Well, what do you know? I thought your crazy ass had run away when you
couldn't answer my question! Silly me... So, I guess I'll have to remind
you, and all your "listeners" of the post in question (as if there's more
than one, and he's in your head). I will, yet again, post your post IN IT'S
ENTIRETY. You claim you wrote it. You even dared us to "Google" it, and
prove these words weren't yours. So, I ask again, in front of all these
people, which words in this post of yours are really yours, and which did
you steal from someone else?

If you're having a hard time telling the difference between the properly
attributed words, and yours, I will even go so far as to strip out all the
quoted material, and leave JUST YOUR OWN WORDS, in the section following
your original, totally non-edited post. Just to make it easier for you to
show which words are yours. Aren't I being helpful?

From: "Char"
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:07 AM
Newsgroups:
rec.pets.dogs.behavior,rec.pets.dogs.activities,re c.pets.dogs.rescue,rec.pets.dogs.health
Subject: Obedience training - what is the next step please?

On 8/14/2010 12:34 AM, William Clodius wrote:
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:32:20 -0400,
wrote:

On 8/13/2010 7:02 AM, Amanda George wrote:

We haven't tried it with cats around yet because she's got to stay
inside until she's had her vaccinations again :-)

Why? They don't wear off.

[...]
Amanda, again, please understand that Char is also an anti-vaccination
zealot. As usual, she takes an honest concern about over-vaccination
and turns it into a fanatical crusade against vaccinations altogether.
She also claims that she does not vaccinate her own dog, which is
against the law.

There is only one vaccine required by law where I am and I would not
hurt my dog to comply with a law that was passed without cause. There
were no pets with rabies in my area when that became law and the numbers
since then are almost non-existent.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies
developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including
fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs -- "but not the non-vaccinated
dogs"-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in
tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation
between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin,
which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion,
spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells.
Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence
of cells.

Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the
serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals
with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated
anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots
within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage,
bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.

The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing
autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the
protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our
bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them
with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997
study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility
problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What
Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated
dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA.

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/...ineDamage.html



No, your dog doesn't require annual vaccinations, especially for
rabies.snip
As Amanda is in the UK I suspect she doesn't need to vaccinate at all
for rabies as it is no endemic there.



Here ya go... This is your post, in it's entirety. I added one quote mark
at the beginning and one to close, so as not to confuse. Does this help
you?

"There is only one vaccine required by law where I am and I would not
hurt my dog to comply with a law that was passed without cause. There
were no pets with rabies in my area when that became law and the numbers
since then are almost non-existent.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies
developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including
fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs -- "but not the non-vaccinated
dogs"-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in
tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation
between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin,
which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion,
spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells.
Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence
of cells.

Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the
serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals
with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated
anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots
within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage,
bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.

The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing
autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the
protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our
bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them
with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997
study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility
problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What
Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated
dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA.

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html"

"Phyrie" wrote in message
...
Well, what do you know? I thought your crazy ass had run away when you
couldn't answer my question! Silly me... So, I guess I'll have to remind
you, and all your "listeners" of the post in question (as if there's more
than one, and he's in your head). I will, yet again, post your post IN
IT'S ENTIRETY. You claim you wrote it. You even dared us to "Google"
it, and prove these words weren't yours. So, I ask again, in front of all
these people, which words in this post of yours are really yours, and
which did you steal from someone else?

If you're having a hard time telling the difference between the properly
attributed words, and yours, I will even go so far as to strip out all the
quoted material, and leave JUST YOUR OWN WORDS, in the section following
your original, totally non-edited post. Just to make it easier for you to
show which words are yours. Aren't I being helpful?

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html"

Yes, the post contained some of the text in the link given above, perhaps
not with the most accurate attribution. But why are you continuing this
vendetta? I really don't care. It's good to know about possible vaccine
damage, but the argument hardly belongs in a thread about obedience
training.

Is anyone else out there? This NG seems to be dying again, and petty
accusations are NOT the way to revive it. Get the paddles - the patient has
flatlined!

Paul and Muttley
www.muttleydog.com

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 05:19:49 -0400, Paul E. Schoen wrote:

Hi Paul !

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html"

Yes, the post contained some of the text in the link given above,
perhaps not with the most accurate attribution. But why are you
continuing this vendetta?

is s/he old ? they say it is hard to teach new tricks to such dogs ;-)

I really don't care. It's good to know about
possible vaccine damage, but the argument hardly belongs in a thread
about obedience training.


I'd say take it or leave it, but for some a "newsgroups" have bible like
authority so they have to get things straight, they read it and know
better

Is anyone else out there? This NG seems to be dying again, and petty
accusations are NOT the way to revive it. Get the paddles - the patient
has flatlined!


How are Paul and Muttley doing ? anything new ?
My pup is now 18 weeks old and does very good, fed raw diet with
occasional bread and butter slice of tomato, piece of banana or some
vegies from my table, all natural so called 'organic' (do such thing
exists ?)
Obedience we do following Leerburg/Michael Ellis ways and it goes
excellent. Atom (name of my pup from his atomic energy) does very good
job, 'Sit', 'Down', 'Here' make him no problems, performs everything with
pleasure and no hesitations. This week we will start doing it under
some distraction in doggy environment, wish us good luck.

Take care
--
thedalpal

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote in message
...

Yes, the post contained some of the text in the link given above, perhaps
not with the most accurate attribution. But why are you continuing this
vendetta? I really don't care.

It's no vendetta. It's a legimate attempt to discover why this person, who
purports to be an expert in her pet topics, and claims to have done all her
due diligence with regards to her pet topics, continues to post written
articles on this, and other, newsgroups (and who knows where else!) that she
has stolen, word for word, from other websites, and claiming those words as
her own. Since SHE is the one who continues to spew her own version of
animal husbandry, and continually berates anyone reading here with how
knowledgeable she is, I want her to explain why anyone should listen to her
when she steals written words from other websites and claims them as her
own. She is NO expert, she is a plagiarizer. Any opinion spouted by her
should be immediately suspect, as she won't show us which are actually her
words, and which ones she's stolen from someone else. By letting others
know that she is a thief, a liar, and no expert, may make people think twice
about listening to anything she has to say, and may help save dogs.

And I don't really care what you really care about. I really couldn't care
less about what you care about. Really.

It's good to know about possible vaccine
damage, but the argument hardly belongs in a thread about obedience
training.

Is anyone else out there? This NG seems to be dying again, and petty
accusations are NOT the way to revive it. Get the paddles - the patient
has flatlined!

You do have troubles don't you? I started this thread, and it's topic is
very clear. You didn't have to read it, nor post to it, but you did.
Probably with your hands down your pants, again. If you don't like me,
fine, but why on earth do you feel it necessary to follow me around whining
about it? Grow up, Schoen. If you don't like what I have to say, killfile
me. Please. You may think it's unnecessary, but as long as Charlatan keeps
posting her same lies, I will keep asking her to explain herself. She's a
liar, a thief, and a menace to new dog owners.

"Phyrie" wrote in message
...

You do have troubles don't you? I started this thread, and it's topic is
very clear. You didn't have to read it, nor post to it, but you did.
Probably with your hands down your pants, again. If you don't like me,
fine, but why on earth do you feel it necessary to follow me around
whining about it? Grow up, Schoen. If you don't like what I have to say,
killfile me. Please. You may think it's unnecessary, but as long as
Charlatan keeps posting her same lies, I will keep asking her to explain
herself. She's a liar, a thief, and a menace to new dog owners.

No troubles at all. Muttley and I are doing fine. I'm just voicing my
opinion on your post, and commenting on the lack of activity. Posts such as
yours do nothing to attract new readers or rejuvenate the activity of the
veterans who seem to have "left the building". You could have left your post
as it was without adding the above cited paragraph, and I would have let it
go, as you explained your reasons for posting what you did originally. But
now you have made personal insults and insinuations toward me, which
indicates your own lack of maturity (or, more likely, some other character
defect).

"Phyrie, Leave It!"

Heh...

Paul and Muttley
http://www.youtube.com/user/PaulAndM.../6/LAGJQvRLBDs
http://www.youtube.com/user/PaulAndM...12/9YjI1RJ3vfY

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote in message
...

"Phyrie" wrote in message
...

You do have troubles don't you? I started this thread, and it's topic is
very clear. You didn't have to read it, nor post to it, but you did.
Probably with your hands down your pants, again. If you don't like me,
fine, but why on earth do you feel it necessary to follow me around
whining about it? Grow up, Schoen. If you don't like what I have to
say, killfile me. Please. You may think it's unnecessary, but as long
as Charlatan keeps posting her same lies, I will keep asking her to
explain herself. She's a liar, a thief, and a menace to new dog owners.

