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

oops another puppy wizzard question [Jerry]



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 10th 03, 07:58 PM
Gwen Watson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default oops another puppy wizzard question [Jerry]



Suja wrote:

It was a
statement of fact.

Suja


I know Mary has already pointed that out to me. That it wasn't a threat it
was a fact.

Gwen

  #2  
Old July 10th 03, 08:03 PM
shelly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In ,
Suja typed:

Gwen, shelly did ask him nicely whether he'd include a tag
in the subject. To his response, which said 'I will not
tag a conversation in the subject line', she said that
she'll be KFing him.


maybe i should just quietly plonk people who play with Jerry,
without saying anything to them? i mean, why should i waste
my time trying to help them out?

She didn't threaten him, or tell him
that *everyone* will KF him now. It was a statement of
fact.


yep. i don't want to d/l howespew (a huge issue when i'm at
home) and i'm going to do whatever i can to make sure i don't.

shelly (vicious smartypants) and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

  #3  
Old July 10th 03, 08:15 PM
sighthounds etc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 10 Jul 2003 17:28:40 GMT, Dimpled Chad
wrote:

On 10 Jul 2003, Gwen Watson opined:



Dimpled Chad wrote:

The [Jerry] tag is to aid people who don't want to read the
conversation you have with him, and to keep *you* from being filtered
out should you want to participate in conversation with the others.
This being usenet, you are welcome to post any way you want, of course.
The tag is requested nettiquette, and not that onerous.

Chad


Although in some ways since so many ppl are threatened to be plonked
if they don't use the tag I sort of see it more like "dictatorship"
than an actual nice request. More like "if you don't buddy, you won't
get to play in our sandbox, neener, neener. So if ya want hang with
the "in" crowd ya best do as you are *told* and add the tag are
ya won't be playing. JMO


And I just don't see it that way. *shrug* Some folk like to interact with
Jerry. That's fine. If it gets too prolific, the crap to info ratio goes
through the roof. The tag helps minimize that for those who can't stand the
noise; otherwise they KF the people making it. I don't see it as a threat at
all. No one is forcing anyone to kf anyone or to put any tag anywhere.


I agree. Whether or not Jerry is mentally ill or just a giant
asshat, it's mighty annoying, to say the least, when he pulls up posts
from 3 years ago and replies to them. It's way beyond annoying (to
me) when he makes inane statements about all dogs being alike, all
behavior problems being caused by mishandling, health problems and
illnesses being caused by stress which is caused by choke collars,
etc. I don't want to see that stuff, or even have to wade through it,
and I don't want to see responses to it. People who want to read it
are welcome to it. I choose to killfile it, along with anyone who
doesn't want to use the tag. I don't see it as a dictatorship, and I
certainly don't belong to any clique or club. It just makes life here
a little easier.

Mustang Sally

  #4  
Old July 10th 03, 08:15 PM
Dimpled Chad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 10 Jul 2003, ceb opined:

The problem here is
the abusiveness, right?


Bingo. End of story.


People with mental illness are everywhere, contributing positively in all
walks of life.


No kidding.

Chad

--
Looking for a pet? Adopt one! ** http://www.petfinder.com
Info for a healthy, happy dog? * http://www.dog-play.com


Famous Last Words: 'I think it's dead...'






  #5  
Old July 10th 03, 08:23 PM
sighthounds etc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:42:32 -0500, Gwen Watson
wrote:



Marcel Beaudoin wrote:


I don't look at it as that. My POV is that Usenet is sorta like a dinner
party.


And I don't see usenet anything like a dinner party. Not even at all.

If there are people there who are saying things that I I find
particularly offensive and lacking in merit, I won't talk to them.


I can certainly relate to this. So in RL you are able to compose yourself
enough NOT to talk to someone, ie walk away but on usenet the only
way to avoid that is KFing? Interesting. I would think that if you have
the composure(BTW, I know you do) to not talk to some asswipe at a dinner
party you could
certainly ignore noise on usenet?

This
newsgroup is the same thing. People are free to talk about whatever they
want.


Precisely.

In the same way, people are free to not listen,


True. But are they free to threaten those without a tag on their line
that they will be plonked ASAP if they don't do as instructed?


I think you're being oversensitive about this. Telling people who
want to play with Jerry/Mike/Charlie that they will be plonked without
a tag isn't a threat so much as it is a friendly warning.

