue his crusade
against the evils of hyperbole?

I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective?


Not in the exaggerated form you're talking about, but yes, Leah *does*
listen and learn. She'll tell you herself that she's learned from this
group.




that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use

to
justify your abuse.


Spare us the overblown rhetoric, please. Nobody was "abusive" towards
Leah.


  #7  
Old December 6th 03, 02:39 PM
Sionnach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a

person
who gives chronically bad advice.


Wrong. In the first place, nobody "attacked" Leah in that thread. Second,
it wasn't a matter of "warning against chronically bad advice".
Leah often gives good advice; it's just that she's new to dog training,
and has a habit of also giving advice on matters she doesn't have sufficient
experience with. One of the problems with that is that because she's
employed as a low-level beginning obedience/puppy trainer at PetsMart, she
has a title to add to her name which gives that bad advice more weight.
And because she DOES work at PetsMart, and has many people approach her
in RL for advice as well, many in here feel it's important to let her know
when her advice is off-base.

On top of that, she has a very long history - a history that goes back
several years before she got the job at PetsMart- of starting controversial
threads in here. Many people (I am not one of them) feel that she does so
deliberately.

perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)


Nobody wants to "punish" Leah's bad advice, and nobody called her names.
Geez- where's Marshall Worth when we need him to continue his crusade
against the evils of hyperbole?

I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective?


Not in the exaggerated form you're talking about, but yes, Leah *does*
listen and learn. She'll tell you herself that she's learned from this
group.




that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use

to
justify your abuse.


Spare us the overblown rhetoric, please. Nobody was "abusive" towards
Leah.


  #8  
Old December 6th 03, 02:39 PM
Sionnach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a

person
who gives chronically bad advice.


Wrong. In the first place, nobody "attacked" Leah in that thread. Second,
it wasn't a matter of "warning against chronically bad advice".
Leah often gives good advice; it's just that she's new to dog training,
and has a habit of also giving advice on matters she doesn't have sufficient
experience with. One of the problems with that is that because she's
employed as a low-level beginning obedience/puppy trainer at PetsMart, she
has a title to add to her name which gives that bad advice more weight.
And because she DOES work at PetsMart, and has many people approach her
in RL for advice as well, many in here feel it's important to let her know
when her advice is off-base.

On top of that, she has a very long history - a history that goes back
several years before she got the job at PetsMart- of starting controversial
threads in here. Many people (I am not one of them) feel that she does so
deliberately.

perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)


Nobody wants to "punish" Leah's bad advice, and nobody called her names.
Geez- where's Marshall Worth when we need him to continue his crusade
against the evils of hyperbole?

I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective?


Not in the exaggerated form you're talking about, but yes, Leah *does*
listen and learn. She'll tell you herself that she's learned from this
group.




that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use

to
justify your abuse.


Spare us the overblown rhetoric, please. Nobody was "abusive" towards
Leah.


  #9  
Old December 6th 03, 02:39 PM
Sionnach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


From what I've read, it seems that the
argument for attacking another poster that gives bad advice rests upon the
premise that people new to this newsgroup need to be warned against a

person
who gives chronically bad advice.


Wrong. In the first place, nobody "attacked" Leah in that thread. Second,
it wasn't a matter of "warning against chronically bad advice".
Leah often gives good advice; it's just that she's new to dog training,
and has a habit of also giving advice on matters she doesn't have sufficient
experience with. One of the problems with that is that because she's
employed as a low-level beginning obedience/puppy trainer at PetsMart, she
has a title to add to her name which gives that bad advice more weight.
And because she DOES work at PetsMart, and has many people approach her
in RL for advice as well, many in here feel it's important to let her know
when her advice is off-base.

On top of that, she has a very long history - a history that goes back
several years before she got the job at PetsMart- of starting controversial
threads in here. Many people (I am not one of them) feel that she does so
deliberately.

perhaps (2) PUNISH Leah's chronically bad advice giving
behavior. (e.g., by calling her names such as "idjit", etc.)


Nobody wants to "punish" Leah's bad advice, and nobody called her names.
Geez- where's Marshall Worth when we need him to continue his crusade
against the evils of hyperbole?

I imagine that this attempt at
punishment has been tried before with this particular so-called "chronic
giver of bad advice" -- so has it been effective?


Not in the exaggerated form you're talking about, but yes, Leah *does*
listen and learn. She'll tell you herself that she's learned from this
group.




that should tell you that your emotionally charged warnings are not as
effective as they should be according to your premise that you want to
prevent people from taking bad advice -- a premise that you unjustly use

to
justify your abuse.


Spare us the overblown rhetoric, please. Nobody was "abusive" towards
Leah.


  #10  
Old December 6th 03, 05:42 PM
Lee DeRaud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 08:39:46 -0500, "Sionnach"
wrote:

Leah often gives good advice; it's just that she's new to dog training,
and has a habit of also giving advice on matters she doesn't have sufficient
experience with. One of the problems with that is that because she's
employed as a low-level beginning obedience/puppy trainer at PetsMart, she
has a title to add to her name which gives that bad advice more weight.


I'm sorry, you *completely* lost me at this point. At the risk of
indulging in hyperbole, I would have to say that the fact that Leah
persists in adding this "credential" to her posts is no less deceptive
than Jerry's "testimonials", if for no other reason than that she is
(IMHO) *consciously* using it to give her advice (good or bad) more
weight.

(I wouldn't mind seeing a line added to Lia's periodic 'newcomer
briefing' to the effect that any self-advertisement of this sort is
only worth the pixels it's displayed on.)

Nobody wants to "punish" Leah's bad advice, and nobody called her names.
Geez- where's Marshall Worth when we need him to continue his crusade
against the evils of hyperbole?


"It's EEEVILLL, I tell 'ya!!! Hyperbole will cause the downfall of all
that we hold dear!!!!"

Lee
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When Someone Offers Dangerous Advice Marshall Dermer Dog behavior 988 December 18th 03 03:58 AM
2 points about bad advice (in response to lynn kosmakos the dogmurderer) lynn kosmakos is a dog murderer Dog breeds 0 December 11th 03 03:32 AM
When Someone Offers Dangerous Advice Marshall Dermer Dog behavior 0 December 4th 03 07:13 PM
When Someone Offers Dangerous Advice Marshall Dermer Dog behavior 0 December 4th 03 07:13 PM
When Someone Offers Dangerous Advice Marshall Dermer Dog behavior 0 December 4th 03 07:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright ©2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.