No troubles at all. Muttley and I are doing fine. I'm just voicing my
opinion on your post, and commenting on the lack of activity. Posts such
as yours do nothing to attract new readers or rejuvenate the activity of
the veterans who seem to have "left the building". You could have left
your post as it was without adding the above cited paragraph, and I would
have let it go, as you explained your reasons for posting what you did
originally. But now you have made personal insults and insinuations toward
me, which indicates your own lack of maturity (or, more likely, some other
character defect).

Posts such as hers serve an invaluable purpose: letting newbies and lurkers
know that this poster is not our resident expert, and is in fact dangerous.
This group may be dying, but I feel confident that Phyrie will be vigilant
until the lights go out. I appreciate that.

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote in message
...

"Phyrie" wrote in message
...

You do have troubles don't you? I started this thread, and it's topic is
very clear. You didn't have to read it, nor post to it, but you did.
Probably with your hands down your pants, again. If you don't like me,
fine, but why on earth do you feel it necessary to follow me around
whining about it? Grow up, Schoen. If you don't like what I have to
say, killfile me. Please. You may think it's unnecessary, but as long
as Charlatan keeps posting her same lies, I will keep asking her to
explain herself. She's a liar, a thief, and a menace to new dog owners.

No troubles at all. Muttley and I are doing fine. I'm just voicing my
opinion on your post, and commenting on the lack of activity. Posts such
as yours do nothing to attract new readers or rejuvenate the activity of
the veterans who seem to have "left the building". You could have left
your post as it was without adding the above cited paragraph, and I would
have let it go, as you explained your reasons for posting what you did
originally. But now you have made personal insults and insinuations toward
me, which indicates your own lack of maturity (or, more likely, some other
character defect).

"Phyrie, Leave It!"

Heh...

Paul and Muttley

Paul, you are a lying sack of ****. You are no more capable of "letting it
go" than I am of stopping breathing. To sit here and pretend you are all
offended about my "insults and insinuations", and act all "who me? Not poor
innocent little Paul?!" is disgusting. You knew exactly why I posted what I
did, and to pretend you needed me to explain it to you just shows how much
you need to hear yourself speak.

Here, let's see what you found so offensive, shall we?

Paul says:
"Yes, the post contained some of the text in the link given above, perhaps
not with the most accurate attribution. But why are you continuing this
vendetta? I really don't care. "

Oh, you don't care? Then why are you posting to my topic, Paul?

Paul says:
"It's good to know about possible vaccine
damage, but the argument hardly belongs in a thread about obedience
training."

Where did you read that my thread was about obedience training? Show me
that! I'm going to have to put you into Char's group, "People Who Make ****
Up".

Paul says:
Is anyone else out there? This NG seems to be dying again, and petty
accusations are NOT the way to revive it. Get the paddles - the patient has
flatlined!"

Who said I was trying to revive the group? That's not my job, nor my
intention. My intention is simply to prevent Char from giving incredibly
dangerous information to potentially gullible new pet owners. Oh, and to
ask her to explain her plagiarism. That, too. That is no petty accusation.
It's actually a very serious one, and if I really wanted to raise ****, I
would let the person that Char stole from know about how she ripped them off
and took credit for their words, but I'm not at that level of pissed off.
Yet.

And for you to act all insulted and hurt that I insulted you is just so
fourth grade, I don't even know how to respond. As I said, Grow up, Paul.
For all that you pretend to a higher intelligence, your neediness outweighs
any brains you might have once had.

"Phyrie" wrote in message
...


"Paul E. Schoen" wrote in message
...

"Phyrie" wrote in message
...

You do have troubles don't you? I started this thread, and it's topic
is very clear. You didn't have to read it, nor post to it, but you did.
Probably with your hands down your pants, again. If you don't like me,
fine, but why on earth do you feel it necessary to follow me around
whining about it? Grow up, Schoen. If you don't like what I have to
say, killfile me. Please. You may think it's unnecessary, but as long
as Charlatan keeps posting her same lies, I will keep asking her to
explain herself. She's a liar, a thief, and a menace to new dog
owners.