Webster on threat: 1) an expression of intention to hurt, destroy,
punish, etc. as in intimidation. 2) an indication of, or a source of,
imminent danger.

I supposed you could call killfiling people who don't choose to use
the Jerry tag punishment, but really, I don't think asking people to
use the tag rises to the level of a threat.

Mustang Sally


  #6  
Old July 10th 03, 08:35 PM
Charlie Wilkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is an excellent response, Chris. I too am mentally ill, and I
too have benefited from the Wit's End Training Manual. I would be
proud to crawl on my hands and knees at the end of Jerry's lead,
because he is a humane master.

Charlie

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:54:21 +0800, "chris"
wrote:

Mentally ill ? how is such a thing obvious by observing text posts on a
newsgroup ? We can make ourselves look however we want to on the internet.
Whether mentally ill or not, the surrogate toy technique used in his Wits
End Dog training manual has worked for us and because of this i get a good
nights sleep. I find it strange how everyone says things like he is mentally
ill, but no one says they have tried the techniques in his manual and they
dont work. im not defending him as a person as i have no idea who he is, but
the fact is one of his method worked and i see no reason why i wouldnt
continue trying his other methods. and I will not tag a conversation in the
subject line. I stated clearly "questions for the puppy wizzard" in the
subject, if anyone else offers advice on such a post i would be happy and
take that advice into consideration and be appreciative, but if you dont
want to read the post just dont read it. I assume you have filtered his
replies anyway so there should be no problem. I fail to see why a person
would be called mentally ill because he is passionate about not abusing
dogs...remember on the internet you can portray any persona you want,
whether it be a 16 year old blonde cheerleader, a fat old pervert, or a
mentally ill dog lover!!

"shelly" wrote in message
...
In ,
chris typed:

[snip]

Jerry is pretty obviously mentally ill. i think it's a bad
idea to engage him, but if you feel you must, please tag the
subject line so that others can filter out the conversation.
the convention is to use [Jerry]. thanks.

shelly (vicious smartypants) and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette



  #7  
Old July 10th 03, 08:43 PM
shelly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In ,
sighthounds etc. typed:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:42:32 -0500, Gwen Watson
wrote:

I would think
that if you have the composure(BTW, I know you do) to not
talk to some asswipe at a dinner party you could
certainly ignore noise on usenet?


it's not about ignoring some asshat, so you can stop worrying
about my impulse control issues. i can assure you, i don't
have any where Jerry is concerned. for me, personally, it's
as much about abuse of resources as it is about encouraging
someone to exercise his delusions.

A) i think it's morally wrong for people to play with Jerry
and i have a right to say so.

B) i manage my resources carefully, which means i'm seriously
unamused at d/ling gazillion line posts to and from Jerry. my
connection at home sucks and i just don't have the ability to
deal with the volume of crap he and his
sympathizers/combattants are capable of churning out.

teh enb.

Telling people who want to play with
Jerry/Mike/Charlie that they will be plonked without
a tag isn't a threat so much as it is a friendly warning.


exactly. it's a heads up that they are behaving in an
unacceptable manner and that if they choose to continue, there
will be reprecussions. face it, every action has a
consequence and it's ridiculous to insist that it shouldn't.
if you act like an asshat you can expect a negative reaction.
it isn't rocket science.

but really, I don't think asking
people to use the tag rises to the level of a threat.


no, it sure doesn't. it's a simple if, then equation.

shelly (vicious smartypants) and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

  #8  
Old July 10th 03, 09:10 PM
Gwen Watson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Dimpled Chad wrote:

On 10 Jul 2003, shelly opined:

A) i think it's morally wrong for people to play with Jerry
and i have a right to say so.


Part of what I think is disturbing Gwen, and I think she has a point, is the
potential to confuse this point with the broader one that 'one ought not
interact with the mentally ill.'


BINGO, Chad, I knew you would understand my POV. Not that you agree
but you at least see what has me so stirred up. Not exactly stirred up but
bothered.

It is like my mom telling me you can't play with those lowlife people because
they have no teeth and they are no bodies with no money and not worthy
of you.



