(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse)
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
Michelle said:
>I think the dog we were talking about here was not a puppy but rather more
>near to 90 pounds. For that kind of dog a little kick (not with the tip of the
>shoe, but as was later explained with the upper side of the foot and not
>against the head, but under the chest ) will not really do harm.
I'm a 90-pound woman. Are you suggesting that anyone attempting to kick me
in the chest or under the chest (in the womb or stomach maybe) will not kill
me? Please stop demonstrating your stupidity.
I think we were talking about dogs, and
the dog we were talking about here is a Chow, and now I remember
somewhere I read they were bred to be Chinese war dogs.
I think if they were so fragile that they would be damaged by a mere
kick, there would never have been a Chinese Empire.
On the other hand, if your body has the same proportions like that of a
Chow, then you should slim down as quickly as possible and not even
be 90 pound heavy.
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5k4nvh$j...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>I think we were talking about dogs, and
>the dog we were talking about here is a Chow, and now I remember
>somewhere I read they were bred to be Chinese war dogs.
>I think if they were so fragile that they would be damaged by a mere
>kick, there would never have been a Chinese Empire.
>On the other hand, if your body has the same proportions like that of a
>Chow, then you should slim down as quickly as possible and not even
>be 90 pound heavy.
Have some class. I thought at first your problem was maybe there was no
German equivalent for the word "kick" in English, and you thought in German but
wrote in English, and then I thought you were bullheaded and stubborn. Now I
see you're just stupid. (And changing the subject headings isn't going to
stop the flames)
First, you know nothing about dogs - especially Chows. Second, you know nothing
about China or Chinese history (erm, Germany was late in the slicing of the
Chinese melon, yah?). And it's pretty obvious you know nothing about the
pound system, having been brought up in metric. A 90-pound woman, in any
language, is considered "petite." Of do I have to give you a French lesson
as well? - Michelle (also a World History major)
Chris Kosmakos
Re...@ms1.hinet.net wrote:
: I think if they were so fragile that they would be damaged by a mere
: kick, there would never have been a Chinese Empire.
Rene, we seem to see multiple posts from you about how much physical
force is safe or appropriate with a dog. The only answer is NONE,
regardless of the size of the dog.
Potential physical harm aside, it does nothing to teach the dog what is
not acceptable and leads to fear and more complex behavioral problems.
All dogs should be taught a solid "Leave IT" command to be used in lieu
of physical intervention.
Lynn K.
--
chri...@netcom.com
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5k5dgl$f...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <5k4nvh$j...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>>I think we were talking about dogs, and
>>the dog we were talking about here is a Chow, and now I remember
>>somewhere I read they were bred to be Chinese war dogs.
>>I think if they were so fragile that they would be damaged by a mere
>>kick, there would never have been a Chinese Empire.
>
>>On the other hand, if your body has the same proportions like that of a
>>Chow, then you should slim down as quickly as possible and not even
>>be 90 pound heavy.
>
> Have some class. I thought at first your problem was maybe there was no
> German equivalent for the word "kick" in English, and you thought in German but
> wrote in English, and then I thought you were bullheaded and stubborn. Now I
> see you're just stupid. (And changing the subject headings isn't going to
> stop the flames)
Changing the subject header should reflect the changed contents of the post,
how do you think that could avert flames?
>
> First, you know nothing about dogs - especially Chows.
All you and me know about Chows, we read somewhere. Maybe you are lucky
and your sources were more correct than mine.
The thing about the Chinese war dogs I read one time in a post on the internet
about the fierceness of Chows.
As I read many post stating that Chows are quite fierce, I thought it might
be correct. Are you sure it's not?
>Second, you know nothing
> about China or Chinese history (erm, Germany was late in the slicing of the
> Chinese melon, yah?).
There was a Chinese Empire for a long time, the dynasties tend to become weak
after a couple of hundred years.
Germany had a protectorate in China, maybe you should travel to Shandong
Province and see Qingdao.
At least you should try a bottle of Qingdao beer, which is a lasting influence
Germany left on China.
>And it's pretty obvious you know nothing about the
> pound system, having been brought up in metric. A 90-pound woman, in any
> language, is considered "petite."
The Chows I've seen are less than 1 meter long, for a human only 1 meter tall
I think 40kg are still too much.
>Or do I have to give you a French lesson
> as well? - Michelle (also a World History major)
Yes, I don't speak French so far
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5k8e9h$r...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>Changing the subject header should reflect the changed contents of the post,
>how do you think that could avert flames?
I know it doesn't. I was telling you it doesn't.
>All you and me know about Chows, we read somewhere. Maybe you are lucky
>and your sources were more correct than mine.
>The thing about the Chinese war dogs I read one time in a post on the internet
>about the fierceness of Chows.
>As I read many post stating that Chows are quite fierce, I thought it might
>be correct. Are you sure it's not?
Actually, I happen to know several Chows personally, and no, they are
not "quite fierce." Have you ever seen a *real* Chow before?!
>There was a Chinese Empire for a long time, the dynasties tend to become weak
>after a couple of hundred years.
>Germany had a protectorate in China, maybe you should travel to Shandong
>Province and see Qingdao.
>At least you should try a bottle of Qingdao beer, which is a lasting influence
>Germany left on China.
I have tried Tsingtao beer, but I prefer Heineken myself. If that's all you
know about Chinese history, I suggest you don't waste everybody's time. Have
*you* ever stepped foot outside of Germany?!
>The Chows I've seen are less than 1 meter long, for a human only 1 meter tall
>I think 40kg are still too much.
That's your opinion and your perogative.
>Yes, I don't speak French so far
Are you requesting my services? Or do I have to send you a bill? Lynn K. and I
have had our differences, but she said it very well - you have made numerous
posts suggesting that some levels of violence is okay in dealing with dogs.
Now you're grasping at straws and it's not giving your credibility any more
support. Accept what several of us have tried to tell you: dogs (and other
living creatures) should *never* be treated with violence. Post responsibly
because there are those who will use your posts as advice / excuses for how
to treat dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself. - Michelle
The ZenMaster
Chris Kosmakos wrote:
>
> Re...@ms1.hinet.net wrote:
>
> : I think if they were so fragile that they would be damaged by a mere
> : kick, there would never have been a Chinese Empire.
>
> force is safe or appropriate with a dog. The only answer is NONE,
> regardless of the size of the dog.
Excuse me Miss Choke Chain enthusiast (that is your method to teach
isn't it?) what would you do in a situation involving vicious dogs
without collars or leashes attached? Let me guess, you never would have
dogs in that situation, but then again, you don't live with people who
have a vicious Chow who never wears a collar.
> Potential physical harm aside, it does nothing to teach the dog what is
> not acceptable and leads to fear and more complex behavioral problems.
> All dogs should be taught a solid "Leave IT" command to be used in lieu
> of physical intervention.
Don't be silly, a dog like Mekim would have to be very, very, very
SEVERELY choke chained to get him to stop thinking about attacking Tai.
The force used and the pain caused would be MUCH MUCH worse than my
little soccer style kick stoppage. I had no other option at the time
and I wasn't even trying to teach him anything, I was simply stopping
him as quickly and efficiently as possible without hurting him and that
is EXACTLY what I did. If I had kicked him in the rib or throat, he
could have been hurt, but I am very coordinated and knew exactly what I
was doing as I caught him flush in the chest with the upper curve of my
ankle, a perfect fit.
Furthermore, a choke chain IS physical intervention and believe me,
there is NO OTHER WAY to stop MeKim from attacking Tai than SEVERE
PHYSICAL INTERVENTION, no matter what kind you use. In fact, as you
will see in my post responding to LABLOVER, Callie may be the best,
safest and most effective method of physical intervention in this
situation.
Review, a choke chain is
A. Physical force and
B. Physical intervention
both things you said should never be used or were not appropriate, but
are (correct me if I'm wrong?) what you would use.
> Lynn K.
> --
> chri...@netcom.com
Michael T.
Zen Guerrilla Dog
Changing The Muzzle of Dog Training
And everything else
REVAMPED PAGES
http://members.aol.com/Intreppid/whodaboss.html
http://members.aol.com/ZZendog/ZenDogTest.html
NEW FEATURE!
http://members.aol.com/Skilllz/PowerMedia.html
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5k8iag$a...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <5k8e9h$r...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>>All you and me know about Chows, we read somewhere. Maybe you are lucky
>>and your sources were more correct than mine.
>>The thing about the Chinese war dogs I read one time in a post on the internet
>>about the fierceness of Chows.
>>As I read many post stating that Chows are quite fierce, I thought it might
>>be correct. Are you sure it's not?
>
> Actually, I happen to know several Chows personally, and no, they are
> not "quite fierce." Have you ever seen a *real* Chow before?!
Now I read on a web page that Chows were bred as was a versatile
Chinese hunting dog that long ago and they are formidable on big
game such as bear and tiger.
So compared to bear and tiger, what is the foot of the ZENmaster?
>
>>There was a Chinese Empire for a long time, the dynasties tend to become weak
>>after a couple of hundred years.
>>Germany had a protectorate in China, maybe you should travel to Shandong
>>Province and see Qingdao.
>>At least you should try a bottle of Qingdao beer, which is a lasting influence
>>Germany left on China.
>
> I have tried Tsingtao beer, but I prefer Heineken myself. If that's all you
> know about Chinese history, I suggest you don't waste everybody's time.
What makes you think this is all I know about Chinese History?
> *you* ever stepped foot outside of Germany?!
I did and I think a much higher percentage of Germans have been outside
of Germany than people from the Americas.
>
>>The Chows I've seen are less than 1 meter long, for a human only 1 meter tall
>>I think 40kg are still too much.
>
> That's your opinion and your perogative.
Do you need a proof-reader? It is prerogative
>
>>Yes, I don't speak French so far
>
> Are you requesting my services? Or do I have to send you a bill? Lynn K. and I
> have had our differences, but she said it very well - you have made numerous
> posts suggesting that some levels of violence is okay in dealing with dogs.
I am not alone with this opinion ( that some enforcement is necessary sometimes)
Should however always be the last resort. I have a job and therefore not so much
time to use elaborate training schemes, and I think 400USD for a dog trainer is
just too much.
Cat
In article <5ka270$d...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>Now I read on a web page that Chows were bred as was a versatile
>Chinese hunting dog that long ago and they are formidable on big
>game such as bear and tiger.
Rene,
Gee, here's a new one on me, hadn't read that one.
Having had experience with both tigers and Chows, I can certainly tell you
that the Chow of today is NO match for a big cat or a bear. There are
*very* few breeds of this day and age that would even come close to being
a match for a tiger. (whether singly or in a pack) One swat from a 350-700
lbs cat (depending on which species of tiger) can easily break a neck or a
back and they are QUICK!
>
>So compared to bear and tiger, what is the foot of the ZENmaster?
Abuse.
>
>I am not alone with this opinion ( that some enforcement is necessary
sometimes)
>Should however always be the last resort.
There is a BIG difference between enforcement and abuse. Kicking and
hitting ARE abuse.
> I have a job and therefore not so much
>time to use elaborate training schemes, and I think 400USD for a dog
trainer is
>just too much.
Join the club Rene... almost ALL of us also have jobs... and families...
and a *life* besides just our family pets. We are not talking about
"elaborate training schemes", all my dogs obediance training was done in
15-30 minute sessions, sometimes once a day, sometimes twice a day, some
during normal play-time and some during walks. (and even some while I was
standing in the kitchen cooking dinner).
Gee, if you don't have 15-30 minutes a day to work with your dog, then
perhaps your life is too busy for owning a dog.
Cat in Alaska
http://www.mosquitonet.com/~outback
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Cat
In article <336834...@earthlink.com>, The says...
>
>Chris Kosmakos wrote:
>>
>> Re...@ms1.hinet.net wrote:
>>
>> : I think if they were so fragile that they would be damaged by a mere
>> : kick, there would never have been a Chinese Empire.
>>
>> Rene, we seem to see multiple posts from you about how much physical
>> force is safe or appropriate with a dog. The only answer is NONE,
>> regardless of the size of the dog.
>
>Excuse me Miss Choke Chain enthusiast (that is your method to teach
>isn't it?) what would you do in a situation involving vicious dogs
>without collars or leashes attached? Let me guess, you never would have
>dogs in that situation, but then again, you don't live with people who
>have a vicious Chow who never wears a collar.
Well, none of my three have worn a choke chain. It isn't a prerequisite
for training, you know. I don't put my dogs into situations where they are
going to come in contact with "vicious dogs" in the first place.
And as for living with a "vicious chow" who doesn't ever wear a collar...
nope, never have, and never will. Being that irrespinsible with a
dog... I don't think I'd want to live around that type of person anyway.
BTW, what is your roommate's excuse for not teaching the dog some manners
and general obediance? Seems like (from your posts) if they had spent the
money on a bit of training, they wouldn't be spending it now at the Vet's
for stiches.
>
>> Potential physical harm aside, it does nothing to teach the dog what is
>> not acceptable and leads to fear and more complex behavioral problems.
>> All dogs should be taught a solid "Leave IT" command to be used in lieu
>> of physical intervention.
>
>Don't be silly, a dog like Mekim would have to be very, very, very
>SEVERELY choke chained to get him to stop thinking about attacking Tai.
Another poor excuse and not necessarily true.
>The force used and the pain caused would be MUCH MUCH worse than my
>little soccer style kick stoppage. I had no other option at the time
>and I wasn't even trying to teach him anything, I was simply stopping
>him as quickly and efficiently as possible without hurting him and that
>is EXACTLY what I did. If I had kicked him in the rib or throat, he
>could have been hurt, but I am very coordinated and knew exactly what I
>was doing as I caught him flush in the chest with the upper curve of my
>ankle, a perfect fit.
Poor excuse for abuse.
>
>Furthermore, a choke chain IS physical intervention and believe me,
>there is NO OTHER WAY to stop MeKim from attacking Tai than SEVERE
>PHYSICAL INTERVENTION, no matter what kind you use. In fact, as you
>will see in my post responding to LABLOVER, Callie may be the best,
>safest and most effective method of physical intervention in this
>situation.
nope, endangering your dog, or someone else's is not a good substitution
for training and will eventually make the situation worse.
Severe Physical Intervention is not required for training.
Seriously, one of these days you are going to figure out that you've set
your own household up for a bad accident that COULD HAVE been prevented.
Cat
Vera Casteel
In article <336834...@earthlink.com>, zze...@earthlink.com says...
> Let me guess, you never would have
> dogs in that situation, but then again, you don't live with people who
> have a vicious Chow who never wears a collar.
So why are you living with these people and allowing them to keep a
vicious dog in your home without a collar? You have *chosen* to allow
this to happen. Why?
If I were living with someone who wanted to keep a dog such as this, I
would either:
a) move out
b) make the other person or their dog move out (both a and b depend on
the living situation, ie. if one person owns the place, that person gets
to stay, etc)
c) take control of the offending dog myself, getting a collar and
*training* this dog.
You have choices that will remedy the situation, yet you continue to
allow a dog to endanger your own dogs. It doesn't matter that your dogs
are capable of protecting themselves. They shouldn't *have* to protect
themselves. Your dogs *can* get hurt if this situation continues, no
matter how great you say they are at fighting.
---
Vera Casteel Electrical Engineering
vcasteel @ supernet.ab.ca University of Alberta
vcasteel @ gpu.srv.ualberta.ca http://www.supernet.ab.ca/~vcasteel
---
scr...@scritto.com
Greg - Please make sure you trim correctly. I DID NOT write the
below. RENE did. I think I know a lot more about China history than the
paragraph suggests and I certainly don't have the habit of stereotyping
dogs - or people, for that matter.
- Michelle
In article <1797.7061...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>
>
>On 29-Apr-97 22:01:53, Rene assaulted me about (Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts
>someone in doghouse)
>
>>Michelle said:
>
>>I think we were talking about dogs, and
>>the dog we were talking about here is a Chow, and now I remember
>>somewhere I read they were bred to be Chinese war dogs.
>
>Nope. They were bred to be food, guards and pets in the royal Chinese
>households. No doubt some people DID use them some of them in war at sometime
>but they arent an aggressive dog so breeding for WAR really seems silly to me.
>Added to that, the original Chows back then werent large dogs, being slightly
>shorter in stature and a lot finer in bone than today's stock. I know it has
>been noted by Chinese horsemen that Chows can pull horses over when tied to
>the horse but they were talking about more than 2 and also Chinese horses,
>then, were stubby little things, nothing like the Arabian sort of stock. I
>seriously doubt that anyone wanting a dog for war would choose a dog that
>wasnt large or heavy enough but then there probably were the odd individual
>Chows back then who WERE large enough. ;-}
>
>
>>I think if they were so fragile that they would be damaged by a mere
>>kick, there would never have been a Chinese Empire.
>
>I seriously doubt that the Chinese Empirical history resided on the CHOW's
>back! ;-} I rather think it had something to do with the intelligence of
>Chinese humans back then. ;-}
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>|Sydney, Australia. |
>|Are you old when you enjoy a good headbanger record with others over 40?|
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
scr...@scritto.com
In article <336834...@earthlink.com>, The says...
>could have been hurt, but I am very coordinated and knew exactly what I
>was doing as I caught him flush in the chest with the upper curve of my
>ankle, a perfect fit.
>Michael T.
>Zen Guerrilla Dog
Oh, *you're* the Zenmaster Rene is so anxious to defend. Using your dogs for
martial arts practice, are you? I hope you're not married or even attached.
I pity your wife/girlfriend. Dog-fighting is outlawed, I believe? Whether
they're conducted with pitbulls or otherwise. - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
>Now I read on a web page that Chows were bred as was a versatile
>Chinese hunting dog that long ago and they are formidable on big
>game such as bear and tiger.
You know, people used to be able to wear chainmail and fight
with those heavy swords you used to see in history museums. I know
you don't know much about history, but you must have heard of
evolution. Did you read how many bears and tigers they killed?
Were the bears and tigers wounded when a pack of Chows were set
on them? What happened to your "war-dog" theory?
>So compared to bear and tiger, what is the foot of the ZENmaster?
I don't know the Zenmaster and I usually don't bother to read posts
by people whose signature suggests they claim to know spiritual
truth. I know human beings have killed more living things than
Chows have. What's your point?
>>>There was a Chinese Empire for a long time, the dynasties tend to become weak
>>>after a couple of hundred years.
>>>Germany had a protectorate in China, maybe you should travel to Shandong
>>>Province and see Qingdao.
>>>At least you should try a bottle of Qingdao beer, which is a lasting influence
>>>Germany left on China.
>>
>> I have tried Tsingtao beer, but I prefer Heineken myself. If that's all you
>> know about Chinese history, I suggest you don't waste everybody's time.
>
>What makes you think this is all I know about Chinese History?
Go figure! I don't think you know much about anything - except how to be
violent to dogs.
>> *you* ever stepped foot outside of Germany?!
>
>I did and I think a much higher percentage of Germans have been outside
>of Germany than people from the Americas.
That may be true. I'm not American. So, where did you go? Italy? I guess they
*do* have a tenuous connection with China.
>>>The Chows I've seen are less than 1 meter long, for a human only 1 meter tall
>>>I think 40kg are still too much.
>>
>> That's your opinion and your perogative.
>
>Do you need a proof-reader? It is prerogative
I don't need one. But apparently you *should*.
>I am not alone with this opinion ( that some enforcement is necessary
sometimes)
>Should however always be the last resort. I have a job and therefore not so
much
>time to use elaborate training schemes, and I think 400USD for a dog trainer is
>just too much.
A) Enforcement is not the same thing as violent force.
B) If you have no time to train your dog, don't get one.
C) 400USD for a dog trainer *can be* expensive, but not eveyrbody needs to use
one, and if they *needed* to use one, it's money well-spent.
Again:
scr...@scritto.com
Greg - Please make sure you trim correctly. I DID NOT write the
below. RENE did. I think I know a lot more about China history than the
paragraph suggests and I certainly don't have the habit of stereotyping
sent to live in a distant continent! ;>
gregh
gregh
On 01-May-97 07:41:05, Rene assaulted me about Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone
in doghouse
>All you and me know about Chows, we read somewhere. Maybe you are lucky
>and your sources were more correct than mine.
>The thing about the Chinese war dogs I read one time in a post on the
>internet about the fierceness of Chows. As I read many post stating that
>Chows are quite fierce, I thought it might be correct. Are you sure it's
>not?
What a great way to learn! Sigh..... OK, here it is written "on the internet
somewhere".... the world will end in 30 days. You have seen and read this so
it MUST be true, right?
Chows are SO FIERCE that my 2.5 year old neice lays on the stomach of one of
mine, last year. The Chow had stomach cancer (unknown to me at the time) and
still didnt flinch even though she didnt know my neice.
Dont be mislead like so many people are. Chows can LOOK fierce, there is no
doubt. They also dont ALWAYS look for pats off people they dont know. Some
individuals of the breed WILL do that, though. I have one right now who does.
;-} Some people see the look on the face of a Chow who wont immediately come
for a pat and THINK they are fierce. ANY individual of the breed MIGHT be an
aggressive dog but the breed as a whole just ISNT aggressive. There isnt much
use in you saying they ARE fierce when you admit you dont know much about
them. Go find a Chow breeder if you are that interested and spend some time
with their Chows. See for yourself.
Chris Kosmakos
The ZenMaster (zze...@earthlink.com) wrote:
: Excuse me Miss Choke Chain enthusiast (that is your method to teach
: isn't it?) what would you do in a situation involving vicious dogs
: without collars or leashes attached? Let me guess, you never would have
: dogs in that situation, but then again, you don't live with people who
: have a vicious Chow who never wears a collar.
1. I don't believe ANY dog should wear a choke chain. Mine wear flat
collars to hold their tags in public. I use a choke chain to signal in
training sessions, always slack, used for the zip noise only. And it
comes off at the end of the training session. And it is used for very
specific purposes, such as teaching exact heel position.
2. You asked a fair question. I have been known to lift a fighting dog
by the back of the neck - not that I would recommend that to anyone.
: Don't be silly, a dog like Mekim would have to be very, very, very
: SEVERELY choke chained to get him to stop thinking about attacking Tai.
You said the key words when you said "stop thinking about attacking".
That is the key - to supervise so that you can see the impending attack
and have sufficient control to forbid it. Once it starts, it is
already too late. Unfortunately, fighting also escalates. Dogs hold
grudges. I recently heard of 2 rotties that fought, and were kept
physically separated for 6 years. After that length of time, there was
a momentary lapse of vigilance that resulted in an immediate attack.
In other words - your living conditions are very likely going to get
worse, instead of better.
: Furthermore, a choke chain IS physical intervention and believe me,
: there is NO OTHER WAY to stop MeKim from attacking Tai than SEVERE
: PHYSICAL INTERVENTION, no matter what kind you use.
I NEVER said choke chains could stop aggression. I said training and
supervision could prevent physical fights. Remember, I have a very
dog-aggressive bitch - who is not allowed to fight. And I have no
idea why you would associate me with choke chains.
: both things you said should never be used or were not appropriate, but
: are (correct me if I'm wrong?) what you would use.
You're wrong. I use a "Leave It" command. If a correction is needed
because she growls at another dog before I can tell her to leave it, I
give her a "Down" command, then an "Over". All off lead and without
any physical contact of any kind. As I said, you're wrong. There's no
magic here, nor did I spend any time training to prevent fights. It is
all very basic stuff that every dog should know, and every owner should
be able to read their dog well enough to know when to use it. If the
relationship is right this stuff is no big deal. If it isn't, the dog
will choose to do whatever it damn well pleases, regardless of commands,
and there are bigger problems than a potential dog fight.
Lynn K.
--
chri...@netcom.com
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5kalsc$a...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <5ka270$d...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>>Now I read on a web page that Chows were bred as was a versatile
>>Chinese hunting dog that long ago and they are formidable on big
>>game such as bear and tiger.
>
> You know, people used to be able to wear chainmail and fight
> with those heavy swords you used to see in history museums. I know
> you don't know much about history, but you must have heard of
> evolution. Did you read how many bears and tigers they killed?
> Were the bears and tigers wounded when a pack of Chows were set
> on them? What happened to your "war-dog" theory?
Unfortunately I didn't find anything to back up my "war-dog" theory?
if I find it , I will come back to you.
Anyway, aren't wounded animals even more dangerous than normal one's?
>>So compared to bear and tiger, what is the foot of the ZENmaster?
>
> I don't know the Zenmaster and I usually don't bother to read posts
> by people whose signature suggests they claim to know spiritual
> truth. I know human beings have killed more living things than
> Chows have. What's your point?
You should read his posts, you missed something. I always had the impression
that Zen is more about meditation and not so much about spiritual truth.
(Are you also a specialist in Japanese Culture?)
Anyway the point was, bear and tiger kick harder than the ZENmaster, and
the Chows were bred to live with that.
>
.snipp
>>>
>>> I have tried Tsingtao beer, but I prefer Heineken myself. If that's all you
>>> know about Chinese history, I suggest you don't waste everybody's time.
>>
>>What makes you think this is all I know about Chinese History?
>
> Go figure! I don't think you know much about anything - except how to be
> violent to dogs.
You are a little prejudiced, aren't you?
>
>>> *you* ever stepped foot outside of Germany?!
>>
>>I did and I think a much higher percentage of Germans have been outside
>>of Germany than people from the Americas.
>
> That may be true. I'm not American. So, where did you go? Italy? I guess they
> *do* have a tenuous connection with China.
I can only think of one, the ravioli connection. (Hear say again)
>
>>>>The Chows I've seen are less than 1 meter long, for a human only 1 meter tall
>>>>I think 40kg are still too much.
>>>
>>> That's your opinion and your perogative.
>>
>>Do you need a proof-reader? It is prerogative
>
> I don't need one. / But apparently you *should*.
Did you misspell on purpose? / Sometimes I wish my newsreader had a
spellchecker, there you're right.
>
>>I am not alone with this opinion ( that some enforcement is necessary
> sometimes)
>>Should however always be the last resort. I have a job and therefore not so
> much
>>time to use elaborate training schemes, and I think 400USD for a dog trainer is
>>just too much.
>
> A) Enforcement is not the same thing as violent force.
> B) If you have no time to train your dog, don't get one.
The dog was given to me, and most of the time he is happy.
> C) 400USD for a dog trainer *can be* expensive, but not eveyrbody needs to use
> one, and if they *needed* to use one, it's money well-spent.
Maybe I should get a 4USD book after all.
>
> Again:
>
> Now you're grasping at straws and it's not giving your credibility any more
> support. Accept what several of us have tried to tell you: dogs (and other
> living creatures) should *never* be treated with violence. Post responsibly
> because there are those who will use your posts as advice / excuses for how
> to treat dogs.
That is not likely, my post almost regularly create ones with opposite opinions,
so for me it is not a problem to discuss unorthodox methods
LabLover
CHEER, CHEER, CHEER !!!!! Thank you, Vera, for reiterating what I've been
saying for days!!! HE chooses to allow his dogs to be in this situation.
HE chooses to allow them to be attacked. The other dogs may not be his but
HE chooses not to do anything about them. HIS choice. HIS fault if his
dogs are injured. What a shame for his dogs...
Michelle, Cassie (aka LittleOne), and JakeyBuddy
> > Let me guess, you never would have
> > dogs in that situation, but then again, you don't live with people who
> > have a vicious Chow who never wears a collar.
>
dogsnus
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>
> Greg - Please make sure you trim correctly. I DID NOT write the
> below. RENE did. I think I know a lot more about China history than the
> paragraph suggests and I certainly don't have the habit of stereotyping
> dogs - or people, for that matter.
> - Michelle
Uhhh, Ive simply got to agree here . Rene's latest post about dog's
eating cat poop was to heat it to a particular temp. in the microwave,
in rec.pets.dogs.health.
Just how mentally aware does one have to be to recognize the most
inept troll on the internet, with the possible acceptiion of
KeNicHipAnonymousHarry, etc. et all.....??????
Terri
AND if anyone dares to mix up posts and attribrute ANYTHING
Rene says to me as something *I* said, you will answer for it!@$^&%^&
Terri
scr...@scritto.com
No, it does not look okay from here. If you insist it does, it's your
perogative - for those who may think I know nothing about either Chows or
China or how posts can be read, please realise that this is the first time Greg
has had an exchange with me, and by the time we get done, he'll be sorry he
chose not to apologise for his faux pas - Michelle
In article <3048.70...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>
>
>
>On 02-May-97 10:20:16, scritto assaulted me about CLARIFICATION (Was:Re: (Was:
>Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>>Greg - Please make sure you trim correctly. I DID NOT write the
>>below. RENE did. I think I know a lot more about China history than the
>
>Michelle,
>
>How about you read the way it WAS quoted? IT clearly SAYS in the reply-line
>that Rene posted it. SHEESH!
>
>
>
>>paragraph suggests and I certainly don't have the habit of stereotyping
>>dogs - or people, for that matter. The Chinese at the time weren't convicts
>>sent to live in a distant continent! ;>
>>- Michelle
>
>All that is fine but you dont seem to have an idea on how quoted stuff in a
>letter works. It looks perfectly OK from here.
>
>>In article <1797.7061...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>On 29-Apr-97 22:01:53, Rene assaulted me about (Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts
>>>someone in doghouse)
>>>
>>>>Michelle said:
>>>
>>>>I think we were talking about dogs, and
>>>>the dog we were talking about here is a Chow, and now I remember
>>>>somewhere I read they were bred to be Chinese war dogs.
>>>
>>>Nope. They were bred to be food, guards and pets in the royal Chinese
>>>households. No doubt some people DID use them some of them in war at
>>>sometime but they arent an aggressive dog so breeding for WAR really seems
>>>silly to me. Added to that, the original Chows back then werent large dogs,
>>>being slightly shorter in stature and a lot finer in bone than today's
>>>stock. I know it has been noted by Chinese horsemen that Chows can pull
>>>horses over when tied to the horse but they were talking about more than 2
>>>and also Chinese horses, then, were stubby little things, nothing like the
>>>Arabian sort of stock. I seriously doubt that anyone wanting a dog for war
>>>would choose a dog that wasnt large or heavy enough but then there probably
>>>were the odd individual Chows back then who WERE large enough. ;-}
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think if they were so fragile that they would be damaged by a mere
>>>>kick, there would never have been a Chinese Empire.
>>>
>>>I seriously doubt that the Chinese Empirical history resided on the CHOW's
>>>back! ;-} I rather think it had something to do with the intelligence of
>>>Chinese humans back then. ;-}
>>>
>>>
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5kclm3$s...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>Unfortunately I didn't find anything to back up my "war-dog" theory?
>if I find it , I will come back to you.
You have my address.
>Anyway, aren't wounded animals even more dangerous than normal one's?
Depends on how badly they are wounded.
>You should read his posts, you missed something. I always had the impression
>that Zen is more about meditation and not so much about spiritual truth.
I read Zenmaster's posts. I am not impressed with him or his advice that
using a martial arts kick on his dog is the best way to stop it from fighting.
You want a "master", chose someone else. You have a lot of impressions about
a lot of things. Try knowing something for a change.
>(Are you also a specialist in Japanese Culture?)
Wouldn't you like to know?! Why would you presume that Zen is a Japanese thing?
>Anyway the point was, bear and tiger kick harder than the ZENmaster, and
>the Chows were bred to live with that.
I was not aware that bears and tigers kicked to stop dogs from fighting.
Where did you read about Chows again? The Web? Your primary source of
information? Well, that certainly raises your credibility.
>You are a little prejudiced, aren't you?
If I am, I'm in good company. *YOU* have stated in several different posts
that *sometimes* it is okay to hit a dog. Several people other than I have
been telling you it is *NOT* *ever* okay to hit a dog.
>I can only think of one, the ravioli connection. (Hear say again)
Try Marco Polo, the Silk Road and pasta for starters. I also charge for
history lessons. When do you want me to send you a bill?
>Did you misspell on purpose? / Sometimes I wish my newsreader had a
>spellchecker, there you're right.
Misspell what? There's a big difference between a typo and a consistent and
deliberate use of inappropriate words.
>The dog was given to me, and most of the time he is happy.
If you have no time to care for it, and that includes
training if neccessary, he should be given to someone who will
ensure that *all* of the time he is happy.
>Maybe I should get a 4USD book after all.
Yes, you should, especially if it can provide more reliable
information than what you can get here.
>That is not likely, my post almost regularly create ones with opposite opinions,
>so for me it is not a problem to discuss unorthodox methods
You're assuming that the only people who read your posts
are those who bother to contradict you. I think you need to take yourself
a little more seriously. - Michelle
gregh
gregh
On 03-May-97 05:04:20, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>No, it does not look okay from here. If you insist it does, it's your
>perogative - for those who may think I know nothing about either Chows or
>China or how posts can be read, please realise that this is the first time
>Greg has had an exchange with me, and by the time we get done, he'll be
>sorry he chose not to apologise for his faux pas - Michelle
You made the mistake, fool. Live with it. If you cannot work out how to read a
reply then dont compound your mistakes by making an idiot of yourself,
worldwide. Take your crap elsewhere. I have no time for fools who refuse to
learn, such as you.
>In article <3048.70...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>
>>
>>
scr...@scritto.com
In article <336BBC...@cyberhighway.net>, dogsnus says...
>
>scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>
>>
>> First, it's pathetic when someone (sad to say, usually someone who
>> identifies himself as a male poster) lowers himself to the level of
>> name-calling.
>
>Was this necessary? What difference does the gender make?
>Terri
It's an observation - the difference is, posters who identify themselves
as males are usually the belligerents in flame wars that *do* degenerate into
cursing, swearing, four-letter words *and* name-calling. This has been reported
in the LA Times (sorry, I don't have the reference), and I found it
interesting that it appears to be an accurate observation. I suppose I could
have let it go until (perhaps in another case) the situation becomes a
cyber-stalking - but why not just nip it in the bud? - Michelle
dogsnus
scr...@scritto.com
In article <4393.7062...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>You made the mistake, fool. Live with it. If you cannot work out how to read a
>reply then dont compound your mistakes by making an idiot of yourself,
>worldwide. Take your crap elsewhere. I have no time for fools who refuse to
>learn, such as you.
First, it's pathetic when someone (sad to say, usually someone who
identifies himself as a male poster) lowers himself to the level of
name-calling. Much more sorry are those who insist on being in the right
and who feel that by so name-calling, he will gain more sympathy on his
side, and can thus take comfort in the lie that he *is* right.
*I* know how to read a post. I am aware there are those who don't. I am
also aware of several posters who delight in causing confusion among the
more thoughtful posters in the group in order to create dissent. I repeat:
Don't not quote me again, and do not attribute other people's words to
me, whether they be reasonable or not. I take pride in what I post and I
alone will be responsible for them.
Since putting you in my kill-file is letting you off too easily, I suggest
you put me in yours. - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5kgkfb$j...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>What do you expect him to do? Seperate the dogs through meditation?
No. He can learn plenty, like you, from the other more thoughtful posters.
>At least the word "Zen" is Japanese.
"Zen" is English.
>What about your credibility?
Yes, what about it?
>What I meant was physical force, not necessarily hitting the dog.
Physical force is not necessarily hitting a dog? Which dictionary *do* you use?
>That is, what I meant. Anything more?
What kind of sentence structure is that?
>I would rather spend money on a dog trainer for my doggie.
Then why don't you?
>I have four dictionaries, all spell "prerogative", what do you mean by "perogative"?
Like I said, I understand the difference between a typo and a consistent misuse
of words.
>I mean, someone who is looking for information about dog training and others
>will read my posts and the many more contradicting me.
>So if someone takes my advice, he is normally warned by others and knows
>the side effects.
If your advice is so bad, why give it? Why not ask the questions, read and
learn? Don't you understand "credibility"? - Michelle
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5kdesn$c...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <5kclm3$s...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>>You should read his posts, you missed something. I always had the impression
>>that Zen is more about meditation and not so much about spiritual truth.
>
> I read Zenmaster's posts. I am not impressed with him or his advice that
> using a martial arts kick on his dog is the best way to stop it from fighting.
What do you expect him to do? Seperate the dogs through meditation?
>>(Are you also a specialist in Japanese Culture?)
>
> Wouldn't you like to know?! Why would you presume that Zen is a Japanese thing?
At least the word "Zen" is Japanese.
>
> I was not aware that bears and tigers kicked to stop dogs from fighting.
> Where did you read about Chows again? The Web? Your primary source of
> information? Well, that certainly raises your credibility.
What about your credibility?
>>You are a little prejudiced, aren't you?
>
> If I am, I'm in good company. *YOU* have stated in several different posts
> that *sometimes* it is okay to hit a dog. Several people other than I have
> been telling you it is *NOT* *ever* okay to hit a dog.
What I meant was physical force, not necessarily hitting the dog.
>
>>I can only think of one, the ravioli connection. (Hear say again)
>
> Try Marco Polo, the Silk Road and pasta for starters. I also charge for
That is, what I meant. Anything more?
> history lessons. When do you want me to send you a bill?
I would rather spend money on a dog trainer for my doggie.
>
>>Did you misspell on purpose? / Sometimes I wish my newsreader had a
>>spellchecker, there you're right.
>
> Misspell what? There's a big difference between a typo and a consistent and
> deliberate use of inappropriate words.
I have four dictionaries, all spell "prerogative", what do you mean by "perogative"?
>
>>That is not likely, my post almost regularly create ones with opposite opinions,
>>so for me it is not a problem to discuss unorthodox methods
>
> You're assuming that the only people who read your posts
> are those who bother to contradict you. I think you need to take yourself
> a little more seriously. - Michelle
I mean, someone who is looking for information about dog training and others
The ZenMaster
I don't have a wife now because then I'd have to pull a Kevin Costner
and ditch her once I get famous. I figure I'll just wait till I become
a massive celebrity and then maybe I might give somebody a shot. Stay
tuned for my next article in the POWER MEDIA PAVEMENT which will deal
with the subject of the ZenMaster and the females in his life. Hint:
Chocolate is not just for Labs anymore.....
Michael T.
Zen Guerrilla Dog
Changing The Muzzle of Dog Training
And everything else
REVAMPED PAGES
http://members.aol.com/Intreppid/whodaboss.html
http://members.aol.com/ZZendog/ZenDogTest.html
NEW FEATURE!
http://members.aol.com/Skilllz/PowerMedia.html
--
邢 唷��
The ZenMaster
Vera Casteel wrote:
>
> In article <336834...@earthlink.com>, zze...@earthlink.com says...
> > Let me guess, you never would have
> > dogs in that situation, but then again, you don't live with people who
> > have a vicious Chow who never wears a collar.
>
> So why are you living with these people and allowing them to keep a
> vicious dog in your home without a collar? You have *chosen* to allow
> this to happen. Why?
>
A. the rent is $220 a month
B. The location is excellent, a huge yard with an adjacent area that
will soon become a shopping mall or something, but right now is ideal
offleash dog territory with a stream for Chazz to harass ducks and geese
and dirt construction roads for me to mountain bike while my dogs
follow.
C. They love my dogs (like everybody else) and are great about letting
them out if I need them too, and vice versa.
If I were living with someone who wanted to keep a dog such as this, I
> would either:
> a) move out
> b) make the other person or their dog move out (both a and b depend on
> the living situation, ie. if one person owns the place, that person gets
> to stay, etc)
> c) take control of the offending dog myself, getting a collar and
> *training* this dog.
You see, for me, it's not that big a deal. Callie and I control MeKim
and he no longer attacks Chazz. The only problem any more is between
the two Chows. And since I like all dogs, I really have no problem with
MeKim. I like having the opportunity to earn the trust and change the
behavior of such a problem animal.
> You have choices that will remedy the situation, yet you continue to
> allow a dog to endanger your own dogs. It doesn't matter that your dogs
> are capable of protecting themselves. They shouldn't *have* to protect
> themselves. Your dogs *can* get hurt if this situation continues, no
> matter how great you say they are at fighting.
Naw, my dogs are perfect and Callie has settled things with MeKim and he
no longer attacks Chazz. The three of them now get along swimmingly.
The bad situation involves one dog's (MeKim) EXTREME HATE for another
dog (Tai) and that is where all the problems now lie.
> ---
> Vera Casteel Electrical Engineering
> vcasteel @ supernet.ab.ca University of Alberta
> vcasteel @ gpu.srv.ualberta.ca http://www.supernet.ab.ca/~vcasteel
> ---
Michael T.
The ZenMaster
Chris Kosmakos wrote:
> 1. I don't believe ANY dog should wear a choke chain. Mine wear flat
> collars to hold their tags in public. I use a choke chain to signal in
> training sessions, always slack, used for the zip noise only. And it
> comes off at the end of the training session. And it is used for very
> specific purposes, such as teaching exact heel position.
>
> 2. You asked a fair question. I have been known to lift a fighting dog
> by the back of the neck - not that I would recommend that to anyone.
> : Don't be silly, a dog like Mekim would have to be very, very, very
> : SEVERELY choke chained to get him to stop thinking about attacking Tai.
Bad ZenMaster!
I want to correct myself here. There's always more than one way of
training a dog and the technique I'm using now is what I call
"acclimatization" where I put MeKim on a leash and randomly walk him
around the yard while all the other dogs are loose. I do give him sharp
snaps when I see him thinking about attacking Tai, but not severe.
Since he doesn't have a collar, I just loop the leash through the handle
and make it into a leash/collar combo and walk him with it. You can win
by brute force or you can win by attrition and for now, I'm going the
attrition route interspersed with periodic bursts of force which are
more voice and show than physical. I'm just getting him used to being
around Tai without attacking him. Tai will not attack MeKim but he is
frisky and playful and will come close because he loves to mess with
other dogs and play fight. Chazz whups his butt all over the yard and
drags him around in the mud and he just loves it. He's a happy rascal
and he still thinks he can play with MeKim, but once he see's Mekim's
true intentions, he doesn't not hesitate to meet fire with fire.
> You said the key words when you said "stop thinking about attacking".
> That is the key - to supervise so that you can see the impending attack
> and have sufficient control to forbid it. Once it starts, it is
> already too late. Unfortunately, fighting also escalates. Dogs hold
> grudges. I recently heard of 2 rotties that fought, and were kept
> physically separated for 6 years. After that length of time, there was
> a momentary lapse of vigilance that resulted in an immediate attack.
> In other words - your living conditions are very likely going to get
> worse, instead of better.
That's the exact situation I am working with. Actually, it can't get
any worse and it is getting better, since I have decided to take matters
into my own hands and train MeKim. The vast majority of his training
consists of me petting and scratching him and being nice to him which is
a subtle but effective way to establish dominance with a dominant
aggressive dog. It's kind of like saying, "I'm going to pet you and
scratch you and dammit, you are going to like it" and he does. It also
softens him up and once in awhile when he is really relaxed from getting
his neck scratched, I'll do something sneaky like pick him up off the
ground gently and place him back down, or if he is on his side, I'll
flip him on his back and start scratching his stomach. Then I'll grab
his muzzle, open his mouth and feel his teeth and other things for no
other purpose than to establish the fact that I can do whatever I want
to do. Having been yelled at, smacked and hit for much of his life, he
is still trying to figure out someone who is nice to him 99% of the
time.
This where being a ZenMaster comes in handy. I can read a dog like a
book and know exactly what he will let me do and what I can get away
with. I know exactly when I can push and shove and when I shouldn't.
> : Furthermore, a choke chain IS physical intervention and believe me,
> : there is NO OTHER WAY to stop MeKim from attacking Tai than SEVERE
> : PHYSICAL INTERVENTION, no matter what kind you use.
Again, I was being a bad ZenMaster when I said this and (MARK THIS DOWN
because it won't happen very often) I correct myself. Not to say that
severe physical intervention can't be effective, it can, it's just
certainly not the only way.
> I NEVER said choke chains could stop aggression. I said training and
> supervision could prevent physical fights. Remember, I have a very
> dog-aggressive bitch - who is not allowed to fight. And I have no
> idea why you would associate me with choke chains.
>
> : both things you said should never be used or were not appropriate, but
> : are (correct me if I'm wrong?) what you would use.
>
> You're wrong. I use a "Leave It" command. If a correction is needed
> because she growls at another dog before I can tell her to leave it, I
> give her a "Down" command, then an "Over". All off lead and without
> any physical contact of any kind. As I said, you're wrong. There's no
> magic here, nor did I spend any time training to prevent fights.
But to get a bold and aggressive dog to go into a down position near
another dog, you had to have done SOMETHING get her to obey you under
such challenging circumstances when you were training her, no? There
may not be physical contact NOW, but I'm sure you did something PHYSICAL
to get her to the point where she would listen under such
circumstances. WAIT! Don't tell us what, because I don't want you to
have to reveal your trade secrets about how you teach the magic "leave
it" command.
I used a choke chain extensively on Callie and I never used one on
Chazz. And it's not because I became magically enlightened one day
about the evils of using force to train a dog. When I use force, I am
unencumbered with doubt or guilt because I don't abuse it and I don't
use it when it isn't necessary. Callie was strong enough to snap
leashes and ropes with a simple yank of her neck and a regular collar
would have had no effect on her whatsoever.
I'm the same way with food. Many trainers think they are cheating when
they use food. Not me. I recognize food to be absolutely the most
powerful means of getting a dog to do what you want it to do. Very
simple, no guilt, confusion hangups or doubts in my mind. It's all in
"the way that you use it."