No troubles at all. Muttley and I are doing fine. I'm just voicing my
opinion on your post, and commenting on the lack of activity. Posts such
as yours do nothing to attract new readers or rejuvenate the activity of
the veterans who seem to have "left the building". You could have left
your post as it was without adding the above cited paragraph, and I would
have let it go, as you explained your reasons for posting what you did
originally. But now you have made personal insults and insinuations
toward me, which indicates your own lack of maturity (or, more likely,
some other character defect).

"Phyrie, Leave It!"

Heh...

Paul and Muttley

Paul, you are a lying sack of ****. You are no more capable of "letting
it go" than I am of stopping breathing. To sit here and pretend you are
all offended about my "insults and insinuations", and act all "who me? Not
poor innocent little Paul?!" is disgusting. You knew exactly why I posted
what I did, and to pretend you needed me to explain it to you just shows
how much you need to hear yourself speak.

Here, let's see what you found so offensive, shall we?

Paul says:
"Yes, the post contained some of the text in the link given above, perhaps
not with the most accurate attribution. But why are you continuing this
vendetta? I really don't care. "

Oh, you don't care? Then why are you posting to my topic, Paul?

Because I wish to express the fact that I don't particularly care about your
concern, and I think others will also agree that what you posted does
nothing to provide a positive experience for those who still read this NG.


Paul says:
"It's good to know about possible vaccine
damage, but the argument hardly belongs in a thread about obedience
training."

Where did you read that my thread was about obedience training? Show me
that! I'm going to have to put you into Char's group, "People Who Make
**** Up".

Your post cited Char's post in the thread about obedience training. And I
clearly say that *her* argument *there* is off-topic. Please read for
comprehension rather than in a frenzy to find something to complain about.


Paul says:
Is anyone else out there? This NG seems to be dying again, and petty
accusations are NOT the way to revive it. Get the paddles - the patient
has
flatlined!"

Who said I was trying to revive the group? That's not my job, nor my
intention. My intention is simply to prevent Char from giving incredibly
dangerous information to potentially gullible new pet owners. Oh, and to
ask her to explain her plagiarism. That, too. That is no petty
accusation. It's actually a very serious one, and if I really wanted to
raise ****, I would let the person that Char stole from know about how she
ripped them off and took credit for their words, but I'm not at that level
of pissed off. Yet.

And for you to act all insulted and hurt that I insulted you is just so
fourth grade, I don't even know how to respond. As I said, Grow up, Paul.
For all that you pretend to a higher intelligence, your neediness
outweighs any brains you might have once had.

You certainly feel the need to expound upon a really minor issue. I don't
especially care that you feel a need to insult me, and I'm not particularly
defending Char or attacking your attempt to clear up what you feel is a
gross impropriety on Char's part, while I see it as a simple lack of proper
attribution, and the original text is included in the link. Even that was in
turn quoted from another source. And I doubt that the original author would
consider his/her copyright violated by someone who posts the information in
an attempt to disseminate it to people who might benefit from it. I don't
see where Char claimed that the entire post was her words. You may argue,
however, that it was off-topic for a thread about obedience training. And I
pointed that out as well.

I don't "feel all insulted and hurt", but I just point out that it was your
intention to insult. I can and do choose to simply acknowledge your attempt
and call you out for it. As I've said before, I feel sorry for you and your
dog. Your posts reveal a dark side of your personality and I'm sure it
negatively affects others in your life. Cheer up! Smile! Laugh a little!
Life's too short for such pettiness as you seem to enjoy.

P&M

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:03:17 -0700, Phyrie wrote:


Who said I was trying to revive the group? That's not my job, nor my
intention. My intention is simply to prevent Char from giving
incredibly dangerous information to potentially gullible new pet owners.

can you give a sample of such "incredibly dangerous information" posted
by Char ?


Oh, and to ask her to explain her plagiarism. That, too. That is no
petty accusation. It's actually a very serious one, and if I really
wanted to raise ****, I would let the person that Char stole from know
about how she ripped them off and took credit for their words, but I'm
not at that level of pissed off. Yet.


and many of those plagiarized would be happy to see theirs works reaching
pet owners

stop leaving a crap here, get up and train your dogs

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:01:08 +0000 (UTC), sonofdog
wrote:

and many of those plagiarized would be happy to see theirs works reaching
pet owners

I think I'd leave that decision up to those whose writings were
plagiarized.

stop leaving a crap here, get up and train your dogs

eh?