Fact of the matter is that there are some mental illnesses which are rendered
worse through 'playing along,' and others which are not. To say that one
ought not play with Jerry because it can further his illness (should he have
one) is not the same as saying that all mentally ill folk ought to be
ignored. Such depends on the illness, and who it is that is involved in the
dialogue.

I think when most of us say that it is better not to play along with someone
that exhibits the type of anti-social or abusive behavior that some here like
to throw around, we aren't at all saying that, thereby, all mentally ill
people should be disengaged. It wasn't said nor implied, but could be
inferred through a leap in the logic.


Exactly again. And for a newbie, not me but Chris, who hasn't a clue about
JH's posting history I can see that it would come across as exactly and precisely

that. But I know some back peddling will be coming any minute. OH that's not
what I meant at all. Which BTW, I know it isn't what Shelly meant but it
certainly
IS the way it sounded or sounds to a person who has no idea. JMO



It should be said clearly here that this is not what anyone is saying. It
seems to be one of the confusions of this subthread.

Chad


Thanks Chad. You are right on the mark. I see once again my means
of posting has caused me to step on a BIG can of worms.

Gwen

  #9  
Old July 10th 03, 09:12 PM
shelly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In ,
Dimpled Chad typed:

Part of what I think is disturbing Gwen, and I think she
has a point, is the potential to confuse this point with
the broader one that 'one ought not interact with the
mentally ill.'


i've not made that point and i was careful to clear that up in
a post to Catherine.

Fact of the matter is that there are some mental illnesses
which are rendered worse through 'playing along,' and
others which are not.


yes, and that's what i was trying to get at. i don't think
Jerry (or Michael, FWIW), should be played with.

To say that one ought not play with
Jerry because it can further his illness (should he have
one) is not the same as saying that all mentally ill folk
ought to be ignored. Such depends on the illness, and who
it is that is involved in the dialogue.


correct. i firmly believe that, *whatever* Jerry's problem is
(i respect that you and others don't want to state that you
feel he's mentally ill), it's going to be worsened by plaing
along with him or by antagonizing him.

I think when most of us say that it is better not to play
along with someone that exhibits the type of anti-social or
abusive behavior that some here like to throw around, we
aren't at all saying that, thereby, all mentally ill people
should be disengaged. It wasn't said nor implied, but could
be inferred through a leap in the logic.


i tried to be very clear on the point that i was referring
only to Jerry. from what i can tell, Gwen, at least, seems to
believe that i've made the leap from "don't tease Jerry" to
"mentally ill people are pariahs." if she or anyone else
really wants to believe that i meant something more sweeping,
i don't know what to say. i didn't.

It should be said clearly here that this is not what anyone
is saying. It seems to be one of the confusions of this
subthread.


correct.

shelly (vicious smartypants) and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

  #10  
Old July 10th 03, 09:16 PM
Gwen Watson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Cate wrote:

"Gwen Watson" wrote in message
...

Ask? You call telling a person that is talking to each of the above that
they WILL be plonked *if* they don't comply a mere ask? I disagree.
I see that as a verbal threat. And to me actually a serious one.


But the 'threat' is only that you're going to ignore someone. How serious
can it be? If someone told me they were going to plonk me, I wouldn't give a
damn, because I don't want to talk to someone who isn't interested in
talking to me.


I was more bothered as to why not to engage with JH because he is mentally
ill and one should not encourage or engage with the mentally ill. That is what
really got my hair standing on end. Not so much that anything else.

Also if you don't you won't mind being in my KF because you played
with this person I consider mentally ill or I don't like for whatever reason.

I do see Melinda's points as very valid and it isn't that I don't agree
about the "Tag" line per say. I do. It is the undiplomatice manner in
which I have seen it on several occassions that have me troubled.

Sorry I guess I just don't agree with labels or ppl telling others what
they should do or they won't be played with anymore, because they
have.

And again I reiterate I don't have the ppl KF and I don't engage
conversation with them ever. And yes I have read enough horrible
things to turn my stomach.

I just think calling someone mentally ill that may or may not be
to a newbie a very wrong approach and a diservice to the mentally
ill that are very functional and desirable people.

Gwen

 




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
Cockapoos and puppy millers Scall0way Dog breeds 23 April 25th 04 04:37 PM
oops another puppy wiz_zard question [Je**rr*y] MaryBeth Dog breeds 0 July 14th 03 07:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unregistered)
Copyright 2004-2019 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.