Having trained the indefatiguable, irrepressible, and impossibly
impudent Callie, all other dogs became a breeze for me to train and
Chazz was no exception. Mostly he never needed a choke chain because
he's not nearly as stubborn and bull-headed as his mom, but also because
I was an officially certified Shaolin High Priest ZenMaster Guru when
it came time to train him.
It is
> all very basic stuff that every dog should know, and every owner should
> be able to read their dog well enough to know when to use it. If the
> relationship is right this stuff is no big deal. If it isn't, the dog
> will choose to do whatever it damn well pleases, regardless of commands,
> and there are bigger problems than a potential dog fight.
Not in MeKim's case, that's about his only problem and it is HUGE. He
will never run away, he's a good watchdog, he is completely houstrained
and he no longer attacks Chazz since his scuffle with Callie a few weeks
ago.
> Lynn K.
> --
> chri...@netcom.com
Chris Kosmakos
The ZenMaster (zze...@earthlink.com) wrote:
:
: But to get a bold and aggressive dog to go into a down position near
: another dog, you had to have done SOMETHING get her to obey you under
: such challenging circumstances when you were training her, no? There
: may not be physical contact NOW, but I'm sure you did something PHYSICAL
: to get her to the point where she would listen under such
: circumstances.
Nope - basic training 101. Train it solidly in a controlled environment
before adding distractions for proofing. That, and a very strong
"command voice". I've never physically rolled her, and never had to.
But the basics have to be in place before these kinds of problems can be
successfully dealt with. For example, I would start MeKim with 30 minute
down/stays every night before I did backyard "acclimatization". It is
called proofing, but you have to have a pattern in place to proof against.
: WAIT! Don't tell us what, because I don't want you to
: have to reveal your trade secrets about how you teach the magic "leave
: it" command.
There is no trade and no secret. I train all of my dogs to "Leave It"
by salting the path of their walk with chunks of hot dogs, then lifting
their head and continuing to walk when they go for them. It is then
transferred to other situations like chasing cats or cars or challenging
other dogs. They quickly learn that it means to immediately forget the
object of their desire and get on with my agenda.
: I used a choke chain extensively on Callie and I never used one on
: Chazz. And it's not because I became magically enlightened one day
: about the evils of using force to train a dog.
You continue to associate a choke chain with physical force or restraint.
Not so. Properly used, a choke chain should never be taut for more than
a second - the time it takes to "pop" it to get the sliding noise to
send a signal. A dog should never be allowed to pull against one. If
that is the problem, a prong collar is a better choice (and safer since
it distributes the pressure). But even a prong collar should never be
allowed to be taut. You can't send a signal by a taut collar of any
kind.
Controlling a dog's body lasts a second. Learning to communicate and
making them want to control their own behavior to please you lasts
a lifetime.
Lynn K.
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5kgtq3$k...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <5kgkfb$j...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>>At least the word "Zen" is Japanese.
>
> "Zen" is English.
That must be in the special edition "The dictionary of extraordinary English"
or a similar dictionary, where you also found the word perogative.
>
>
>>What I meant was physical force, not necessarily hitting the dog.
>
> Physical force is not necessarily hitting a dog? Which dictionary *do* you use?
You know, I am not a native English speaker, what I meant was:
Physical force other than hitting.
>
>>That is, what I meant. Anything more?
>
> What kind of sentence structure is that?
Sometimes I type my answers while I am on-line, so I make short sentences.
Most people understand what I mean. The full sentence should be:
Is there anything more that you can think of when you talk about the
links between Italy and China?
>
>>I would rather spend money on a dog trainer for my doggie.
>
> Then why don't you?
I am very stingy, this is one of my weak points.
>
>>I have four dictionaries, all spell "prerogative", what do you mean by "perogative"?
>
> Like I said, I understand the difference between a typo and a consistent misuse
> of words.
My English teachers at school never conveyed this understanding to us, maybe
you can now enlighten me (and others)
>
>>I mean, someone who is looking for information about dog training and others
>>will read my posts and the many more contradicting me.
>>So if someone takes my advice, he is normally warned by others and knows
>>the side effects.
>
> If your advice is so bad, why give it? Why not ask the questions, read and
> learn? Don't you understand "credibility"? - Michelle
I think my advice is different, and not necessarily bad. If it is wrong, I still think
many others make the same mistake like me. So when I post my advice
and I am corrected, it also help others.
gregh
On 04-May-97 08:40:58, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>In article <336BBC...@cyberhighway.net>, dogsnus says...
>>
>>scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> First, it's pathetic when someone (sad to say, usually someone who
>>> identifies himself as a male poster) lowers himself to the level of
>>> name-calling.
>>
>>Was this necessary? What difference does the gender make?
>>Terri
>It's an observation - the difference is, posters who identify themselves
>as males are usually the belligerents in flame wars that *do* degenerate into
> cursing, swearing, four-letter words *and* name-calling. This has been
>reported in the LA Times (sorry, I don't have the reference), and I found it
> interesting that it appears to be an accurate observation. I suppose I could
> have let it go until (perhaps in another case) the situation becomes a
>cyber-stalking - but why not just nip it in the bud? - Michelle
What is REALLY pathetic is when people see one observation "written in a
newspaper" and think that because it is in newsprint, it is true THEN go
around trying to apply that as a generalisation to all. That is how racism and
dog breed hatred start. You should be ASHAMED.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
|Sydney, Australia. |
| |
|Founding and liftetime member: CHOW ADDICTION SOCIETY. |
gregh
On 04-May-97 02:32:44, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>In article <4393.7062...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>You made the mistake, fool. Live with it. If you cannot work out how to read
>>a reply then dont compound your mistakes by making an idiot of yourself,
>>worldwide. Take your crap elsewhere. I have no time for fools who refuse to
>>learn, such as you.
>First, it's pathetic when someone (sad to say, usually someone who
What's pathetic is that you dont know how to read how a quote is posted then
start charging in, all guns blazing, making an international fool of yourself.
If you stop and THINK first, you wont have a prob. Try it sometime.
>identifies himself as a male poster) lowers himself to the level of
>name-calling. Much more sorry are those who insist on being in the right
>and who feel that by so name-calling, he will gain more sympathy on his
>side, and can thus take comfort in the lie that he *is* right.
I dont have to insist anything. What you quoted back AT me showed I was
referring to Renee and not you but you wont admit you are wrong. Live with it.
You are.
>*I* know how to read a post. I am aware there are those who don't. I am
If you knew how to read what was posted, we wouldnt be having this
conversation. If you had any common sense, you would apologise and gracefully
exit.
>also aware of several posters who delight in causing confusion among the
>more thoughtful posters in the group in order to create dissent. I repeat:
>Don't not quote me again, and do not attribute other people's words to
>me, whether they be reasonable or not. I take pride in what I post and I
>alone will be responsible for them.
I repeat: IF YOU CANNOT READ HOW A QUOTE IS DONE, STOP BEING A DAMNED FOOL AND
SHUTUP. After all, youa re better NOT to say something and be THOUGHT of as a
fool than say nothing and let people wonder. So, LET them wonder!
>Since putting you in my kill-file is letting you off too easily, I suggest
>you put me in yours. - Michelle
Kill files, excepting for getting rid of spams, are for fools who KNOW they
are wrong and dont want to admit it. Thanks VERY much for the admission. Now
go back to sleep and let people who KNOW how to read how quotes are formed
carry on civil conversations. Nothing irks me MORE than snotty little twits
like you who know nothing, accuse everyone else of everything, then when you
REALISE youa re wrong, you put the other in a kill file instead of doing the
right thing and apologising. You are a twit, you know it and you wont admit
it.
Scritto
The ZenMaster wrote:
>
> scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <336834...@earthlink.com>, The says...
> >
> > >could have been hurt, but I am very coordinated and knew exactly what I
> > >was doing as I caught him flush in the chest with the upper curve of my
> > >ankle, a perfect fit.
> >
> > >Zen Guerrilla Dog
> >
> > martial arts practice, are you? I hope you're not married or even attached.
> > I pity your wife/girlfriend. Dog-fighting is outlawed, I believe? Whether
> > they're conducted with pitbulls or otherwise. - Michelle
>
> I don't have a wife now because then I'd have to pull a Kevin Costner
> and ditch her once I get famous. I figure I'll just wait till I become
> a massive celebrity and then maybe I might give somebody a shot. Stay
> tuned for my next article in the POWER MEDIA PAVEMENT which will deal
> with the subject of the ZenMaster and the females in his life. Hint:
> Chocolate is not just for Labs anymore.....
>
> Michael T.
Figures. Why am I not surprised? My guess, though, is the only place
you'll ever achieve any measure of notoriety is within cyberspace. At
least, I hope I never read your name in the paper for being the agressor
in spousal or animal abuse. - Michelle
--
Kevin Traster and Michelle Lee
Pen, Paper & Mouse, Ink.
scr...@scritto.com
A detailed description of our services and pricing can be found at
http://scritto.com
scr...@scritto.com
In article <1893.7063...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>
>
>
>On 04-May-97 08:40:58, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
>(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>>In article <336BBC...@cyberhighway.net>, dogsnus says...
>>>
>>>scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, it's pathetic when someone (sad to say, usually someone who
>>>> identifies himself as a male poster) lowers himself to the level of
>>>> name-calling.
>>>
>>>Was this necessary? What difference does the gender make?
>>>Terri
>
>>It's an observation - the difference is, posters who identify themselves
>>as males are usually the belligerents in flame wars that *do* degenerate into
>> cursing, swearing, four-letter words *and* name-calling. This has been
>>reported in the LA Times (sorry, I don't have the reference), and I found it
>> interesting that it appears to be an accurate observation. I suppose I could
>> have let it go until (perhaps in another case) the situation becomes a
>>cyber-stalking - but why not just nip it in the bud? - Michelle
>
>What is REALLY pathetic is when people see one observation "written in a
>newspaper" and think that because it is in newsprint, it is true THEN go
>around trying to apply that as a generalisation to all. That is how racism and
>dog breed hatred start. You should be ASHAMED.
No, Greg. I like men who behave like men. I don't like bullies of either gender,
and I don't like thoughtless posters. I saw the report in the paper and I went
ahead and did a count on my own. Voila! See, I know there's a distinction
between racial awareness and blind racism, and I consider myself racially
aware and I'm proud of it. I also believe a dog is only as good as its owner
(and in some cases, better) and I LOVE Chows. That's why I *don't*say "all
men are cyber-stalkers." Instead, I say "it appears that cyber-stalkers are
generally men." Don't go putting words into my mouth again, please. - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <3275.7063...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>
>
>
>On 04-May-97 02:32:44, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
>(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>>says...
>
>>>You made the mistake, fool. Live with it. If you cannot work out how to read
>>>a reply then dont compound your mistakes by making an idiot of yourself,
>>>worldwide. Take your crap elsewhere. I have no time for fools who refuse to
>>>learn, such as you.
>
>
>start charging in, all guns blazing, making an international fool of yourself.
>If you stop and THINK first, you wont have a prob. Try it sometime.
First of all, I didn't "start charging in." I pointed out that your trimming
made it look like I was the one who made the moronic statement that Chows
were "fierce." You chose to take offense instead of apologising for your
faux pas. Now you continue to call me names. How about taking your own advice
first?
>>identifies himself as a male poster) lowers himself to the level of
>>name-calling. Much more sorry are those who insist on being in the right
>>and who feel that by so name-calling, he will gain more sympathy on his
>>side, and can thus take comfort in the lie that he *is* right.
>
>I dont have to insist anything. What you quoted back AT me showed I was
>referring to Renee and not you but you wont admit you are wrong. Live with it.
>You are.
No. *You* are.
>>*I* know how to read a post. I am aware there are those who don't. I am
>
>If you knew how to read what was posted, we wouldnt be having this
>conversation. If you had any common sense, you would apologise and gracefully
>exit.
I think that applies to you.
>>also aware of several posters who delight in causing confusion among the
>>more thoughtful posters in the group in order to create dissent. I repeat:
>>Don't not quote me again, and do not attribute other people's words to
>>me, whether they be reasonable or not. I take pride in what I post and I
>>alone will be responsible for them.
>
>I repeat: IF YOU CANNOT READ HOW A QUOTE IS DONE, STOP BEING A DAMNED FOOL AND
>SHUTUP. After all, youa re better NOT to say something and be THOUGHT of as a
>fool than say nothing and let people wonder. So, LET them wonder!
When it comes to me, perhaps. When it's here, in rec.pets.dogs - no. It's up
to the other people to figure out for themselves who's the real "fool"
(don't you know any other word?) and I'm not the one insisting *you're* it.
>>Since putting you in my kill-file is letting you off too easily, I suggest
>>you put me in yours. - Michelle
>
>Kill files, excepting for getting rid of spams, are for fools who KNOW they
>are wrong and dont want to admit it. Thanks VERY much for the admission. Now
>go back to sleep and let people who KNOW how to read how quotes are formed
>carry on civil conversations. Nothing irks me MORE than snotty little twits
>like you who know nothing, accuse everyone else of everything, then when you
>REALISE youa re wrong, you put the other in a kill file instead of doing the
>right thing and apologising. You are a twit, you know it and you wont admit
>it.
Oh, you *do* know another word! "Twit." I only put people in a kill file when
I feel that no one will benefit from a further discussion, including lurkers.
I'm interested to see how this exchange with you degenerates to prove
my point. Yes, I have an agenda. I don't just post for the sake of wasting
bandwidth. Go figure - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5ki1cm$s...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>In article <5kgtq3$k...@drn.zippo.com>
>scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>
>> In article <5kgkfb$j...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>>
>
>>>At least the word "Zen" is Japanese.
>>
>> "Zen" is English.
>
>That must be in the special edition "The dictionary of extraordinary English"
>or a similar dictionary, where you also found the word perogative.
Which Japanese dictionary did you consult for "Zen"?
>>>What I meant was physical force, not necessarily hitting the dog.
>>
>> Physical force is not necessarily hitting a dog? Which dictionary *do* you use?
>You know, I am not a native English speaker, what I meant was:
>Physical force other than hitting.
In several posts now, you have supported the ZenMaster's training method of
using a martial art kick on his dog. When people started pointing out your
mistake in the belief that any kind of physical violence is okay to use
on a dog, you started saying that *some* level of violence may be okay.
When I pointed out to you that, maybe, as a non-native English speaker,
it may just be a translation problem, you started getting flustered - but
instead of admitting to the possibility and allowing everyone to understand
you better, you continue to say "force" is okay in training. One
of my best friends is an English proof-reader from Giessen - she would
never have made it if she had used the excuse "English is not my
native language" for poor communication.
>>>That is, what I meant. Anything more?
>>
>> What kind of sentence structure is that?
>Sometimes I type my answers while I am on-line, so I make short sentences.
>Most people understand what I mean. The full sentence should be:
>Is there anything more that you can think of when you talk about the
>links between Italy and China?
The answer is "yes" but until I cash that cheque you owe me, you will
not benefit anymore from my knowledge. So, if you're in such a hurry that
you can't be bothered to make yourself clear, why type?
>>>I would rather spend money on a dog trainer for my doggie.
>>
>> Then why don't you?
