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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |