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.