On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:56:08 -0500, Char
wrote:

On 11/28/2010 3:51 PM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 07:44:19 -0500,
wrote:


Nit picking again....

There is nothing to shudder about. I call my dog Rufus my baby boy all
the time. It's not strange, not uncommon. What's your beef?

No beef; call your dog whatever you want. I have all kinds of
endearments for my dogs too. However, the term "my little girl"
referring to a dog makes me gag, as does "furbaby".

Sounds like a personal problem. I also have Rufus's mom and her name is
Girl. Gag away! I don't care for the term furbaby either but I don't
jump on people for using it. It's just not important in the long run.

If you think my
reaction is outrageous or nit-picking, so be it.

It's also condescending.

And of course, you're never condescending. After spending so much
time preaching here about how awful the regulars are to people, didn't
you recently tell Carol you weren't going to spend time answering her
questions because you didn't believe she had any dogs and she had to
prove she did by sending you photos?

Take a hike, you hypocritical crackpot.

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote
Char wrote:

It's also condescending.

you recently tell Carol you weren't going to spend time answering her
questions because you didn't believe she had any dogs and she had to
prove she did by sending you photos?

I'm obviously not posting pictures here. There are a few that can be found
and some sent to friends in direct emails but there is a limit to what any
sane person should put up in almost permanent archives on the www or usenet.

It's pretty easy to find my real name with not too much trouble. I just
don't 'advertize it'. I don't put pictures out there you can associate with
my face or my family either. Char wanted photos of all 3 dogs (maybe the
cat too) with us in them so she could 'verify us'.

Ah well. I deleted that message without reply. Char has a habit of asking
for personal details like the exact physical disabilities I have that caused
training issues with Cash. I answered most of her questions but I'm drawing
the line at posting pics of us all. There are a few out there but the
definition level is low enough they can't be used against us and mostly they
only have pets in the pictures. The only ones of Sammy though, are high
quality ones with us very clearly in them. The ones with Sammy are good
enough definition you could crop a passport photo out. Those are not and
never will be posted.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:23:35 -0500, "cshenk" wrote:

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote
Char wrote:

It's also condescending.

you recently tell Carol you weren't going to spend time answering her
questions because you didn't believe she had any dogs and she had to
prove she did by sending you photos?

I'm obviously not posting pictures here. There are a few that can be found
and some sent to friends in direct emails but there is a limit to what any
sane person should put up in almost permanent archives on the www or usenet.

It's pretty easy to find my real name with not too much trouble. I just
don't 'advertize it'. I don't put pictures out there you can associate with
my face or my family either. Char wanted photos of all 3 dogs (maybe the
cat too) with us in them so she could 'verify us'.

That's eerily similar to Sharon, who wanted everyone to create web
sites one where our dog experience could be verified, to tell stories
about our personal lives, etc., etc. It's a little creepy. What's
ironic with Char is that when she first started posting on the
newsgroups advocating raw feeding, no vaccinations, no pesticides,
etc., one or two people said they didn't believe she actually had a
dog. I'm betting she found that pretty offensive.

Ah well. I deleted that message without reply. Char has a habit of asking
for personal details like the exact physical disabilities I have that caused
training issues with Cash. I answered most of her questions but I'm drawing
the line at posting pics of us all. There are a few out there but the
definition level is low enough they can't be used against us and mostly they
only have pets in the pictures. The only ones of Sammy though, are high
quality ones with us very clearly in them. The ones with Sammy are good
enough definition you could crop a passport photo out. Those are not and
never will be posted.

I'm a fairly private person, particularly with people I don't know.
I've no idea why Char decided she needed pictures and proof in order
for her to answer any more questions, but I'm betting you and your
pets can live without her advice.

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote
"cshenk" wrote:

you recently tell Carol you weren't going to spend time answering her
questions because you didn't believe she had any dogs and she had to
prove she did by sending you photos?

I'm obviously not posting pictures here. There are a few that can be
found
and some sent to friends in direct emails but there is a limit to what any
sane person should put up in almost permanent archives on the www or
usenet.

