
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Marshall Dermer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: : Wouldn't be more helpful to question Leah's specific advice about : a specific dog rather than to assert "Leah, you don't know what : you're talking about" as if Leah is generally misinformed? Sure, except that Leah -is- generally misinformed. This is just another post in a well-established pattern and in this case, her bad advice could get a person hurt or a dog killed. The immediate problem is that without seeing the dog in question, specific advice isn't appropriate to give and is impossible to discuss in an intelligent manner. However, it is possible to warn the original poster and anyone else who is reading that this kind of advice can be very dangerous. Since Leah persists in giving out bad advice, it also becomes necessary to warn other posters that her advice might be bad. There is a larger problem here. You may not be aware of the many long and tortuous discussions that have occurred on this group, provoked by Leah's previous bad advice, during which people attempted to do exactly as you prescribe, in an effort not only to have a fruitful discussion, but also to, in a gentle manner, let Leah know that sometimes her advice is really, really bad and perhaps direct her in ways that would further her education. These discussions are never productive and never change Leah's behavior. She never moderates what she says and she never takes advantage of opportunities to educate herself or make herself a better trainer (for example, the APDT conference this year was practically within shouting distance of her house and she didn't bother to go -- I have friends who flew down from the Northeast to attend). As I said, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with her bad advice if she didn't deliver it with such an air of authority, as if she has tons of experience in what she's talking about. But she doesn't have that experience, and it is bad advice and it doesn't come with a disclaimer. Dog aggression is a subject that concerns me deeply and I'll express myself in any effective way if it will prevent someone from taking bad advice that might get him hurt or him dog killed. I don't think it's constructive, nor does it demonstrate an understanding of history, to get on Lone's case for what she has said to Leah. Lone has historically been an extremely temperate, caring and even sweet individual on these newsgroups and frankly, when she's moved to express herself as strongly as she has I tend to sit up and take notice. You may not have been paying attention to her progress with Ezra, or understand why she feels the way she does, but I sure have and I think you owe her an apology. I don't expect an apology. I'm not nice like Lone is. Finally, if you've been reading these groups, you should know that Leah loves it when we talk about her here. Negative attention seems just as good as positive attention. Maybe that seems like an unfair statement to you, but the preponderance of data strongly suggests that it is true. I personally have had it. She either enjoys riling people up (which would make her a troll) or she is seriously one of the most obtuse people who has ever participated regularly in these newsgroups. Ever. Now, I've been on Usenet for a long time, and it takes a lot for me to formulate personal opinions about specific posters, because normally I just monitor discussions and take them at face value and, well, I just don't operate that way. But there comes a point sometimes that it becomes impossible not to formulate opinions about certain people, and those opinions are not always positive opinions, and that's just the way things are. -- Melanie -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Lee Chang | Form ever follows function. Departments of Anthropology and Biology | University of Pennsylvania | -- Louis Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |