On-line Dog License Application (with questionnaire)

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 5:03:28 PM8/28/07
to
I have developed a draft version of an on-line Dog License Application,
using basic HTML, and also some JScript (as a learning exercise). You can
try it at:

http://www.smart.net/~pstech/DogLicenseJS.htm

You might need to enable the script if your settings block it. You can view
the code to see that there is nothing malicious. It's pretty simple, and
you can change some of the values if you think there is a more reasonable
method of determining fees.

There are possibly other factors that could be added, but this might be
enough. I left out any breed-specific qualifiers. I might also add an
adjustment for no incidents within a year, but that would be best for
renewals. This is meant to be an initial fee; renewals would be less.

I might show this to my friend at AC, but I don't think he has internet
access.

Thanks,

Paul, Muttley, and Lucky

diddy

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 7:57:33 PM8/28/07
to
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> spoke these words of wisdom in
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net:

I'm impressed. But how do you know I didn't lie about my dog?
It cost me $20 for Tuck,

pfoley

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 8:17:41 PM8/28/07
to

"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
============
Why is there no place for the name, sex and age of the dog? I would think
you would have to put down the breed of the dog for a license.
Shouldn't there be a place for owner's name and address?

>
>
>


Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 9:49:30 PM8/28/07
to

"pfoley" <pfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13d9em5...@corp.supernews.com...

Of course, I will need to add all that, and figure out a way to save the
information from each applicant. This was mostly an exercise to see if it
could be a fair way to incorporate the size of the dog and behavioral
history to come up with a fee that represents the potential danger the dog
might pose for other people and dogs.

BTW, my fee for Lucky is $25, and for Muttley it is $77.50. Those would be
initial fees. Renewals would be about $10, unless there were further
incidents, or additional training.

Thanks for giving it a try.

Paul, Muttley and Lucky


Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 9:57:40 PM8/28/07
to

"diddy" <none> wrote in message
news:Xns999ACB0ADF9...@216.196.97.142...

You might be required to submit records from your vet, and any bite records
should be on file with AC. You could fudge it a bit, but a major lie would
probably be caught (and then could be prosecuted as fraud). The maximum fee
for a severely aggressive and untrained 200 lb Mastiff or Anatolian would
be $280.

Thanks for trying it. If it seems like a workable solution, I'll put some
more time into it and see if Animal Control might be interested.

Paul, Muttley, and Lucky


tiny dancer

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 10:13:07 PM8/28/07
to

"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net...


I don't understand what this is for?


td
>
>
>


CanineDivine

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 10:27:20 PM8/28/07
to
<< I don't understand what this is for? >>

Paul has become an instant expert now on dog licensing fees. He is
persisting with creating a tiered licensing fee even after being told
(by people who actually have the experience to know) that it will not
work, for a myriad of reasons.

Hope

Sandy in OK

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 1:59:08 AM8/29/07
to
On Aug 28, 8:49?pm, "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
> "pfoley" <pfol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Paul, Muttley and Lucky- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Huh. I answered the questions for what I know of Muttley and came up
with close to $100. Surely you are too much of a cheapskate to pay
that. And Lucky's had no training.

Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 3:23:01 AM8/29/07
to

"Sandy in OK" <celea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1188367148.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

>
> Huh. I answered the questions for what I know of Muttley and came up
> with close to $100. Surely you are too much of a cheapskate to pay
> that. And Lucky's had no training.
>

I've revised the form a little, but not the basic fees. As I stated before,
Muttley's fee would be $77.50. He is 75 lb, neutered, bit one person one
time, not requiring medical treatment, and he bit the dog at Janet's
obedience class at least once, requiring medical treatment. Lucky's fee
would be $25 (some training) or $32.50 (no training).

http://www.smart.net/~pstech/DogLicenseJS.htm

I would not mind paying fees like that, especially as one-time charges as I
intended. Renewals are less, unless there are additonal incidents. I can
modify the form with a checkbox for renewals.

Thanks for giving it a try.

Paul, Muttley, and Lucky


Melinda Shore

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 7:00:55 AM8/29/07
to
In article <RA4Bi.38725$t9.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,

tiny dancer <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't understand what this is for?

Self-aggrandizement.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

the.longest.use...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 12:17:23 PM8/29/07
to

Yoda comes out as $46. 72 lbs, neutered, never bit a person, bit one
dog once - single bite requiring medical attention, and obedience
training is beyond basic, but no titles being that I do not trust him
in an obedience ring off leash around other dogs, but I put advanced
anyways.

I would not mind paying $46 to be allowed to keep Yoda, if the other
option was not keeping him. It still doesn't address the fact that
most people do not feel this way. An increase from my $7 fee to $46
for most people would mean they just would not license the dog.
Resulting in a decrease in compliance.

Inappropriate ownership techniques need to be discouraged through
enforcement as it is too easy for them to just not pay and do what
they want with their dog anyways.

Nick

Shelly

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 12:27:22 PM8/29/07
to
Melinda Shore wrote:

> Self-aggrandizement.

Pretty much. And an annoyingly constructed one, at that. Egads!
For a start, he might want to consider what "obedience training"
means. Or, at least, elaborate on how he defines it. It would also
help if he canned the horrid java pop-ups. But even then, the whole
thing is a waste of time and effort, because it tells you nothing
about a dog's potential to harm humans or other animals.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

Melinda Shore

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 1:23:25 PM8/29/07
to
In article <fb46pd$1uk$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,

Shelly <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote:
>It would also
>help if he canned the horrid java pop-ups.

I've got pop-ups disabled in all my browser, plus there's
always Tools->Options->Content->Enable JavaScript->unclick
(in Firefox).

>But even then, the whole
>thing is a waste of time and effort, because it tells you nothing
>about a dog's potential to harm humans or other animals.

The whole thing is a waste of time and effort because it's
likely to reduce compliance rather than improve it.
Increasing licensing fees 400-700% in an effort to get dog
owners to be more responsible is an incredibly dumb idea.
In fact, the less responsible the owner the more the fees go
up, which means that the people who are going to be most
discouraged from compliance are the people who are least
likely to comply in the first place. Paul needs an
introductory economics course.

Shelly

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 1:29:18 PM8/29/07
to
Melinda Shore wrote:

> I've got pop-ups disabled in all my browser, plus there's
> always Tools->Options->Content->Enable JavaScript->unclick
> (in Firefox).

I have to keep Java turned on for some of the tools we use. Hrmf!
On my own machine, Java is disabled and pop-ups are blocked.

> The whole thing is a waste of time and effort because it's
> likely to reduce compliance rather than improve it.

That was pointed out many times to Mr. MeMeMe. I'm pretty
law-abiding, but I would not license my dog under his stupid scheme.
And that's not because it would cost more, either.

> Paul needs an introductory economics course.

Paul needs his logic circuits repaired, too.

Judy

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 4:43:11 PM8/29/07
to
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net...

>I have developed a draft version of an on-line Dog License Application,
> using basic HTML, and also some JScript (as a learning exercise). You can
> try it at:
>
> http://www.smart.net/~pstech/DogLicenseJS.htm

VERY annoying popups!!!!

My schnauzers come out with $10 each.

My brother's late golden came out at $25. The difference is apparently the
level of obedience training. My dogs have advanced titles. The golden had
one puppy class but most of what he knew - Sit, Go Away, Steady (with a
treat on his nose) - he learned over the years.

Considering that the golden never met a person or a dog that he didn't love
or that he was convinced loved him, charging them one penny more than the
schnauzers is a ridiculous idea.

Judy

Judy

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 4:45:54 PM8/29/07
to
"Judy" <dou...@cableracer.com> wrote in message
news:5jm479...@mid.individual.net...

And is there any evidence to indicate that an unspayed female is any more
likely to be either human or dog aggressive?

I just can't see that neutering - while a valuable tool in controlling the
future pet population - has had any effect on either of my dogs.

Judy

Melinda Shore

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 4:53:22 PM8/29/07
to
In article <5jm4cc...@mid.individual.net>,

Judy <dou...@cableracer.com> wrote:
>I just can't see that neutering - while a valuable tool in controlling the
>future pet population - has had any effect on either of my dogs.

Ditto here. For whatever anecdotal value it might have, the
only one of my dogs who was neutered as a puppy was Emmett.
The other five who are neutered were neutered as adults
(mature adults, at that), so I got to see what happened.
That would be "nothing." My only intact dog is a
hellaciously bossy bitch, but that's just the kind of dog
she is. I'm going to have her spayed in the spring but I
don't expect any behavioral differences (except when she's
in heat, dammit - I could happily live the rest of my life
without living with a Slutty McBimbo dog).

pfoley

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 5:05:29 PM8/29/07
to

"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d4d2fb$0$26724$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
==========
My fee is $18.50 for Devon

>
>


Judy

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 5:08:30 PM8/29/07
to
"Melinda Shore" <sh...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fb4mc2$cb$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> In article <5jm4cc...@mid.individual.net>,
> Judy <dou...@cableracer.com> wrote:
>>I just can't see that neutering - while a valuable tool in controlling the
>>future pet population - has had any effect on either of my dogs.
>
> Ditto here. For whatever anecdotal value it might have, the
> only one of my dogs who was neutered as a puppy was Emmett.
> The other five who are neutered were neutered as adults
> (mature adults, at that), so I got to see what happened.
> That would be "nothing."

Spenser was done at ten months. Sassy at two years.

Spenser *did* quit marking for a brief period but resumed after a couple of
months.

Sassy is, well, sassy. Could just as easily have named her Bossy or Bitchy.
Neutering certainly didn't change that. And she also marks.

Judy

Sue and Atty

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 5:30:29 PM8/29/07
to

"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
Atty came out at $10 - $2 more than our county. But, I chose "advanced
with titles, etc" using the "etc" as my excuse for choosing that field -
she's CGC/TDIAOV - and been through lots of obedience, flyball, agility,
although never titled in them.....and "etc" leaves alot to my
interpretation. (60 lb female spayed lab with no issues)

Sue and Atty


Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 5:28:19 PM8/29/07
to

"pfoley" <pfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13dbnps...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> ==========
> My fee is $18.50 for Devon
>

I accept PayPal!

Paul, Muttley and Lucky


sighthounds & siberians

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 5:53:12 PM8/29/07
to

It's ludicrous. Tasha would have cost $65, because she was involved
in bitch squabbles with a dog living in the same household with her.
(Never, ever, did she so much as lift a lip at any other dog anywhere,
at any time.) Also, years ago we came home from grocery shopping and
I was trying to get myself into the kitchen and somehow closed her paw
in one of those walk-through baby gates. When I tried to free her,
she closed her jaw around my hand. Never, ever, did she put her teeth
on any other human body part anywhere, at any time. That bite, which
was a good one, would have cost us another $25. Even most ACs
distinguish between bites to resident dogs or humans vs. the public at
large. That dog was the best dog we've ever had or will ever have.
She was stable and predictable, loved every human she met (and it was
reciprocated), a perfect alpha, intuitive and predictable.

Then I started playing around to see what Music the greyhound would
cost me, then what Music would cost if he were 10 lb. lighter. Dog
licensing by the pound!

What a stupid idea.

Mustang Sally

Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 5:58:25 PM8/29/07
to

"Judy" <dou...@cableracer.com> wrote in message
news:5jm479...@mid.individual.net...

Thanks for the comments. This is, after all, a "draft" document, and
changes are to be expected. I know the pop-ups are annoying, so the final
version will just have a pop-up alert if you have neglected to fill out
something when you finally submit the application. I built this web page
from some examples that used alerts. I will change the form so that the
information supplied in the pop-ups will just be displayed in a text memo
without requiring confirmation.

The idea of charging proportional to weight is based on the damage that a
heavier dog could do. There would also be increased risks to AC personnel
if they had to handle such a dog, and greater costs for food and storage
space if they had to board the dog. Of course, recovery fees could account
for that, but there would probably be some who would just let the dog stay,
possibly to be given to a shelter or PTS, and the costs would be there in
any case.

Also, I would consider this initial fee as a sort of "bond" that is on your
account. It can be thought of as a prepayment for expenses that might be
caused by your dog. If the dog dies, or you move elsewhere, at least some
of the additional fee could be reimbursed, or transferred to another dog.

The concept is to make dog owners responsible for their dogs, and
accountable for their dogs' behavior.

Try the application again later when I have had a chance to modify it. Or
if anyone has experience in HTML and JScript, feel free to make changes and
improvements, and email the revised file to me. It's only 6 kB, and pretty
simple. I still have more to learn about JScript, and its big brother Java.
I'll also need to look at CGI if the form will actually be able to be
submitted with the information supplied.

Paul, Muttley and Lucky


Janet Boss

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 6:02:16 PM8/29/07
to
In article <46d5ec24$0$26709$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,

"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:

>
> The concept is to make dog owners responsible for their dogs, and
> accountable for their dogs' behavior.

You don't understand human behavior any more than you understand dog
behavior.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

Melinda Shore

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 6:15:07 PM8/29/07
to
In article <46d5ec24$0$26709$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,

Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the comments. This is, after all, a "draft" document, and
>changes are to be expected.

WTF? What's your definition of a draft document?

Oh, nevermind. Crikey.

Message has been deleted

Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 10:02:15 PM8/29/07
to

"elegy" <el...@DOGPOOPshattering.org> wrote in message
news:e8sbd3dqng03mv852...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:58:25 -0400, "Paul E. Schoen"
> <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>
>>The idea of charging proportional to weight is based on the damage that a
>>heavier dog could do.
>
> that's fascinating. all things even, each of my pit bulls would cost
> less than a lab or a golden retriever.
>

Well, I could add a section for breed, and modify the fees appropriately. I
just don't know how much difference it should make, and whether it should
apply to the aggression history or weight. It would be good to have
accurate statistics, but that's probably an oxymoron.

Paul, Muttley and Lucky


Melinda Shore

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 10:09:12 PM8/29/07
to
In article <46d62566$0$26697$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,

Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>It would be good to have
>accurate statistics, but that's probably an oxymoron.

Do you think that's something someone with an engineering
education would say? Something a professional engineer
would say?

CanineDivine

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 10:43:28 PM8/29/07
to
<< The concept is to make dog owners responsible for their dogs, and
accountable for their dogs' behavior. >>

Paying higher fees for a bigger dog will make one more responsible
HOW? Ignorant dog owners assessing their own dog's aggression levels
makes them more responsible HOW? Do you have ANY idea how many people
turning their dogs into rescues/shelters or going to classes classify
bites as "nips"? Furthermore do you know how many of them excuse the
dog's behavior as provoked, when in reality it was not? Do you know
how many people say their dog was guarding, but when questioned
further it turns out the dog bit from behind, which is not aggression
or appropriate guarding, but fear based and in many ways more
dangerous? Do you know how many people say they took an obedience
class but only took one and barely attended it and rarely did the
homework, so the dog learned very little if at all? Do you know have
any knowledge of what is involved in titling and dog and what it means
in regards to the dog's temperament and real life obedience? Do you
understand Economics 101 and the reverse coorellation between cost and
compliance?

All serious questions, that I would love to hear an answer to, but
doubt I will.

Hope

sighthounds & siberians

unread,
Aug 29, 2007, 10:59:03 PM8/29/07
to
On 29 Aug 2007 22:09:12 -0400, sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:

>In article <46d62566$0$26697$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,
>Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>>It would be good to have
>>accurate statistics, but that's probably an oxymoron.
>
>Do you think that's something someone with an engineering
>education would say? Something a professional engineer
>would say?

Sheesh. For most people, it's possible to be adamantly opposed to BSL
and still recognize that some breeds are more likely to be
dog-aggressive than others. And my 82-pound greyhound is probably
less likely to bite a human than I am. Weight has FA to do with it.

Mustang Sally

Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 2:55:22 AM8/30/07
to

"CanineDivine" <Canine...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188441808.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm an electronics engineer with
some programming abilities, and a reluctant owner of two large dogs with
limited knowledge and experience. But I am predisposed to making things
work, and I am also creative and open minded in how I approach solutions to
problems.


> Paying higher fees for a bigger dog will make one more responsible HOW?

Primarily, it may dissuade someone from getting a big dog in the first
place. The reductions in fees for training may encourage people to do so.


> Ignorant dog owners assessing their own dog's aggression levels makes
> them more responsible HOW?

At least it makes them think about their dog's behavior, and the extra fees
for aggression might make them take action to get training to reduce the
fees, or not keep the dog, either of which will reduce dangers to others.


> Do you have ANY idea how many people turning their dogs into
> rescues/shelters or going to classes classify bites as "nips"?
> Furthermore do you know how many of them excuse the dog's behavior as
> provoked, when in reality it was not? Do you know how many people say
> their dog was guarding, but when questioned further it turns out the dog
> bit from behind, which is not aggression or appropriate guarding, but
> fear based and in many ways more dangerous?

There does need to be a way to educate people on the severity of a dog's
aggressive behavior, or else have it evaluated by a professional. If a dog
has bitten severely enough to require medical treatment and reporting, it
will be a part of the dog's record already, and verifiable. There are grey
areas, of course, and the dog's demeanor may change for the better or worse
over time. As in Muttley's case, he bit my friend on the butt because he
was fearful after having been (unintentionally) provoked by his hammering.
I now recognize the signs of fear, and can exercise more caution. There
have been no similar incidents in over a year. Also, his ability to get
along with Lucky, and other dogs, shows that he is not terribly dog
aggressive. But the incidents happened and would affect my license fees, as
they should.


> Do you know how many people say they took an obedience class but only
> took one and barely attended it and rarely did the homework, so the dog
> learned very little if at all? Do you know have any knowledge of what is
> involved in titling and dog and what it means in regards to the dog's
> temperament and real life obedience?

I do not pretend to know these things, and I doubt that there are good
statistics on this. The fact someone at least tried an obedience class, or
did training in their own, indicates at least some commitment to
controlling the dog's behavior. I would think that successful, verifiable
completion would count for more of a discount as well as safer behavior,
and another degree of control and safety might be evidenced by titling and
advanced classes. I would defer to those with more specific knowledge and
experience to determine how much these would correlate to temperamant and
real life obedience and safe behavior.


> Do you understand Economics 101 and the reverse coorellation between cost
> and compliance?

I don't pretend to be an expert at economics, but generally in a free
market, the cost or price of an item will stabilize depending on supply and
demand. But that is for something that may be purchased or not, and for
which the consumer has a perceived or real need or desire to have it. This
may be applicable to the number of dogs purchased or owned, if the cost of
licensing is consistently included. But licensing is a way for the citizens
of a democratic society to control ownership of things that affect everyone
in some way. One may choose to own an automobile or truck for
transportation needs, and may be justifiably charged according to weight,
as that is a fair indicator of the cost such a vehicle might cause for
building and maintenence of highways, as well as damages from accidents. A
similar case may be made for dog ownership. But there are severe penalties
for non-compliance with vehicle registration, while not so much for dog
licensing. We control the fees for both when we participate in our
democratic processes. But people take vehicle ownership far more seriously
than dog ownership, although there are very real risks and public expenses
involved with having a dog. So, the reverse correlation you mention is only
because of the lack of effective penalties. But if the penalty is only not
being allowed to have the item requiring registration, it is a lot easier
for people to give up their dog than their car. If higher fees result in
less dogs, so be it. Those who will not pay a reasonable and effective fee
for having a dog are also likely those who would have dangerous animals.


The reason for all of this discussion is to attempt to find a solution to a
problem. I have made a proposal, and I think it is reasonable and fair. If
anyone has any changes they would like to see to the system, or alternate
plans, please present them.

Paul, Muttley, and Lucky


Melinda Shore

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 3:26:31 AM8/30/07
to
In article <46d66aab$0$26723$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,

Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>But I am predisposed to making things
>work,

There is a big difference between "making things work" and
puttering about. You're doing the latter. "Making things
work" requires discipline and a systematic approach. You're
just whacking about randomly, executing on stuff you *think*
is a good idea without bothering to find out if it actually
is a good idea, doing any kind of analysis, or apparently
even bothering to think things through.

>Primarily, it may dissuade someone from getting a big dog in the first
>place. The reductions in fees for training may encourage people to do so.

Okay, so in nearly every animal shelter in the US the small
dogs are much more adoptable than the big dogs and the big
dogs are euthanized for lack of available homes in much
larger numbers. Exacerbating the situation is a good idea ...
why? Because of your dumbass biases?

Rocky

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 3:58:24 AM8/30/07
to
sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) said in rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

> Something a professional engineer
> would say?

I don't think that Paul has portrayed himself as a professional
engineer.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

Shelly

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 6:28:02 AM8/30/07
to
Paul E. Schoen wrote:

> I just don't know how much difference it should make,

About as much difference as the rest of your questionnaire would make.

Sue and Atty

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 7:16:20 AM8/30/07
to

"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d66aab$0$26723$ecde...@news.coretel.net...

>
> "CanineDivine" <Canine...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1188441808.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

>
>
>> Paying higher fees for a bigger dog will make one more responsible HOW?
>
> Primarily, it may dissuade someone from getting a big dog in the first
> place. The reductions in fees for training may encourage people to do so.
>
>

I doubt that some of these people will go to training classes in order to
reduce the fee. I doubt they will pay hundreds of dollars in training fees
(assuming they go to more than one set of classes) in order to save 20 bucks
or so on registration. Or perhaps they'll just join the many people who
don't bother getting a licence at all.

Sue and Atty


Mary Healey

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 10:35:37 AM8/30/07
to
sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote in news:fb4r5b$pgo$1
@panix2.panix.com:

> In article <46d5ec24$0$26709$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,
> Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>>Thanks for the comments. This is, after all, a "draft" document, and
>>changes are to be expected.
>
> WTF? What's your definition of a draft document?

It pulls a wagon, of course.

the.longest.use...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 4:31:57 PM8/30/07
to
On Aug 29, 10:09 pm, sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> In article <46d62566$0$26697$ecde5...@news.coretel.net>,

Not in my mind.

Nick

Paul E. Schoen

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 5:45:29 PM8/30/07
to

<the.longest.use...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188505917.2...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

I was thinking of a quote attributed to Mark Twain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

Perhaps, in your mind, an engineer must be only serious and methodical
about everything. I am a design engineer. I choose a more creative
approach, and I consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired
result. I am probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer,
although the fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than
perhaps a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer.

My Meyers-Briggs type is split between INTP, which is described as the
Architect, and INTJ, Mastermind. Some INTPs are Charles Darwin and Albert
Einstein, and INTJs include Isaac Newton and Dwight Eisenhower. But I am
close to being ENTP, which is Inventor, so I share some qualities with
Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison.

It is ENTJ that typifies structural and functional engineers. It is also
described as Field Marshal, which I do not consider myself. Examples of
this type are Napoleon Bonaparte and Bill Gates.

I wonder if dog trainers have a specific personality type. If not ENTJ, I
would guess ENFJ, or teacher, exemplified by Oprah Winfrey and Billy
Graham. What's *your* type?

An online test can be taken:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

Paul, Muttley and Lucky

Melinda Shore

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 5:49:39 PM8/30/07
to
In article <46d73a9f$0$26704$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,

Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>Perhaps, in your mind, an engineer must be only serious and methodical
>about everything.

About the problems he claims to be trying to solve, to be sure.