>I am very stingy, this is one of my weak points.
And when your dog is sick, will you continue to be so stingy?
Behavioral problems are as serious, if not more, sometimes, as physical
illnesses.
>>>I have four dictionaries, all spell "prerogative", what do you mean by "perogative"?
>>
>> Like I said, I understand the difference between a typo and a consistent misuse
>> of words.
>My English teachers at school never conveyed this understanding to us, maybe
>you can now enlighten me (and others)
When I cash the cheque. As I pointed out earlier - not everybody uses the
excuse "English is not my native language" to justify their mistakes.
>>>I mean, someone who is looking for information about dog training and others
>>>will read my posts and the many more contradicting me.
>>>So if someone takes my advice, he is normally warned by others and knows
>>>the side effects.
>>
>> If your advice is so bad, why give it? Why not ask the questions, read and
>> learn? Don't you understand "credibility"? - Michelle
>
>I think my advice is different, and not necessarily bad. If it is wrong, I still think
>many others make the same mistake like me. So when I post my advice
>and I am corrected, it also help others.
The problem is, even when people correct you, you insist you are right. Now
there will be people out there who will use your advice that kicking a
dog is okay, pulling it up by its hindlegs is fine, and dogs should not
be leashed. It's called irresponsible dog ownership. Apparently, you are also
not very responsible when you post. Why won't you take yourself more seriously?
People won't unless you do. - Michelle
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5kia5r$r...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>
> In several posts now, you have supported the ZenMaster's training method of
> using a martial art kick on his dog. When people started pointing out your
> mistake in the belief that any kind of physical violence is okay to use
> on a dog, you started saying that *some* level of violence may be okay.
> When I pointed out to you that, maybe, as a non-native English speaker,
> it may just be a translation problem, you started getting flustered - but
I don't get flustered. The point again is that I think in some situations violence
might be necessary. It was you who insinuated that such a viewpoint can only
come out of an translation error and tried to bend this thread to creating the
impression that I am unable to express myself in English.
Why could you not stick to the topic?
> instead of admitting to the possibility and allowing everyone to understand
> you better, you continue to say "force" is okay in training. One
> of my best friends is an English proof-reader from Giessen - she would
> never have made it if she had used the excuse "English is not my
> native language" for poor communication.
If you are a proofreader, language is your profession from which you make
your living. I am an engineer, and normally it is not expected that
engineers are terribly good at languages. So what is the point here?
>
>>Sometimes I type my answers while I am on-line, so I make short sentences.
>>Most people understand what I mean. The full sentence should be:
>>Is there anything more that you can think of when you talk about the
>>links between Italy and China?
>
> The answer is "yes" but until I cash that cheque you owe me, you will
> not benefit anymore from my knowledge. So, if you're in such a hurry that
> you can't be bothered to make yourself clear, why type?
Sorry, I overestimated you. I thought just a hint would be enough for you.
>
>>>>I would rather spend money on a dog trainer for my doggie.
>>>
>>> Then why don't you?
>>I am very stingy, this is one of my weak points.
>
> And when your dog is sick, will you continue to be so stingy?
> Behavioral problems are as serious, if not more, sometimes, as physical
> illnesses.
Do you go to the vet each time your dog coughs one time, or if he has
diarrhea once in a while? Drugs have side effects, and I think behaviour
training might have those, too.
>
>>> Like I said, I understand the difference between a typo and a consistent misuse
>>> of words.
>>My English teachers at school never conveyed this understanding to us, maybe
>>you can now enlighten me (and others)
>
> When I cash the cheque. As I pointed out earlier - not everybody uses the
> excuse "English is not my native language" to justify their mistakes.
>
What is the advantage of consistent misuse compared to admitting that
"English is not my native language" to explain mistakes?
>
>>>>I mean, someone who is looking for information about dog training and others
>>>>will read my posts and the many more contradicting me.
>>>>So if someone takes my advice, he is normally warned by others and knows
>>>>the side effects.
>>>
>>> If your advice is so bad, why give it? Why not ask the questions, read and
>>> learn? Don't you understand "credibility"? - Michelle
>>
>>I think my advice is different, and not necessarily bad. If it is wrong, I still think
>>many others make the same mistake like me. So when I post my advice
>>and I am corrected, it also help others.
>
> The problem is, even when people correct you, you insist you are right. Now
> there will be people out there who will use your advice that kicking a
> dog is okay, pulling it up by its hindlegs is fine, and dogs should not
> be leashed.
I think I wrote: I don't like to leash my dog.
That means I only leash him, if it is really necessary. If leashes would be
such a good and natural thing, dogs would be born with them around
their necks.
>It's called irresponsible dog ownership. Apparently, you are also
I also value the freedom my dog can enjoy.
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <336A97...@cyberhighway.net>
dogsnus <Te...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
> scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>>
>> Greg - Please make sure you trim correctly. I DID NOT write the
>> below. RENE did. I think I know a lot more about China history than the
>> paragraph suggests and I certainly don't have the habit of stereotyping
>> dogs - or people, for that matter.
>> - Michelle
>
> Uhhh, Ive simply got to agree here . Rene's latest post about dog's
> eating cat poop was to heat it to a particular temp. in the microwave,
> in rec.pets.dogs.health.
That was one out of several ideas. I mean, if cat poop has so much
protein in it, why shouldn't we use it? Or is there some other disadvantage
for the health of our dogs if we do so?
> Just how mentally aware does one have to be to recognize the most
> inept troll on the internet, with the possible acceptiion of
Maybe in this newsgroup, but certainly not on the internet. Be careful
with superlatives! If someone sues you it can cost you a lot of money.
The ZenMaster
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>
> >>>What I meant was physical force, not necessarily hitting the dog.
> >>
> >> Physical force is not necessarily hitting a dog? Which dictionary *do* you use?
> >You know, I am not a native English speaker, what I meant was:
> >Physical force other than hitting.
>
> using a martial art kick on his dog.
Oh, so now I'm a martial artist. Damn, I knew I was talented, but I
didn't know I was Bruce Lee? I have no training method that involves
kicking of the martial art or any other variety, but at the same time, I
am not so hampered by some bleeding heart ideology (imagine, a
conservative-basher like me calling someone bleeding heart?--you must
really be bad!).
I live in a situation involving my two handsome, lovable well-trained
dogs and two male chows who were never trained. One of them is about 5
or 6, dominant aggressive and is unable to accept losing. He
continually attacked the younger Chow until the younger Chow almost
ripped his ear off and puntured his head several times over a period of
a few weeks. This is where the sage and precocious ZenMaster stepped in
and put a stop to all this by convincing the owners to keep the dogs
separate at all times.
Poor MeKim, deprived of the sole object of his hate and rage, decided to
take it out on Chazz one day in the kitchen, whereupon Chazz's mother,
who has never lost a fight against such opponents as German Shepherds,
Mastiffs, Labs and Beagles (one of her tougher opponents I might add)
was about to set things straight with him in no uncertain terms (she has
this strict policy she enforces about no one being allowed to attack her
son--go figure?). So now I had three dogs lost in the throes of
aggression. Without even blinking, I reacted and grabbed the aggressor,
lifted him a few inches off the ground by the skin on his back and neck
and and tossed him about four feet away.
Then I lightly punted him in the chest as he was roaring back into the
fray to stop his forward progress and got ahold of him and put him in a
sit position. All this took a matter of about 2.3 seconds to transpire
For the twentieth time, I was not training him at all, I was simply
doing what was necessary to avoid a situation that would have been worse
for him and/or me, and I only had a split second to react before I had a
full-fledged dog war on my hands. A few weeks earlier, I received my
first dog bite ever, courtesy of one of the Chows (I don't know which,
because it was dark and I couldn't see what I was doing). 'Twas a deep
puncture of my forearm, complete with a piece of my own muscle popping
out (same color as chicken by the way) of the bloody hole....
Stunned, the previously impervious and unpunctured ZenMaster sat there
and took a break and let the vicious Chows fight even though MeKim had
just got his ear stitched back together the day before. The bleeding
and woozy ZenMaster then tried bravely to regain his composure whilst
stuffing the little worm back into his arm. He then had to separate
these vicious fighters and used his foot to kick Tai in the head while
holding back MeKim with his good arm.
I guess I'm cruel for that too, huh Ms Mensa? Let me guess what you
would have done in those circumstances? You would have pleaded with the
nice doggies to be good, or you would have run and got your water spray
bottle. Guess what, their owners once tried that and I went into their
room and it was freakin' Lake Mead in there, but the dogs were still
playing Mortal Combat with eachother's skulls.
I'm not even going to tell you how stupid you are if you tell me I'm
cruel. You will broadcast it to the world for me, go ahead do it,
please, I beg of you. The whole reason I'm CHANGING THE DAMN MUZZLE is
so that other people/dogs won't have to go through such one-armed
vicious dog fight referreeing, but why try to explain that to you.
Thank you for stepping forward and as the great leader of the Third
Wave, you have emerged victorious in a close battle with LabLover, so I
hereby christen you as the great leader of the Bleeding Hearts, the
third camp to oppose me.
Koehlerites--force only, no food (great leader David Dikeman)
Psychologists--drugs and conditioning, i.e. "fooling" (Led by Dr.
Dodson)
Bleeding Hearts--no force, only love and kisses (Led by Michelle
scritto@scritto)
The Great Triumvirate house of superficial cards that is falling to the
relentless tides and rhythms of the ZenMaster's supernatural advance.
Michael T.
Zen Guerrilla Dog
The ZenMaster
Chris Kosmakos wrote:
> : I used a choke chain extensively on Callie and I never used one on
> : Chazz. And it's not because I became magically enlightened one day
> : about the evils of using force to train a dog.
>
> You continue to associate a choke chain with physical force or restraint.
> Not so.
Come on now, that was a very reasonable post except for this statement.
I think this is true for the vast majority of poeple who use choke
chains. It's certainly true for David Dikeman, for Barbara Woodhouse,
for Koehler, for Matthew Margolis and just about anyone else who has
demonstrated the process of using a choke chain. The point is, to make
yourself appear stronger and more powerful than you already are, to get
the dog's attention. This is not to say that someone such as yourself
can't figure out a way to use only the "sound" aspect of the choke chain
to convey messages.
Properly used, a choke chain should never be taut for more than
> a second - the time it takes to "pop" it to get the sliding noise to
> send a signal. A dog should never be allowed to pull against one. If
> that is the problem, a prong collar is a better choice (and safer since
> it distributes the pressure). But even a prong collar should never be
> allowed to be taut. You can't send a signal by a taut collar of any
> kind.
I've never used a prong collar, because I've never dealt with a dog that
was bigger and/or more powerful than me, but if I was training say a
puma, might be a good choice, actually, on second thought, I don't think
I'll ever train a puma.
>
> Controlling a dog's body lasts a second. Learning to communicate and
> making them want to control their own behavior to please you lasts
> a lifetime.
Exactly
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5kke58$5...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>I don't get flustered. The point again is that I think in some situations violence
>might be necessary. It was you who insinuated that such a viewpoint can only
>come out of an translation error and tried to bend this thread to creating the
>impression that I am unable to express myself in English.
>Why could you not stick to the topic?
Violence is *never* necessary. *You* said you were German, and so could
everyone excuse you for not using English right. I merely suggested that your
idea of a "kick" may actually be a "nudge" - until I read how ZenMaster
described that what he actually did to his dog was use it for martial arts
practice. *Then* I realised you really believed violence was okay on a dog.
This is not straying from the topic. It's about responsible posting when you
talk about how to treat dogs because if you're a stupid owner, you can bet
there will be millions of stupid owners out there who *will* take *your*
advice and cry "boo-hoo" when their dog dies from them doing so.
>If you are a proofreader, language is your profession from which you make
>your living. I am an engineer, and normally it is not expected that
>engineers are terribly good at languages. So what is the point here?
The point is if you're an engineer (right!), don't argue with responsible
dog trainers who post here because they know how to treat and train dogs
without using violence. I would never get into an argument about
quantum mechanics with an engineer. What for? Why not just shut up and
learn from him?
>> So, if you're in such a hurry that
>> you can't be bothered to make yourself clear, why type?
>
>Sorry, I overestimated you. I thought just a hint would be enough for you.
A hint *is* normally enough for me - but while I'm prepared to read each post
I see with certain leeway, I know there are plenty of people out there who
can't or won't. You're not just posting for me, are you? If you are, why not
just e-mail me?
>Do you go to the vet each time your dog coughs one time, or if he has
>diarrhea once in a while? Drugs have side effects, and I think behaviour
>training might have those, too.
Actually, I do. I rather be safe than sorry, and it's not all about drugs. If
you've ever been to a vet, you should know that. Behavioral training will
probably only have side effects if their conducted by the trainer giving martial
arts kicks and pulling the dog by its hind legs - as you and your buddy Zen
have recommended.
>What is the advantage of consistent misuse compared to admitting that
>"English is not my native language" to explain mistakes?
There is *no* advantage in consistently misusing words. There is *no*
excuse for continuing to misuse words *after* everyone has told you you're
doing it wrong. If you *were* an engineer, you would know that. I think
you're really a lonely 14-year-old latch-key kid. When I was 14, I was *never*
wrong.
>I think I wrote: I don't like to leash my dog.
>That means I only leash him, if it is really necessary. If leashes would be
>such a good and natural thing, dogs would be born with them around
>their necks.
Let me guess: you don't have pierced ears or tatoos or wear makeup, and you
don't go to school - why, if school was a good and natural thing, human beings
would be born *in* them, right? No, no, and if computers were good and natural,
and clothes and shoes, too - we would've been born with them, right?
>I also value the freedom my dog can enjoy.
A dog can better enjoy freedom without getting hurt if it was trained right.
I'm sure the woman Charlene met thought her dog would enjoy freedom without
a leash, too. Well, he sure is free now, at the Rainbow Bridge - and still his
owner will continue to not leash her new dog, waiting for another accident
to happen. See what happens to stupid owners? Pity the dogs - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5kkci2$4...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>That was one out of several ideas. I mean, if cat poop has so much
>protein in it, why shouldn't we use it? Or is there some other disadvantage
>for the health of our dogs if we do so?
Look - if cat poop had so much protein, why don't you heat it up for *yourself*
and stop eating meat?
>> Just how mentally aware does one have to be to recognize the most
>> inept troll on the internet, with the possible acceptiion of
>
>Maybe in this newsgroup, but certainly not on the internet. Be careful
>with superlatives! If someone sues you it can cost you a lot of money.
Take your own advice, Rene. In fact, be careful with what you post - Michelle
Vera Casteel
> might be necessary.
And I'll bet that you can name *any* situation and there will be *lots*
of people who can tell you *much* better ways (non-violent) than the
(violent) ones you come up with. There is no reason to kick or hit a dog.
EVER. If you feel you need to, you need to pick up some good dog training
books and/or see a professional trainer to find out better ways to train
your dog. They don't necessarily have to be positive ways, but they
shouldn't be *violent*.
gregh
On 05-May-97 01:15:20, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>In article <3275.7063...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>
>>
>>
>>On 04-May-97 02:32:44, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
>>(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>>>In article <4393.7062...@hartingdale.com.au>,
>>>gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>>
>>>>You made the mistake, fool. Live with it. If you cannot work out how to
>>>>read a reply then dont compound your mistakes by making an idiot of
>>>>yourself, worldwide. Take your crap elsewhere. I have no time for fools
>>>>who refuse to learn, such as you.
>>
>>>First, it's pathetic when someone (sad to say, usually someone who
>>
>>What's pathetic is that you dont know how to read how a quote is posted then
>>start charging in, all guns blazing, making an international fool of
>>yourself. If you stop and THINK first, you wont have a prob. Try it
>>sometime.
>First of all, I didn't "start charging in." I pointed out that your trimming
>made it look like I was the one who made the moronic statement that Chows
>were "fierce." You chose to take offense instead of apologising for your
>faux pas. Now you continue to call me names. How about taking your own advice
> first?
Oh but you DID charge in. If you had an idea - any at all, how to follow how
quoting is done, you wouldnt have bothered. Anyone who has been on the net
even a SHORT time knows how to follow them. It isnt hard.
You made the mistake, live with it. Just try not to follow it up with
constantly drawing to international attention your misunderstanding of how
things work. If you had only bothered to figure it out instead of charging in
as you did, we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Instead, you wont admit your mistake. Be an adult. Admit it or just shutup.
>>>identifies himself as a male poster) lowers himself to the level of
>>>name-calling. Much more sorry are those who insist on being in the right
>>>and who feel that by so name-calling, he will gain more sympathy on his
>>>side, and can thus take comfort in the lie that he *is* right.
>>
>>I dont have to insist anything. What you quoted back AT me showed I was
>>referring to Renee and not you but you wont admit you are wrong. Live with
>>it. You are.
>No. *You* are.
The sign of an immature idiot. Admit you are wrong and stop being so
childishly petulant.
>>>*I* know how to read a post. I am aware there are those who don't. I am
>>
>>If you knew how to read what was posted, we wouldnt be having this
>>conversation. If you had any common sense, you would apologise and
>>gracefully exit.
>I think that applies to you.
Nothing like trying to point the finger instead of accepting the blame, is
there? Grow up, admit your were wrong or do the RIGHT thing and just shutup
for a while. Why make SURE people know you dont know what you are on about,
with Internet?
>>>also aware of several posters who delight in causing confusion among the
>>>more thoughtful posters in the group in order to create dissent. I repeat:
>>>Don't not quote me again, and do not attribute other people's words to
>>>me, whether they be reasonable or not. I take pride in what I post and I
>>>alone will be responsible for them.
>>
>>I repeat: IF YOU CANNOT READ HOW A QUOTE IS DONE, STOP BEING A DAMNED FOOL
>>AND SHUTUP. After all, youa re better NOT to say something and be THOUGHT of
>>as a fool than say nothing and let people wonder. So, LET them wonder!
>When it comes to me, perhaps. When it's here, in rec.pets.dogs - no. It's up
>to the other people to figure out for themselves who's the real "fool"
>(don't you know any other word?) and I'm not the one insisting *you're* it.
There's no real need to figue. My quote quite plainly said "Renee" but you
wont leave it at that. If you have no idea, ASK, dont ACCUSE.
>>>Since putting you in my kill-file is letting you off too easily, I suggest
>>>you put me in yours. - Michelle
>>
>>Kill files, excepting for getting rid of spams, are for fools who KNOW they
>>are wrong and dont want to admit it. Thanks VERY much for the admission. Now
>>go back to sleep and let people who KNOW how to read how quotes are formed
>>carry on civil conversations. Nothing irks me MORE than snotty little twits
>>like you who know nothing, accuse everyone else of everything, then when you
>>REALISE youa re wrong, you put the other in a kill file instead of doing the
>>right thing and apologising. You are a twit, you know it and you wont admit
>>it.
>Oh, you *do* know another word! "Twit." I only put people in a kill file when
> I feel that no one will benefit from a further discussion, including
>lurkers. I'm interested to see how this exchange with you degenerates to
>prove my point. Yes, I have an agenda. I don't just post for the sake of
>wasting bandwidth. Go figure - Michelle
You prove MY point with every posting. You are a fool because you KNOW you are
wrong but still argue the point. Only fools defend the indefensible. Live with
it. Save SOME face - exit gracefully.
You are an entire waste of space in Internet with your prolonged mistake on
this issue. you may WELL know a lot about other subjects but about this you
obviously know nothing or you wouldnt argue from such a stupid position.
Do us ALL a favour and let us get on with our DOG talk in here. take your
stupidity elsewhere or talk about dogs in here if you wish. Just stop
assailing us with your obvious Internet ineptitude.
gregh
On 05-May-97 01:05:07, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>In article <1893.7063...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>
>>
>>
>>On 04-May-97 08:40:58, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
>>(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>>>In article <336BBC...@cyberhighway.net>, dogsnus says...
>>>>
>>>>scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First, it's pathetic when someone (sad to say, usually someone who
>>>>> identifies himself as a male poster) lowers himself to the level of
>>>>> name-calling.
>>>>
>>>>Was this necessary? What difference does the gender make?
>>>>Terri
>>
>>>It's an observation - the difference is, posters who identify themselves
>>>as males are usually the belligerents in flame wars that *do* degenerate
>>>into
>>> cursing, swearing, four-letter words *and* name-calling. This has been
>>>reported in the LA Times (sorry, I don't have the reference), and I found
>>>it
>>> interesting that it appears to be an accurate observation. I suppose I
>>> could have let it go until (perhaps in another case) the situation becomes
>>> a
>>>cyber-stalking - but why not just nip it in the bud? - Michelle
>>
>>What is REALLY pathetic is when people see one observation "written in a
>>newspaper" and think that because it is in newsprint, it is true THEN go
>>around trying to apply that as a generalisation to all. That is how racism
>>and dog breed hatred start. You should be ASHAMED.
>No, Greg. I like men who behave like men. I don't like bullies of either
No, you have admitted above how you actually think and now you try to retract
it. You have proven the worthlessness of your position above. Dont try to deny
the obvious.
>gender, and I don't like thoughtless posters. I saw the report in the paper
>and I went ahead and did a count on my own. Voila! See, I know there's a
Oh sure - you say that NOW after it has been pointed out that you see things
in print and believe them to be right. Nice to add that AFTER the event. Eg,
you are saying "I was right from the start and this posting AFTER the event
proves I was". Nope. You cant fool people in here with that crud.
>distinction between racial awareness and blind racism, and I consider myself
>racially aware and I'm proud of it. I also believe a dog is only as good as
>its owner
>(and in some cases, better) and I LOVE Chows. That's why I *don't*say "all
>men are cyber-stalkers." Instead, I say "it appears that cyber-stalkers are
>generally men." Don't go putting words into my mouth again, please. -
I dont know that I can. So far you have both feet firmly planted in there and
have no room for anything else. That much is obvious.
It's such a pity to post in haste and correct in leisure, isnt it? You made
the point int he first posting, showing you were wrong and now are scyrrying
with "Additives" to try and prove you were right all along. You know, I ought
to get you to move here and be a politician in our Govt. They work exactly the
same way.
Ace & Cat
The ZenMaster wrote:
>
> Chris Kosmakos wrote:
>
> > : I used a choke chain extensively on Callie and I never used one on
> > : Chazz. And it's not because I became magically enlightened one day
> > : about the evils of using force to train a dog.
> >
> > Not so.
>
> Come on now, that was a very reasonable post except for this statement.
> I think this is true for the vast majority of poeple who use choke
> chains. It's certainly true for David Dikeman, for Barbara Woodhouse,
> for Koehler, for Matthew Margolis and just about anyone else who has
> demonstrated the process of using a choke chain. The point is, to make
> yourself appear stronger and more powerful than you already are, to get
> the dog's attention. This is not to say that someone such as yourself
> can't figure out a way to use only the "sound" aspect of the choke chain
> to convey messages.
>
> Properly used, a choke chain should never be taut for more than
> > a second - the time it takes to "pop" it to get the sliding noise to
> > send a signal. A dog should never be allowed to pull against one. If
> > that is the problem, a prong collar is a better choice (and safer since
> > it distributes the pressure). But even a prong collar should never be
> > allowed to be taut. You can't send a signal by a taut collar of any
> > kind.
>
> I've never used a prong collar, because I've never dealt with a dog that
> was bigger and/or more powerful than me, but if I was training say a
> puma, might be a good choice, actually, on second thought, I don't think
> I'll ever train a puma.
Hint for anyone ever faced with training a 'puma' or any large cat...
*don't* try a prong collar. Very quick way for a very powerful animal to
go completely 'haywire', and it is not necessary. A choke collar works
fine, and some don't even need that.
Cat in Alaska
--
http://www.mosquitonet.com/~outback
http://www.mosquitonet.com/~outback/critter1.htm
scr...@scritto.com
In article <336E36...@earthlink.com>, The says...
>Oh, so now I'm a martial artist. Damn, I knew I was talented, but I
>didn't know I was Bruce Lee? I have no training method that involves
>kicking of the martial art or any other variety, but at the same time, I
>am not so hampered by some bleeding heart ideology (imagine, a
>conservative-basher like me calling someone bleeding heart?--you must
>really be bad!).
I *never* said you were a martial arts expert. If you were a martial
arts expert, you would know it's wrong to discipline a dog as *you*
described:
In article <336834...@earthlink.com>, The says...
could have been hurt, but I am very coordinated and knew exactly
what I was doing as I caught him flush in the chest with the upper
curve of my ankle, a perfect fit.
Michael T.
Zen Guerrilla Dog
*That* describes a martial arts kick, ZENMaster.
>I live in a situation involving my two handsome, lovable well-trained
>dogs and two male chows who were never trained. One of them is about 5
>or 6, dominant aggressive and is unable to accept losing. He
>continually attacked the younger Chow until the younger Chow almost
>ripped his ear off and puntured his head several times over a period of
>a few weeks. This is where the sage and precocious ZenMaster stepped in
>and put a stop to all this by convincing the owners to keep the dogs
>separate at all times.
Precocious is right - read "immature."
>Poor MeKim, deprived of the sole object of his hate and rage, decided to
>take it out on Chazz one day in the kitchen, whereupon Chazz's mother,
>who has never lost a fight against such opponents as German Shepherds,
>Mastiffs, Labs and Beagles (one of her tougher opponents I might add)
>was about to set things straight with him in no uncertain terms (she has
>this strict policy she enforces about no one being allowed to attack her
>son--go figure?). So now I had three dogs lost in the throes of
>aggression. Without even blinking, I reacted and grabbed the aggressor,
>lifted him a few inches off the ground by the skin on his back and neck
>and and tossed him about four feet away.
Try having one dog first if you can't handle three.
>Then I lightly punted him in the chest as he was roaring back into the
>fray to stop his forward progress and got ahold of him and put him in a
>sit position. All this took a matter of about 2.3 seconds to transpire
And you had a stop-watch on you. How many times in the dog's life have
you done this?
>For the twentieth time, I was not training him at all, I was simply
>doing what was necessary to avoid a situation that would have been worse
>for him and/or me, and I only had a split second to react before I had a
>full-fledged dog war on my hands. A few weeks earlier, I received my
>first dog bite ever, courtesy of one of the Chows (I don't know which,
>because it was dark and I couldn't see what I was doing). 'Twas a deep
>puncture of my forearm, complete with a piece of my own muscle popping
>out (same color as chicken by the way) of the bloody hole....
Sounds like you need to train your dog ... oh, wait, you need to *be*
trained!
>Stunned, the previously impervious and unpunctured ZenMaster sat there
>and took a break and let the vicious Chows fight even though MeKim had
>just got his ear stitched back together the day before. The bleeding
>and woozy ZenMaster then tried bravely to regain his composure whilst
>stuffing the little worm back into his arm. He then had to separate
>these vicious fighters and used his foot to kick Tai in the head while
>holding back MeKim with his good arm.
I can only imagine if your dogs bit a kid instead - and what a fine
example you're setting for the neighbourhood kids. What's the heading
of this post again? Stupid Dog Owners on a Testosterone Trip or something?
>I guess I'm cruel for that too, huh Ms Mensa? Let me guess what you
>would have done in those circumstances? You would have pleaded with the
>nice doggies to be good, or you would have run and got your water spray
>bottle. Guess what, their owners once tried that and I went into their
>room and it was freakin' Lake Mead in there, but the dogs were still
>playing Mortal Combat with eachother's skulls.
I would not have got my dogs in such a situation in the first place.
In such a situation, I would have got a water hose.
>I'm not even going to tell you how stupid you are if you tell me I'm
>cruel. You will broadcast it to the world for me, go ahead do it,
>please, I beg of you. The whole reason I'm CHANGING THE DAMN MUZZLE is
>so that other people/dogs won't have to go through such one-armed
>vicious dog fight referreeing, but why try to explain that to you.
I don't know that you are cruel. I know you're not too bright. Each post I read
confirms it.
>Thank you for stepping forward and as the great leader of the Third
>Wave, you have emerged victorious in a close battle with LabLover, so I
>hereby christen you as the great leader of the Bleeding Hearts, the
>third camp to oppose me.
>
>Koehlerites--force only, no food (great leader David Dikeman)
>Psychologists--drugs and conditioning, i.e. "fooling" (Led by Dr.
>Dodson)
>Bleeding Hearts--no force, only love and kisses (Led by Michelle
>scritto@scritto)
>
>The Great Triumvirate house of superficial cards that is falling to the
>relentless tides and rhythms of the ZenMaster's supernatural advance.
>
>Michael T.
>Zen Guerrilla Dog
Considering you have identified *three* "camps" of people telling you and Rene
your dog-handling methods (I won't say training, because they are not) are
wrong, I would've thought the smart thing to do was to keep quiet and stop
telling the story that got you into trouble in the first place. You telling the
story again and again doesn't in anyway make you look like a more enlightened
dog-handler. It just reinforces everybody's (except maybe Rene's)
concern for your dogs and the kids in your neighbourhood. - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <3722.7065...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>No, you have admitted above how you actually think and now you try to retract
>it. You have proven the worthlessness of your position above. Dont try to deny
>the obvious.
The obvious will speak for itself. I like men who behave like men and I don't
like bullies of either gender. I particularly people who think they're cute when
they trim other people's post to confuse people, and then refuse to apologise
when they are caught.
>Oh sure - you say that NOW after it has been pointed out that you see things
>in print and believe them to be right. Nice to add that AFTER the event. Eg,
>you are saying "I was right from the start and this posting AFTER the event
>proves I was". Nope. You cant fool people in here with that crud.
My posts ar chived with DejaNews. If you have a problem with understanding
what I wrote, you may join Rene in paying me for English lessons.
>I dont know that I can. So far you have both feet firmly planted in there and
>have no room for anything else. That much is obvious.
You who *has* a brain.
>It's such a pity to post in haste and correct in leisure, isnt it? You made
>the point int he first posting, showing you were wrong and now are scyrrying
>with "Additives" to try and prove you were right all along. You know, I ought
>to get you to move here and be a politician in our Govt. They work exactly the
>same way.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>|Sydney, Australia. |
Describing yourself again? I never post in haste. - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <6189.7065...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>Oh but you DID charge in. If you had an idea - any at all, how to follow how
>quoting is done, you wouldnt have bothered. Anyone who has been on the net
>even a SHORT time knows how to follow them. It isnt hard.
I wasn't the only one who was confused. Again, you trimmed the exchange Rene
and I had to make it look like I was the one who had no knowledge at all about
China or Chows. I posted a clarification for anyone who might be confused.
Any civilised person would have apologised and moved on. You did not. Instead,
you stooped to calling names. I can only imagine you have the guts to do this
only because you're at your computer.
>You made the mistake, live with it. Just try not to follow it up with
>constantly drawing to international attention your misunderstanding of how
>things work. If you had only bothered to figure it out instead of charging in
>as you did, we wouldnt be having this conversation.
>
>Instead, you wont admit your mistake. Be an adult. Admit it or just shutup.
That's you talking to your mirror again, I see. You don't happen to be
voting for Ms. Hanson, do you? I hear she's great at "constantly drawing to
international attention (her) misunderstanding of how things work."
>The sign of an immature idiot. Admit you are wrong and stop being so
>childishly petulant.
I see your vocabulary has increased somewhat. Didn't your parents
teach you how to talk nice?
>Nothing like trying to point the finger instead of accepting the blame, is
>there? Grow up, admit your were wrong or do the RIGHT thing and just shutup
>for a while. Why make SURE people know you dont know what you are on about,
>with Internet?
I want people to be SURE of what's going on. Why are you so eager for
me to leave? Afraid I'll show you up for the belligerent, rude bully you are?
>There's no real need to figue. My quote quite plainly said "Renee" but you
>wont leave it at that. If you have no idea, ASK, dont ACCUSE.
No. Your quote plainly said "Michelle: ..." And, I did ASK you to clarify
that you understood I wasn't the one who made the statement about Chows being
"fierce."
>You prove MY point with every posting. You are a fool because you KNOW you are
>wrong but still argue the point. Only fools defend the indefensible. Live with
>it. Save SOME face - exit gracefully.
Because you say so?
>You are an entire waste of space in Internet with your prolonged mistake on
>this issue. you may WELL know a lot about other subjects but about this you
>obviously know nothing or you wouldnt argue from such a stupid position.
You think so?
>Do us ALL a favour and let us get on with our DOG talk in here. take your
>stupidity elsewhere or talk about dogs in here if you wish. Just stop
>assailing us with your obvious Internet ineptitude.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>|Sydney, Australia. |
It's strange how an self-proclaimed dog lover would be more interested in
arguing with someone about how posts are read, isn't it? How about we go to
DejaNews and compare how many posts I've made and how many you've made, and
we can see who talks dogs more? - Michelle
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5kl0br$9...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <5kke58$5...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>>I don't get flustered. The point again is that I think in
>>some situations violence
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, again I typed too fast, I meant "physical force"
>>might be necessary. It was you who insinuated that such a viewpoint can only
>>come out of an translation error and tried to bend this thread to creating the
>>impression that I am unable to express myself in English.
>>Why could you not stick to the topic?
>
> Violence is *never* necessary. *You* said you were German, and so could
> everyone excuse you for not using English right. I merely suggested that your
> idea of a "kick" may actually be a "nudge" - until I read how ZenMaster
> described that what he actually did to his dog was use it for martial arts
I think it was the other way round, he used martial art for the dogs,
to seperate them
> practice. *Then* I realised you really believed violence was okay on a dog.
> This is not straying from the topic. It's about responsible posting when you
> talk about how to treat dogs because if you're a stupid owner, you can bet
> there will be millions of stupid owners out there who *will* take *your*
> advice and cry "boo-hoo" when their dog dies from them doing so.
I think you are getting carried away in your argument. The zenmaster lifts his
dog with his foot, and now you talk about dogs dying.
>
>>If you are a proofreader, language is your profession from which you make
>>your living. I am an engineer, and normally it is not expected that
>>engineers are terribly good at languages. So what is the point here?
>
> The point is if you're an engineer (right!), don't argue with responsible
> dog trainers who post here because they know how to treat and train dogs
> without using violence. I would never get into an argument about
> quantum mechanics with an engineer.
Nor would the engineer discuss this with you, quantum mechanics is
part of physics.
> What for? Why not just shut up and learn from him?
I won't argue with people who are convincing.
>
>>> So, if you're in such a hurry that
>>> you can't be bothered to make yourself clear, why type?
>>
>>Sorry, I overestimated you. I thought just a hint would be enough for you.
>
> A hint *is* normally enough for me - but while I'm prepared to read each post
> I see with certain leeway, I know there are plenty of people out there who
> can't or won't. You're not just posting for me, are you? If you are, why not
> just e-mail me?
Why do you confuse people by suggesting that was a problem of sentence
structure. Your answers are even more unclear than my questions.
>
>>Do you go to the vet each time your dog coughs one time, or if he has
>>diarrhea once in a while? Drugs have side effects, and I think behaviour
>>training might have those, too.
>
> Actually, I do. I rather be safe than sorry, and it's not all about drugs. If
> you've ever been to a vet, you should know that. Behavioral training will
> probably only have side effects if their conducted by the trainer giving martial
> arts kicks
I think this was not for training, just for seperating the dogs.
>and pulling the dog by its hind legs - as you and your buddy Zen
> have recommended.
What makes you sure the other methods do not have side effects, too?
>
>>What is the advantage of consistent misuse compared to admitting that
>>"English is not my native language" to explain mistakes?
>
>
>>I think I wrote: I don't like to leash my dog.
>>That means I only leash him, if it is really necessary. If leashes would be
>>such a good and natural thing, dogs would be born with them around
>>their necks.
>
> Let me guess: you don't have pierced ears or tatoos or wear makeup, and you
> don't go to school - why, if school was a good and natural thing, human beings
> would be born *in* them, right? No, no, and if computers were good and natural,
> and clothes and shoes, too - we would've been born with them, right?
These are parts of our human civilization adapted to the needs and desires of
us humans. And so is the leash.
What are the desires and needs of our dogs?
>
>>I also value the freedom my dog can enjoy.
>
> A dog can better enjoy freedom without getting hurt if it was trained right.
> I'm sure the woman Charlene met thought her dog would enjoy freedom without
> a leash, too. Well, he sure is free now, at the Rainbow Bridge - and still his
> owner will continue to not leash her new dog, waiting for another accident
> to happen.
How can you be so sure about that? How can you be so sure that this
event did not change him?
The ZenMaster
Ace & Cat wrote:
>
> The ZenMaster wrote:
> > I've never used a prong collar, because I've never dealt with a dog that
> > was bigger and/or more powerful than me, but if I was training say a
> > puma, might be a good choice, actually, on second thought, I don't think
> > I'll ever train a puma.
>
> Hint for anyone ever faced with training a 'puma' or any large cat...
> *don't* try a prong collar. Very quick way for a very powerful animal to
> go completely 'haywire', and it is not necessary. A choke collar works
> fine, and some don't even need that.
> Cat in Alaska
I don't mean to criticize you, because you may not be involved in what
I'm about to spout off on, but while we're on the subject, this is an
issue that really enrages me. I don't know how YOU train big cats, but
I just saw a special today on Hard Copy about how lions and tigers are
trained, or shall I say abused. It's the same thing with elephants.
These animals are tortured, beaten and abused into submission to perform
meaningless stunts that mock and trivialize their awesome and majestic
nature.
Maybe if you raised a lion or tiger from birth you could train it
humanely, but I don't think that happens very often, and you CAN'T train
an elephant to perform in a circus humanely and that is why elephant
trainer is the most dangerous occupation in America, because the idiots
keep getting killed after the great beasts snap and decide to end their
torment by squashing it. More power to them!
It is my opinion that the vast majority of performing big cats and
elephants live quiet lives of desperation full of abuse and tyranny from
brutal little dictators with a show to put on. It makes me SICK.
Michael T.
Zen Guerrilla Dog
Changing The Muzzle of Dog Training
And everything else
The ZenMaster
Whatever
Michael T.
--
邢 唷��
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5kpsuu$5...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>In article <5kl0br$9...@drn.zippo.com>
>scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>
>> In article <5kke58$5...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>>
>>>I don't get flustered. The point again is that I think in
>>>some situations violence
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Sorry, again I typed too fast, I meant "physical force"
If you look in DejaNews, it will be evident to everyone that you consistently
interchange "violence" and "physical force."
>>>might be necessary. It was you who insinuated that such a viewpoint can only
>>>come out of an translation error and tried to bend this thread to creating the
>>>impression that I am unable to express myself in English.
>>>Why could you not stick to the topic?
>>
>> Violence is *never* necessary. *You* said you were German, and so could
>> everyone excuse you for not using English right. I merely suggested that your
>> idea of a "kick" may actually be a "nudge" - until I read how ZenMaster
>> described that what he actually did to his dog was use it for martial arts
>
>I think it was the other way round, he used martial art for the dogs,
> to seperate them
He used his dogs for martial arts practice, and is so proud of it he feels
the need to keep re-telling his story. You feel it's fine to kick a 90-pound
woman. I'd like to see the two of you get together.
>> practice. *Then* I realised you really believed violence was okay on a dog.
>> This is not straying from the topic. It's about responsible posting when you
>> talk about how to treat dogs because if you're a stupid owner, you can bet
>> there will be millions of stupid owners out there who *will* take *your*
>> advice and cry "boo-hoo" when their dog dies from them doing so.
>
>I think you are getting carried away in your argument. The zenmaster lifts his
>dog with his foot, and now you talk about dogs dying.
If he continues with how he's handling his dogs, he will kill them one day.
I think you might kill yours as well.
>>>If you are a proofreader, language is your profession from which you make
>>>your living. I am an engineer, and normally it is not expected that
>>>engineers are terribly good at languages. So what is the point here?
>>
>> The point is if you're an engineer (right!), don't argue with responsible
>> dog trainers who post here because they know how to treat and train dogs
>> without using violence. I would never get into an argument about
>> quantum mechanics with an engineer.
>
>Nor would the engineer discuss this with you, quantum mechanics is
>part of physics.
And engineers don't learn physics. Right. *You're* an engineer. HA!
>> What for? Why not just shut up and learn from him?
>
>I won't argue with people who are convincing.
So, if ZenMaster can convince you it's okay to hit a dog, why can't he convince
someone else? Which brings me back to responsible posting - neither of you
appear to have a grip on that yet.
>>>> So, if you're in such a hurry that
>>>> you can't be bothered to make yourself clear, why type?
>>>
>>>Sorry, I overestimated you. I thought just a hint would be enough for you.
>>
>> A hint *is* normally enough for me - but while I'm prepared to read each post
>> I see with certain leeway, I know there are plenty of people out there who
>> can't or won't. You're not just posting for me, are you? If you are, why not
>> just e-mail me?
>
>Why do you confuse people by suggesting that was a problem of sentence
>structure. Your answers are even more unclear than my questions.
So say you.
>>>Do you go to the vet each time your dog coughs one time, or if he has
>>>diarrhea once in a while? Drugs have side effects, and I think behaviour
>>>training might have those, too.
>>
>> Actually, I do. I rather be safe than sorry, and it's not all about drugs. If
>> you've ever been to a vet, you should know that. Behavioral training will
>> probably only have side effects if their conducted by the trainer giving martial
>> arts kicks
>I think this was not for training, just for seperating the dogs.
His dogs should never have been put in that situation. Violence is *never*
necessary to handle a dog.
>>and pulling the dog by its hind legs - as you and your buddy Zen
>> have recommended.
>What makes you sure the other methods do not have side effects, too?
The side effects of violence is obvious and well-documented. What makes
you think other methods have side effects?
>>>I think I wrote: I don't like to leash my dog.
>>>That means I only leash him, if it is really necessary. If leashes would be
>>>such a good and natural thing, dogs would be born with them around
>>>their necks.
>>
>> Let me guess: you don't have pierced ears or tatoos or wear makeup, and you
>> don't go to school - why, if school was a good and natural thing, human beings
>> would be born *in* them, right? No, no, and if computers were good and natural,
>> and clothes and shoes, too - we would've been born with them, right?
>
>These are parts of our human civilization adapted to the needs and desires of
> us humans. And so is the leash.
>What are the desires and needs of our dogs?
Not to be used for martial arts practice would be one, I would assume.
Not to be used as road pavement would be another.
>>>I also value the freedom my dog can enjoy.
>>
>> A dog can better enjoy freedom without getting hurt if it was trained right.
>> I'm sure the woman Charlene met thought her dog would enjoy freedom without
>> a leash, too. Well, he sure is free now, at the Rainbow Bridge - and still his
>> owner will continue to not leash her new dog, waiting for another accident
>> to happen.
>
>How can you be so sure about that? How can you be so sure that this
>event did not change him?
"Him" the dog is changed all right. "Her" the owner, changed? You haven't
changed sicne we started this exchange. The ZenMaster hasn't changed.
What makes you think this woman who caused her dog's death will change?
Gman
> It is my opinion that the vast majority of performing big cats and
> elephants live quiet lives of desperation full of abuse and tyranny from
> brutal little dictators with a show to put on. It makes me SICK.
Michael, this is the first time I ever remember you using this phrase.
Regardless whether I agree or disagree with your views, politics, attitude
or anything else, this one phrase shows that you aren't beyond hope. Good
for you.
The phrase? "It is my opinion..."
For once you have allowed for the possibility of (1) there being another
opinion and (2) it, not yours, might be better, more informed, or correct.
Or not. But recognizing the possibility is a step in the right direction.
And, IMHO, I think you are right in the paragraph above. But that's been
changing, and continues to change. HARD COPY is notorious for it's
particular brand of sensationalistic yellow journalism and has not been
known for understating low-profile television journalism.
Gman
LabLover
> It is my opinion that the vast majority of performing big cats and
> elephants live quiet lives of desperation full of abuse and tyranny from
> brutal little dictators with a show to put on. It makes me SICK.
>
Something like your dogs ...
Michelle, Cassie the Lab (aka Littlegirl) and JakeyBuddy the GSDx
gregh
On 07-May-97 04:19:37, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>In article <3722.7065...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>No, you have admitted above how you actually think and now you try to
>>retract it. You have proven the worthlessness of your position above. Dont
>>try to deny the obvious.
>The obvious will speak for itself. I like men who behave like men and I don't
Most definitely and you obviously have a LOT of that to do. The problem is
that NOWHERE do you apologise for your mistake but continue to attack in
defence of your erroneous position. Grow UP!
> like bullies of either gender. I particularly people who think they're cute
>when they trim other people's post to confuse people, and then refuse to
>apologise when they are caught.
Funny that because what I typed was TO Renee and it CLEARLY said so. You said
it above. Your inability to read a quote for what it is, is your WHOLE
problem. Learn to read properly, admit you are wrong and apologise for your
mistakes and you have a chance of growing up. YOU were caught out in your own
stupidity! Dont come onto the net accusing people of doing something wrong
just because you have no idea HOW to handle things on the net. LEARN it, then
speak from experience instead of ACCUSING and speaking from STUPIDITY.
We were ALL beginners at one stage. The difference here is that when *I* was a
beginner, I asked and learned. You, on the other hand, accuse, rant and rave.
>>Oh sure - you say that NOW after it has been pointed out that you see things
>>in print and believe them to be right. Nice to add that AFTER the event. Eg,
>>you are saying "I was right from the start and this posting AFTER the event
>>proves I was". Nope. You cant fool people in here with that crud.