It's pretty easy to find my real name with not too much trouble. I just
don't 'advertize it'. I don't put pictures out there you can associate
with
my face or my family either. Char wanted photos of all 3 dogs (maybe the
cat too) with us in them so she could 'verify us'.

That's eerily similar to Sharon, who wanted everyone to create web
sites one where our dog experience could be verified, to tell stories
about our personal lives, etc., etc. It's a little creepy. What's

I may have seen her message a bit different. Probably because I have no
'trainer' stuff to make a web site of so didn't really relate it personally
to me.

ironic with Char is that when she first started posting on the
newsgroups advocating raw feeding, no vaccinations, no pesticides,
etc., one or two people said they didn't believe she actually had a
dog. I'm betting she found that pretty offensive.

Probably did. I assumed she had no cats when she tried to give advice on
raw feeding cats that was copied to the cat groups. She later said she has
one. I do not recall her mentioning one before that but I see no reason to
say she doesn't have one since she says she does.

*most* of us with pets mention all the types 'here and there' at times. I
may not be able to name all your dogs off the top of my head, but I know you
do mostly sight hounds now and have had siberians. You conversly know I
have a rescue cat, a rescue mixed 'beagle' and now another older 'beagle
mix'. In other words, we have different pets but we talk enough it's had
to not know what sort we have for most of us.

Ah well. I deleted that message without reply. Char has a habit of
asking
for personal details like the exact physical disabilities I have that
caused
training issues with Cash. I answered most of her questions but I'm
drawing
the line at posting pics of us all. There are a few out there but the
definition level is low enough they can't be used against us and mostly
they
only have pets in the pictures. The only ones of Sammy though, are high
quality ones with us very clearly in them. The ones with Sammy are good
enough definition you could crop a passport photo out. Those are not and
never will be posted.

I'm a fairly private person, particularly with people I don't know.
I've no idea why Char decided she needed pictures and proof in order
for her to answer any more questions, but I'm betting you and your
pets can live without her advice.

Works for me. In fact, your advice there on the pet with tooth issues works
better. If Char wishes to help, she will have to shift a bit or no one will
hear her.

In article ,
sighthounds & siberians wrote:

That's eerily similar to Sharon, who wanted everyone to create web
sites one where our dog experience could be verified, to tell stories
about our personal lives, etc., etc.

You twist words. My point was that since most of what was going on in
this group was simply bash talk, bullying and personal attacks when I
arrived, one could not help but wonder if there were truly anyone here
except a bunch of teens just messing around. That's sure what a lot of
the posts sounded like. No adults in my world talk that way to others.

Lacking websites that might offer credibility to offset the trash talk,
and lacking the sharing of personal stories about one's own dogs, leaves
a lot of the posters suspect if all that's posted is personal attacks.
THAT was my point.

--
Bad Dog Books
http://books.gityasome.com
Gityasome Tshirts
http://www.gityasome.com

"Dogman" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:26:29 -0500, Sharon Delarose
wrote:

My point was that since most of what was going on in
this group was simply bash talk, bullying and personal
attacks when I arrived

Had you not adopted the demeanor of a Hall Monitor, and
not demanded that everyone here reveal their blood type,
submit urine and fecal samples, maintain a web site, etc.,
you wouldn't have been attacked.

Dogboy, you are delusional. You turn suggestions into demands, and you use
ridiculous hyperbole in your vain attempt to explain why you are getting
your panties in such a painful bunch and contributing to the delinquency of
a newsgroup.

No adults in my world talk that way to others.

Exactly. And if you tried to deal with a group of adult strangers,
in person, the way you tried to deal with the regulars of this
newsgroup, much worse things would have happened to you
than what you got here.

Again, little dogboy, you are deluding yourself into thinking that your
tirades are actually intimidating. They are in reality just your inner child
exhibiting a full-tilt tantrum without anybody being able to stuff a rag in
your pie-hole and giving you an alpha roll as you deserve.

Lacking websites that might offer credibility

That's your ignorance of newsgroups showing again. A
web site is no guarantee of credibility. Credibility comes with
time, and with doing more listening and lurking than talking
and interrupting, and then testing whether what someone
says against what others (say, professionals that you already
know) have to say. In other words, credibility is earned here,
it's not granted.

And I assume you consider yourself a professional who has earned this
credibility. You may know something about dogs, but your people skills are
in serious doubt. And the fact that you *will* say you don't care is just
proof of that.

and lacking the sharing of personal stories about one's
own dogs

But a discussion group named rec.pets.dogs BEHAVIOR is
not about telling personal stories about one's own dogs.
You've been told that more than a few times now, but it
apparently still hasn't sunk in. It's about the discussion of
canine behavior and training. You were even aimed towards
rec.pets.dogs.MISC as the group where such stories
are welcomed with open arms. But you decided to flout
not only the r.p.d.BEHAVIOR newsgroups rule, and tradition,
but the group's regulars, too.

It's not a RULE, it's a GUIDELINE. But you show yourself to be a control
freak by whining and nitpicking about people who do not behave as you would
like them to. Poor dogboy. He probably was frustrated as a child because he
was made to do things. And now he attempts to impose his rules on others
while he imagines that they are trying to do that to him. Usenet. So much
freedom. So little power to control others. So easy to display immaturity.
Tsk Tsk

Really, what did you expect to happen after all that?

Dogman, you are not as much a regular as I have been, if you check the posts
back to 2006 when I came "on board". Of course if you "fess up" and admit
that your alter ego is Handsome Jack Morrison, then you win one point for
your assertion of being a regular but lose two points for misrepresentation
and lying.

Also, read your post and try to explain how you are NOT being a hall monitor
or netkop. And it sure as hell sounds like whining to me. Here is a FAQ on
dog behavior: http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/behavior.html.

Here is the description of the RPDB newsgroup charter
http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/lists/rpd-charters.html:

rec.pets.dogs.behavior
This group is for the discussion of typical behavioral problems with dogs.
Examples *include but are not limited to*: digging, barking, aggressive
behavior, housetraining, crate training, etc. Also appropriate is discussion
of "why" dogs behave as they do and how to work with that to eliminate some
behaviors and reinforce others.

You should also look at this faq which explains flames and trolls:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/culture-faq/

Or, look into a mirror to see a prime example of what these "people" look
like.

You may like to look at the following rules, although of course you are free
to ignore them and confirm your lack of self-control:
http://forum.usenet-newsgroups.com/p...?mode=register

I think you should read the following article. I think you are being
referred to and it might make you stand on your head!
http://collections.lib.uwm.edu/cipr/image/133.pdf

Paul and Muttley

"Dogman" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:26:29 -0500, Sharon Delarose
wrote:

My point was that since most of what was going on in
this group was simply bash talk, bullying and personal
attacks when I arrived

Had you not adopted the demeanor of a Hall Monitor, and
not demanded that everyone here reveal their blood type,
submit urine and fecal samples, maintain a web site, etc.,
you wouldn't have been attacked.

Dogboy, you are delusional. You turn suggestions into demands, and you use
ridiculous hyperbole in your vain attempt to explain why you are getting
your panties in such a painful bunch and contributing to the delinquency of
a newsgroup.

No adults in my world talk that way to others.

Exactly. And if you tried to deal with a group of adult strangers,
in person, the way you tried to deal with the regulars of this
newsgroup, much worse things would have happened to you
than what you got here.

Again, little dogboy, you are deluding yourself into thinking that your
tirades are actually intimidating. They are in reality just your inner child
exhibiting a full-tilt tantrum without anybody being able to stuff a rag in
your pie-hole and giving you an alpha roll as you deserve.

Lacking websites that might offer credibility

That's your ignorance of newsgroups showing again. A
web site is no guarantee of credibility. Credibility comes with
time, and with doing more listening and lurking than talking
and interrupting, and then testing whether what someone
says against what others (say, professionals that you already
know) have to say. In other words, credibility is earned here,
it's not granted.

And I assume you consider yourself a professional who has earned this
credibility. You may know something about dogs, but your people skills are
in serious doubt. And the fact that you *will* say you don't care is just
proof of that.

and lacking the sharing of personal stories about one's
own dogs

But a discussion group named rec.pets.dogs BEHAVIOR is
not about telling personal stories about one's own dogs.
You've been told that more than a few times now, but it
apparently still hasn't sunk in. It's about the discussion of
canine behavior and training. You were even aimed towards
rec.pets.dogs.MISC as the group where such stories
are welcomed with open arms. But you decided to flout
not only the r.p.d.BEHAVIOR newsgroups rule, and tradition,
but the group's regulars, too.

It's not a RULE, it's a GUIDELINE. But you show yourself to be a control
freak by whining and nitpicking about people who do not behave as you would
like them to. Poor dogboy. He probably was frustrated as a child because he
was made to do things. And now he attempts to impose his rules on others
while he imagines that they are trying to do that to him. Usenet. So much
freedom. So little power to control others. So easy to display immaturity.
Tsk Tsk

Really, what did you expect to happen after all that?

Dogman, you are not as much a regular as I have been, if you check the posts
back to 2006 when I came "on board". Of course if you "fess up" and admit
that your alter ego is Handsome Jack Morrison, then you win one point for
your assertion of being a regular but lose two points for misrepresentation
and lying.

Also, read your post and try to explain how you are NOT being a hall monitor
or netkop. And it sure as hell sounds like whining to me. Here is a FAQ on
dog behavior: http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/behavior.html.

Here is the description of the RPDB newsgroup charter
http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/lists/rpd-charters.html:

rec.pets.dogs.behavior
This group is for the discussion of typical behavioral problems with dogs.
Examples *include but are not limited to*: digging, barking, aggressive
behavior, housetraining, crate training, etc. Also appropriate is discussion
of "why" dogs behave as they do and how to work with that to eliminate some
behaviors and reinforce others.

You should also look at this faq which explains flames and trolls:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/culture-faq/

Or, look into a mirror to see a prime example of what these "people" look
like.

You may like to look at the following rules, although of course you are free
to ignore them and confirm your lack of self-control:
http://forum.usenet-newsgroups.com/p...?mode=register

I think you should read the following article. I think you are being
referred to and it might make you stand on your head!
http://collections.lib.uwm.edu/cipr/image/133.pdf

Paul and Muttley

On 12/1/2010 8:03 PM, Dogman wrote:


But a discussion group named rec.pets.dogs BEHAVIOR is not about
telling personal stories about one's own dogs. You've been told that
more than a few times now, but it apparently still hasn't sunk in.
It's about the discussion of canine behavior and training.

Not really. It's just a flame fest. How could you *not* know that?

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:26:29 -0500, Sharon Delarose
wrote:

In article ,
sighthounds & siberians wrote:

That's eerily similar to Sharon, who wanted everyone to create web
sites one where our dog experience could be verified, to tell stories
about our personal lives, etc., etc.

You twist words. My point was that since most of what was going on in
this group was simply bash talk, bullying and personal attacks when I
arrived, one could not help but wonder if there were truly anyone here
except a bunch of teens just messing around. That's sure what a lot of
the posts sounded like. No adults in my world talk that way to others.

Lacking websites that might offer credibility to offset the trash talk,
and lacking the sharing of personal stories about one's own dogs, leaves
a lot of the posters suspect if all that's posted is personal attacks.
THAT was my point.

Regardless of what your point was, I did not twist any words. Your
original post on the topic did not mention all the horrible, abusive
bullying and attacks. It said:

"All of you should have websites for the rest of us to visit, and
eveyrone should post dog stories that demonstrate what the group is
about."
....
"This helps the rest of us get to know you and understand you".
....
"Your website can show us who you are and I have often wished that
your websites were posted here so that I could learn about you."
....
"The other best thing [sic] all of you can do for this group is post
stories."

Of course, the excuse for everything now is "I said that [whatever it
was] because of all the bullying and attacks".

People used to talk more about their dogs, e.g. anecdotes and how
someone's dog did in last weekend's agility competition, etc. That
was before the trolls, lunatics and hall monitors drove most of the
regulars away.