>I am a design engineer.

*I* am a big, blonde Valkyrie!

>I choose a more creative
>approach, and I consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired
>result. I am probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer,
>although the fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than
>perhaps a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer.

I just can't believe you're having problems finding a
woooooman.

Janet Boss

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 5:50:38 PM8/30/07
to
In article <46d73a9f$0$26704$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,

"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:

> I am a design engineer. I choose a more creative
> approach, and I consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired
> result. I am probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer,
> although the fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than
> perhaps a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer.>>

SO flexible when there's no degree involved!

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

Melinda Shore

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 5:51:48 PM8/30/07
to
In article <janet-5E2AA6....@news.individual.net>,

Janet Boss <ja...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com> wrote:
>SO flexible when there's no degree involved!

Or actual jobs.

Janet Boss

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 6:02:16 PM8/30/07
to
In article <fb7e5k$pu$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:

>
> Or actual jobs.

amazing isn't it? Hmmm..... what do I want to be this week? An
astronaut? a brain surgeon? perhaps a governor or such? Just say it's
so!

BTW - since I'm sure Paul will comment - there is not degree for dog
trainer. For good and for bad, that's the way it is. Success with
students is either there or not though.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

CanineDivine

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 8:26:53 PM8/30/07
to
<< I am a design engineer. I choose a more creative approach, and I
consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired result. I am
probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer, although the
fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than perhaps
a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer. >>

I work with 70-100 software engineers. Not ONE of them would jump
into something they knew nothing about. They would research it first,
thoroughly, by consulting experts, not hitting wiki.

Hope

Paula

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 2:26:34 AM8/31/07
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:27:22 -0400, Shelly <she...@cat-sidh.net>
wrote:

>Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>> Self-aggrandizement.
>
>Pretty much. And an annoyingly constructed one, at that. Egads!
>For a start, he might want to consider what "obedience training"
>means. Or, at least, elaborate on how he defines it. It would also
>help if he canned the horrid java pop-ups. But even then, the whole
>thing is a waste of time and effort, because it tells you nothing
>about a dog's potential to harm humans or other animals.

It is also completely wrong for a public entity to use for licensing
on a number of different levels, but that's not going to stop him. Why
let not knowing a damn thing about how things work or should work get
in the way?

--
Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy,
so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay

Paula

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 2:28:09 AM8/31/07
to
On 29 Aug 2007 13:23:25 -0400, sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:

>Paul needs an
>introductory economics course.

Sign him up for an introductory life lessons course while you're at
it, please.

Paula

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 2:40:01 AM8/31/07
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:55:22 -0400, "Paul E. Schoen"
<pst...@smart.net> wrote:

>But I am predisposed to making things
>work

Okay, this whole thread was worthwhile just for the much needed laugh
this line gave me.

--
Paula
"If you want to invade large swathes of Europe and Asia with an army of
highly-mobile horse-archers, simply be Genghis Khan." John Salt

Many Dogs (flick)

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 3:20:03 PM8/31/07
to
"Janet Boss" <ja...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com> wrote in message
news:janet-5E2AA6....@news.individual.net...

>
> SO flexible when there's no degree involved!

Some people are flexible. Some people are rigid and self-righteous.

Some people are snobs.

flick 100785


Many Dogs (flick)

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 3:23:04 PM8/31/07
to
"sighthounds & siberians" <grey...@ncweb.com> wrote in message
news:1188424392....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

[...]

> Dog
> licensing by the pound!
>
> What a stupid idea.

Since we have big dogs, I'm not thrilled about that part, either.

However, if you think of licensing as a tax, it's as good a way as any to
generate different fees <shrug>. A little harder to lie about than a dog's
aggression history, that's for sure.

flick 100785


Janet Boss

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 3:36:48 PM8/31/07
to
In article <lRZBi.4949$Y7....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"Many Dogs \(flick\)" <many...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
> Some people are snobs.

No snobishness. Paul just toots a horn he doesn't have. I find that
bizarre.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com