I've had my border collie 3 months, since she was 8 wks old. Before I
learned about the praise methods I used my old system and she already
responds pretty well to the old loud NO command that mostly stops her in
her tracks when she's running full speed at the inadvertently open gate
toward the deep growl of a HD motorcycle or a Cummins diesel lumbering
by. I'm pretty sure shaking a rattle at her just then would not do the
trick, and might cost her her life. Similarly, when she is attacking a
subterranean critter, tossing the can right near her just causes a
slight flinch as she continues gleefully drilling down into the sod,
grass and dirt flying.

Re the other issue, I've been hanging around the sci.med.vision
newsgroup for over 15 years, and have never been insulted by receiving
direct inquiries from people who would rather keep their problems
private, nor have I ever been told I had insulted anyone when I had
discreetly e-mailed them some advice directly.

BTW I've never used a killfile. I just skip over spam, trash and troll
bait. I wouldn't want to miss a diamond in the rough.

Anyway, I will make one small observation. There are some up tight
people on this group. Relax. Life's too short. I just got back from
a funeral (Sue McNew, the 2nd grade teacher who was killed by the
teenaged racers in Folsom, CA was a friend of mine). Enjoy and love
your dogs, your spouses, and your kids while you have them. You won't
always have them.

"William Stacy, O.D." wrote in
et:

Re the other issue, I've been hanging around the sci.med.vision
newsgroup for over 15 years,

This is not sci.med.vision.

and have never been insulted by
receiving direct inquiries from people who would rather keep
their problems private, nor have I ever been told I had insulted
anyone when I had discreetly e-mailed them some advice directly.

It's not necessarily an issue of being insulted, though that may
certainly be the case. I know that I do not particularly care to
get private newsgroup-related e-mail from people I don't "know."
The bigger issue, though, is that this is a public discussion
forum. Encouraging on-topic discussions to be taken to e-mail does
the group a disservice. Really. If you are looking for someone to
exchange e-mail with, there are a metric arseload of mail lists out
there. Or, if you want to discuss the resident loon's "methods"
with him, why don't you contact *him* directly? Because, like I
said, I doubt anyone else here is interested in that particular
topic.

Anyway, I will make one small observation. There are some up
tight people on this group. Relax. Life's too short.

Since we're in dispensing unwanted and unasked for advice mode, you
should spend less time worrying about what other people worry
about.

Enjoy and love your dogs, your spouses, and your kids
while you have them. You won't always have them.

It's kind of presumptuous of you to think that you are telling
people something they don't already know.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with
potatoes.
-- Douglas Adams

Shelly wrote:
Or, if you want to discuss the resident loon's "methods"
with him, why don't you contact *him* directly? Because, like I
said, I doubt anyone else here is interested in that particular
topic.

Really? The few people who have responded with information have
acknowledged that the general methodology is in fairly common usage. If
nobody else here is interested in that methodology or even the topic,
then maybe there are some closed minds around here?

If there is any value at all to the method, people should be willing to
discuss it even if one of the major proponents is a bit quirky and even
abrasive in his internet demeanor.

wrote:


to the old loud NO command that mostly stops her in her tracks


That's curiHOWES too, Doc, as that usually triggers
the OPPOSITION REFLEX and compels the dog to do what
he was doin, FASTER.

Not in this case. She does halt with the No command. Maybe it will
come back to bite me, but so far it has worked in a coupld of very tense
situations.


I'm pretty sure shaking a rattle at her just
then would not do the trick,


Of curse not, not unless the TECHNIQUE was CONDITIONED pupperly.


As you know, I just learned about your technique this week.


and might cost her her life.


What costs dogs their lives is their owners diverging
from the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, Doc and relying on FEAR
FORCE and INTIMIDATION instead of Pavlovian CONditioning.


I understand that, but I also understand that it takes time. In the
mean time, I cannot give up any protective measures that I already have
in the kind of crisis I described.


Of curse, if the dog SHOULD disregard the brief variably
alternating sound distraction INSTANTLY followed by
prolonged non physical praise, all you'd have to do is
ASK her to come and givin that the COME COMMAND is pupperly
installed as a CONDITIONAL REFLEX, the pup would have NO
CHOICE but to STOP whatever she's doin, and COME as CONditioned.

Right, but do you think I should have been able to install that reflex
already, after one or two training sessions?



I wouldn't want to miss a diamond in the rough.


But you're willin to MIX METHODS?


In a life and death situation, you bet I was willin. If I could have
tackled her, I'd have done that as she flew by on the way to the street.
But she's a 5 mo old border collie and I'm a 63 year old optometrist.

[eggplant] tag added

"William Stacy, O.D." wrote in news:MDDsh.36415
:

Shelly wrote:
Or, if you want to discuss the resident loon's "methods"
with him, why don't you contact *him* directly? Because, like I
said, I doubt anyone else here is interested in that particular
topic.

Really? The few people who have responded with information have
acknowledged that the general methodology is in fairly common usage. If
nobody else here is interested in that methodology or even the topic,
then maybe there are some closed minds around here?

Saying that Jerry's methods are common and were not invented by him is not
discussion.

If there is any value at all to the method, people should be willing to
discuss it even if one of the major proponents is a bit quirky and even
abrasive in his internet demeanor.

Discussion is only true if both sides of the discussion are willing to,
well, discuss. When one sides "discussion" abilities are limited to calling
you a dog-abusing thug, the discussion gets kinda old.

Note that I have added the tag [eggplant] to the header. FYI, that is a tag
added by the regs of the ng to allow others to filter out discussions of
Jerry's manual and his techinques. There are a large number of people who
want nothing to do with him or anything to do with him. Should you wish to
discuss him, or with him, I recommend placing [Jerry] or [eggplant] in your
subject line, so that people can filter on that, and not be forced to
filter you.

--
Marcel and Moogli

[cross-posting snipped]


snip

What were you saying about not liking cross-posting??


When replying to Jerry, ALWAYS, watch the newgroups line. He tends to
crosspost all of his postings to many groups.

--
Marcel and Moogli

Marcel Beaudoin wrote:

[cross-posting snipped]


snip

What were you saying about not liking cross-posting??


When replying to Jerry, ALWAYS, watch the newgroups line. He tends to
crosspost all of his postings to many groups.


Sorry. It's been a long day. Thanks for the reminder...

In article ,
William Stacy, O.D. wrote:
Re the other issue, I've been hanging around the sci.med.vision
newsgroup for over 15 years, and have never been insulted by receiving
direct inquiries from people who would rather keep their problems
private, nor have I ever been told I had insulted anyone when I had
discreetly e-mailed them some advice directly.

It's a weird local culture thing. I don't get it either,
but I figure you can either ignore it and tromp all over
people or you can make a trivial effort to respect the
culture that's evolved here.

Anyway, I will make one small observation. There are some up tight
people on this group.

And that's *just* the sort of observation that's going to
get you off on the right foot with the newsgroup! Combine
that with the Jerry dialogue and you're destined to be
everybody's new best friend!!

Take a class, read a book.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

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

"William Stacy, O.D." wrote in
. net:

Really? The few people who have responded with information have
acknowledged that the general methodology is in fairly common
usage.

Some of his "methods" are common. If I were wanting to have an
actual discussion about them, I'd divorce them from Howe.

Others of his "methods" are batshit crazy, and surely not anything
he cribbed from another source. His advice, when he does bother to
give any, is often dangerous-to-lethal.

The thing is, Jerry is not a dog trainer. If he were what he
claims to be, there would be some sort of independent evidence.
There is not. No one--not even those in his local dog community--
has heard of him.

He originally started outright spamming the dog newsgroups with a
website, manual, and magic black box he purchased from a "get rich
quick on the web" company. When his spamming was not met with a
favorable response, he started in with the crazy talk and the
around the clock cross-posting. He's a scammer-spammer who lost
his mind somewhere along the way. Perhaps it wasn't attached too
firmly to begin with?

If nobody else here is interested in that methodology or
even the topic, then maybe there are some closed minds around
here?

Not closed. Just very, very tired of the subject. Do you have any
idea how long he's been abusing rpd*?

If there is any value at all to the method, people should be

There you go again, with bossypantsing. You have no business
telling other grown-ups what they *should* be doing.

willing to discuss it even if one of the major proponents is a
bit quirky and even abrasive in his internet demeanor.

Howe goes beyond "a bit quirky" or "abrasive." He's clearly got
mental health issues. I, for one, think it's unkind to taunt and
toy with the disabled. If you want to do so, knock yourself out.
But--like I said--just don't be surprised if no one wants to join
in.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

Don't spill my bones my precious stones once belonged to a girl
too gullible to ever be taken for serious mettle
-- Susan McKeown, Bones

(Melinda Shore) wrote in news:eovc2d$mpv$1
@panix3.panix.com:

It's a weird local culture thing. I don't get it either,
but I figure you can either ignore it and tromp all over
people or you can make a trivial effort to respect the
culture that's evolved here.

I think some of that is actually due to the resident loon.
Accountability can be a good thing. If a discussion stays public,
then there's (usually) a record of it.

That doesn't mean there aren't behind-the-scenes e-mail discussions
happening, though. There are. Folks *do* seem to be pretty good at
asking permission first, though, which I think is nice.

And, just from a personal stand-point, I don't mind personal e-mail
from regulars, or even from lurkers or newcomers, if it's not rude
and obnoxious. Sometimes it's about something off-topic or personal,
or about an old post someone found Googling. That's absolutely fine
with me.

What I don't like is folks e-mailing me responses to current on-topic
discussions--which is what the OP was suggesting people do. Whatever
on earth is the point of doing that? If folks aren't interested in a
subject, why would they want to discuss it privately?

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

We can't all, and some just don't. That's all there is to it.
-- A.A. Milne