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

Had you not adopted the demeanor of a Hall Monitor, and not demanded
that everyone here reveal their blood type, submit urine and fecal
samples, maintain a web site, etc., you wouldn't have been attacked.

Believe it or not, Dogman, I commend this post. It was one of your
nicest and did not include name calling. Thank you.

I do believe the attack came before the other, however.


No adults in my world talk that way to others.

Exactly. And if you tried to deal with a group of adult strangers, in
person, the way you tried to deal with the regulars of this newsgroup,
much worse things would have happened to you than what you got here.

Unless I were in a gang neighborhood I doubt that. I tend to get along
with people very well in person, including a wide variety of people who
would not hang out with each other. It's not uncommon for me to talk to
total strangers in public, and it usually brightens their day and brings
a smile. I'd venture a guess that plunking me in the middle of a room
full of strangers in person, and you and several others each in their
own room, I'd probably win that one.


That's your ignorance of newsgroups showing again. A web site is no
guarantee of credibility. Credibility comes with time, and with doing
more listening and lurking than talking and interrupting, and then
testing whether what someone says against what others (say,
professionals that you already know) have to say. In other words,
credibility is earned here, it's not granted.

Not my ignorance, Dogman. I make half my living online and you don't
get there by not understanding websites. I've written and sold articles
about websites. I've seen people post links to articles here that come
from websites that I know to be questionable in trusting the articles.
I know how those articles get written and I know that experts on the
subject are not usually the ones who write those articles. Some are
simply copied by thieves and reposted, some are written by folks with no
firsthand knowledge but who researched the subject usually online,
hopefully knowing how to weed out the good info from the bad. And a few
are written by folks with personal knowledge, though knowledge from one
person to another may follow a different path.

As for testing what folks say against others, there is a difficulty with
that. The professionals do not all agree and there are many different
points of view. In reading back thru the archives here, I believe that
many posters believe in what they say and do care about dogs, but rather
than accept the differences of other's beliefs it seems a common thread
to belittle what you don't agree with or attack the person with the
differing point of view.

Some here for me have credibility that I believe they are who they claim
to be, others unknown. Credibility is not the same as respect however,
which is probably what you meant to say.

But a discussion group named rec.pets.dogs BEHAVIOR is not about
telling personal stories about one's own dogs. You've been told that
more than a few times now, but it apparently still hasn't sunk in.
It's about the discussion of canine behavior and training. You were
even aimed towards rec.pets.dogs.MISC as the group where such stories
are welcomed with open arms. But you decided to flout not only the
r.p.d.BEHAVIOR newsgroups rule, and tradition, but the group's
regulars, too.

Really, what did you expect to happen after all that?

--
Dogman

Behavior is not the same as obedience. It encompasses more than
obedience. Why a dog howls at the moon is a behavior. Why a dog sniffs
another dog's butt is a behavior. Why dogs do the things they do, which
often comes out in the form of stories, is behavior.

From the newsgroup charter:

rec.pets.dogs.behavior
This group is for the discussion of typical behavioral problems with
dogs. Examples include but are not limited to: digging, barking,
aggressive behavior, housetraining, crate training, etc. Also
appropriate is discussion of "why" dogs behave as they do and how to
work with that to eliminate some behaviors and reinforce others.

That said, if you want to be a Hall Monitor, I'd say not one person
would be left standing when you are done. I've read totally off topic
discussions from most of the regulars here. Recently, about computers.
You can't get much more off topic than that. If you want to get
technical, that does not even belong in the .misc group, but in a
computer group somewhere. I limit my hall monitoring to calling out
people for personal attacks and do not concern myself over off topic
posts which are common in every newsgroup when regulars share.

The long term regulars here regularly flout the charter, the computer
discussions not even being about dogs at all, yet you single me out even
when it's about dogs. That's pretty personal. I would expect that if
off topic posting bothers you that much, to go after them all, not just
single out one or two or pick and choose which off topic posts are
worthy to go unchallenged.

--
Bad Dog Books
http://books.gityasome.com
Gityasome Tshirts
http://www.gityasome.com