>My posts ar chived with DejaNews. If you have a problem with understanding
>what I wrote, you may join Rene in paying me for English lessons.
My post was not wrong. This is the whole thing. If you knew what the hell you
were doing, you would see that is the case. Obviously you dont know what you
are doing, though.
>>I dont know that I can. So far you have both feet firmly planted in there
>>and have no room for anything else. That much is obvious.
>You who *has* a brain.
As opposed to you who MAY have one but refuses to use it.
>>It's such a pity to post in haste and correct in leisure, isnt it? You made
>>the point int he first posting, showing you were wrong and now are scyrrying
>>with "Additives" to try and prove you were right all along. You know, I
>>ought to get you to move here and be a politician in our Govt. They work
>>exactly the same way.
>Describing yourself again? I never post in haste. - Michelle
Cant think of anything ELSE to say when you are wrong and wont admit it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
|Sydney, Australia. |
| |
|Founding and lifetime member: CHOW ADDICTION SOCIETY. MEMBERSHIP No. 1. |
gregh
On 07-May-97 04:33:24, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>In article <6189.7065...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>Oh but you DID charge in. If you had an idea - any at all, how to follow how
>>quoting is done, you wouldnt have bothered. Anyone who has been on the net
>>even a SHORT time knows how to follow them. It isnt hard.
>I wasn't the only one who was confused. Again, you trimmed the exchange Rene
No - you were the ONLY one to be confused.
>and I had to make it look like I was the one who had no knowledge at all
Again, *I* addressed *MY* reply *TO* Renee, not you. *YOU* had *NO* idea how
to *READ* a quoted reply so instead of asking/querying, you decided to shoot
off your *BIG* *MOUTH* and instead of apologising for an obvious mistake, you
feel foolisha nd are continuing this. That SHOWS stupidity on your part.
Anyone else knowing a mistake has been made would apologise. Not you.
>about China or Chows. I posted a clarification for anyone who might be
>confused. Any civilised person would have apologised and moved on. You did
>not. Instead, you stooped to calling names. I can only imagine you have the
>guts to do this only because you're at your computer.
>
I call you stupid only because the shoe, which in your case is firmly planted
in your MOUTH, *FITS*! The reasons I typed above clarify why.
>>You made the mistake, live with it. Just try not to follow it up with
>>constantly drawing to international attention your misunderstanding of how
>>things work. If you had only bothered to figure it out instead of charging
>>in as you did, we wouldnt be having this conversation.
>>
>>Instead, you wont admit your mistake. Be an adult. Admit it or just shutup.
>That's you talking to your mirror again, I see. You don't happen to be
>voting for Ms. Hanson, do you? I hear she's great at "constantly drawing to
>international attention (her) misunderstanding of how things work."
You dont happen to have a clue, do you? I tell you what - when you find one,
do yourself a favour and use it. What has Ms. Hanson to do with ANYTHING else
in here? Trying to draw in someone of notoriety to "strengthen" a weak
argument? You ought to be in politics yourself with that decidedly stupid
attack. Of course, it is only MORE proof you KNOW you are wrong and wont admit
to it, shutup or go away.
>>The sign of an immature idiot. Admit you are wrong and stop being so
>>childishly petulant.
>I see your vocabulary has increased somewhat. Didn't your parents
>teach you how to talk nice?
If you dont know what the word means, look it up in your dictionary. Dont feel
bad for not knowing much. Just admit to it!
>>Nothing like trying to point the finger instead of accepting the blame, is
>>there? Grow up, admit your were wrong or do the RIGHT thing and just shutup
>>for a while. Why make SURE people know you dont know what you are on about,
>>with Internet?
>I want people to be SURE of what's going on. Why are you so eager for
>me to leave? Afraid I'll show you up for the belligerent, rude bully you are?
Peopple DO know what is going on. You are making an increasing fool of
yourself from an incorrect start. Your typings make you appear more a fool,
simple as that. If a letter is addressed, in the reply-line as "Renee" having
said this in the first place, then how could anyone who knows what they are
doing on the net see it any other way? You DONT know what you are doing. That
much is obvious. Instead of admitting your error and doing the right thing and
apologising, you continue to be a twit about it. Admit it. Admit you are
wrong. We wont hold that against you. What *IS* annoying is your continued
defence of your position. That is just stupidity.
>>There's no real need to figue. My quote quite plainly said "Renee" but you
>>wont leave it at that. If you have no idea, ASK, dont ACCUSE.
>No. Your quote plainly said "Michelle: ..." And, I did ASK you to clarify
>that you understood I wasn't the one who made the statement about Chows being
> "fierce."
Not in the least. It started saying "Renee" but of course you didnt see that
so as far as you are concerned, you are right. Of course you are NEVER wrong!
>>You prove MY point with every posting. You are a fool because you KNOW you
>>are wrong but still argue the point. Only fools defend the indefensible.
>>Live with it. Save SOME face - exit gracefully.
>Because you say so?
Would you now try to deny common sense?
>>You are an entire waste of space in Internet with your prolonged mistake on
>>this issue. you may WELL know a lot about other subjects but about this you
>>obviously know nothing or you wouldnt argue from such a stupid position.
>You think so?
You can prove differently?
>>Do us ALL a favour and let us get on with our DOG talk in here. take your
>>stupidity elsewhere or talk about dogs in here if you wish. Just stop
>>assailing us with your obvious Internet ineptitude.
>It's strange how an self-proclaimed dog lover would be more interested in
>arguing with someone about how posts are read, isn't it? How about we go to
Very strange, so why do you continue with your error, following it up with
stupidity?
>DejaNews and compare how many posts I've made and how many you've made, and
>we can see who talks dogs more? - Michelle
The amount of posts you make only means the amount of blabber you can make. A
wide person once said "God made us with 2 ears and 1 mouth. Take the hint and
listen twice as much". That much wouldnt penetrate your "I am always right"
attitude, would it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
|Sydney, Australia. |
| |
|Founding and lifetime member: CHOW ADDICTION SOCIETY. MEMBERSHIP No. 1. |
| |
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5kqjob$1...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <5kpsuu$5...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>>
>>In article <5kl0br$9...@drn.zippo.com>
>>scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>>
>>> In article <5kke58$5...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>>>
>>>>I don't get flustered. The point again is that I think in
>>>>some situations violence
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Sorry, again I typed too fast, I meant "physical force"
>
> If you look in DejaNews, it will be evident to everyone that you consistently
> interchange "violence" and "physical force."
I often type to fast.
>
>>>>might be necessary. It was you who insinuated that such a viewpoint can only
>>>>come out of an translation error and tried to bend this thread to creating the
>>>>impression that I am unable to express myself in English.
>>>>Why could you not stick to the topic?
>>>
>>> Violence is *never* necessary. *You* said you were German, and so could
>>> everyone excuse you for not using English right. I merely suggested that your
>>> idea of a "kick" may actually be a "nudge" - until I read how ZenMaster
>>> described that what he actually did to his dog was use it for martial arts
>>
>>I think it was the other way round, he used martial art for the dogs,
>> to seperate them
>
> He used his dogs for martial arts practice, and is so proud of it he feels
> the need to keep re-telling his story. You feel it's fine to kick a 90-pound
> woman. I'd like to see the two of you get together.
Where did I say that?
>
>
>>> practice. *Then* I realised you really believed violence was okay on a dog.
>>> This is not straying from the topic. It's about responsible posting when you
>>> talk about how to treat dogs because if you're a stupid owner, you can bet
>>> there will be millions of stupid owners out there who *will* take *your*
>>> advice and cry "boo-hoo" when their dog dies from them doing so.
>>
>>I think you are getting carried away in your argument. The zenmaster lifts his
>>dog with his foot, and now you talk about dogs dying.
>
> If he continues with how he's handling his dogs, he will kill them one day.
> I think you might kill yours as well.
Maybe they kill each other. But he will not kill them by lifting them with his foot.
>
>>>>If you are a proofreader, language is your profession from which you make
>>>>your living. I am an engineer, and normally it is not expected that
>>>>engineers are terribly good at languages. So what is the point here?
>>>
>>> The point is if you're an engineer (right!), don't argue with responsible
>>> dog trainers who post here because they know how to treat and train dogs
>>> without using violence. I would never get into an argument about
>>> quantum mechanics with an engineer.
>>
>>Nor would the engineer discuss this with you, quantum mechanics is
>>part of physics.
>
> And engineers don't learn physics. Right. *You're* an engineer. HA!
We also learn physics, only to a certain extent. But at least to kniw the difference
between lethally kicking a dog and lifting with a foot.
The side effects of medication also, only the records are kept more secret.
>>>>I also value the freedom my dog can enjoy.
>>>
>>> A dog can better enjoy freedom without getting hurt if it was trained right.
>>> I'm sure the woman Charlene met thought her dog would enjoy freedom without
>>> a leash, too. Well, he sure is free now, at the Rainbow Bridge - and still his
>>> owner will continue to not leash her new dog, waiting for another accident
>>> to happen.
>>
>>How can you be so sure about that? How can you be so sure that this
>>event did not change him?
>
> "Him" the dog is changed all right. "Her" the owner, changed? You haven't
> changed sicne we started this exchange. The ZenMaster hasn't changed.
> What makes you think this woman who caused her dog's death will change?
> See what happens to stupid owners? Pity the dogs - Michelle
Simple - her last dog is flat now
- my dog is happily jumping around me
- The ZENdogs are probably happy too
scr...@scritto.com
In article <3486.7067...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>Most definitely and you obviously have a LOT of that to do. The problem is
>that NOWHERE do you apologise for your mistake but continue to attack in
>defence of your erroneous position. Grow UP!
And what erroneous position is that, pray?
>Funny that because what I typed was TO Renee and it CLEARLY said so. You said
>it above. Your inability to read a quote for what it is, is your WHOLE
>problem. Learn to read properly, admit you are wrong and apologise for your
>mistakes and you have a chance of growing up. YOU were caught out in your own
>stupidity! Dont come onto the net accusing people of doing something wrong
>just because you have no idea HOW to handle things on the net. LEARN it, then
>speak from experience instead of ACCUSING and speaking from STUPIDITY.
I said what you type to RENE was not clear that you were typing to RENE. I read
fine. I do know that deaf people tend to talk louder than normal people -
so maybe that's your problem?
>We were ALL beginners at one stage. The difference here is that when *I* was a
>beginner, I asked and learned. You, on the other hand, accuse, rant and rave.
I think it's very clear if I *do* accuse, rant and rave. Losing control there,
I see.
>My post was not wrong. This is the whole thing. If you knew what the hell you
>were doing, you would see that is the case. Obviously you dont know what you
>are doing, though.
Your post confused people. I didn't say it was wrong. Your post made it seem
like I was the person who didn't know Chows from China, and that's not true.
>As opposed to you who MAY have one but refuses to use it.
I use mine plenty. I question as to whether you have one or not. I notice you
didn't try to defend that.
>Cant think of anything ELSE to say when you are wrong and wont admit it?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>|Sydney, Australia. |
As you correctly surmised in another post - I am never wrong. - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <6260.7067...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>No - you were the ONLY one to be confused.
So says you. I was the only one who felt it necessary to express my concern that
others might be confused.
>Again, *I* addressed *MY* reply *TO* Renee, not you. *YOU* had *NO* idea how
>to *READ* a quoted reply so instead of asking/querying, you decided to shoot
>off your *BIG* *MOUTH* and instead of apologising for an obvious mistake, you
>feel foolisha nd are continuing this. That SHOWS stupidity on your part.
>Anyone else knowing a mistake has been made would apologise. Not you.
This is the first time you've conceded that you made your reply to *Rene*.
Interesting you now choose to spell the name the feminine way. Is that a typo
or are you hoping Rene is female?
>I call you stupid only because the shoe, which in your case is firmly planted
>in your MOUTH, *FITS*! The reasons I typed above clarify why.
The reasons you typed above show your level of maturity. The posts I've made
show the level of mine.
>You dont happen to have a clue, do you? I tell you what - when you find one,
>do yourself a favour and use it. What has Ms. Hanson to do with ANYTHING else
>in here? Trying to draw in someone of notoriety to "strengthen" a weak
>argument? You ought to be in politics yourself with that decidedly stupid
>attack. Of course, it is only MORE proof you KNOW you are wrong and wont admit
>to it, shutup or go away.
Oh, I wouldn't want to be in politics. Then I'll have to be pleasant to people
I think are not too bright. Ms. Hanson has nothing to do with dogs, but your
line of argument and style are very similar.
>If you dont know what the word means, look it up in your dictionary. Dont feel
>bad for not knowing much. Just admit to it!
Let me guess, you have no idea what I do for a living.
>Peopple DO know what is going on. You are making an increasing fool of
>yourself from an incorrect start. Your typings make you appear more a fool,
>simple as that. If a letter is addressed, in the reply-line as "Renee" having
>said this in the first place, then how could anyone who knows what they are
>doing on the net see it any other way? You DONT know what you are doing. That
>much is obvious. Instead of admitting your error and doing the right thing and
>apologising, you continue to be a twit about it. Admit it. Admit you are
>wrong. We wont hold that against you. What *IS* annoying is your continued
>defence of your position. That is just stupidity.
So why do you need to keep telling people how stupid you think they should think
I am? I don't tell them what to think. I find it strange you keep referring to
Rene as "Renee" after all that talk about Rene's gender. I wonder how Rene's
floor is doing with Rene ROTFL so hard.
>Not in the least. It started saying "Renee" but of course you didnt see that
>so as far as you are concerned, you are right. Of course you are NEVER wrong!
That's right. I'm never wrong. When I'm in doubt, I question.
>Would you now try to deny common sense?
No, I'm trying to deny you.
>You can prove differently?
I have. You, on the other hand, have not.
>Very strange, so why do you continue with your error, following it up with
>stupidity?
In your words - which, I might add, doesn't amount to much.
>The amount of posts you make only means the amount of blabber you can make. A
>wide person once said "God made us with 2 ears and 1 mouth. Take the hint and
>listen twice as much". That much wouldnt penetrate your "I am always right"
>attitude, would it?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>|Sydney, Australia. |
A "wide" person (HAHAHAHAHAH!) probably did, according to you. You, Rene
and ZenMAster should get together!!! Thank goodness for DejaNews!!!- Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <3370F5...@earthlink.com>, The says...
it is - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
scr...@scritto.com: If you look in DejaNews, it will be evident to everyone
Re...@ms1.hinet.net: I often type to fast.
scr...@scritto.com: How did you ever make it through (tee-hee) engineering
school if you type so fast you end up confusing the two??
scr...@scritto.com: He used his dogs for martial arts practice, and is so
proud of it he feels the need to keep re-telling his story. You feel it's fine
to kick a 90-pound woman. I'd like to see the two of you get together.
Re...@ms1.hinet.net: Where did I say that?
scr...@scritto.com: Again, it's archived in DejaNews.
Rene: Maybe they kill each other. But he will not kill them by lifting them
with his foot.
scr...@scritto.com: No, Rene, read ZenMaster and your own posts again. He kicks
his dogs with his foot. You lift yours by theirs.
Rene: quantum mechanics is part of physics.
scritto: And engineers don't learn physics. Right. *You're* an engineer. HA!
Rene: We also learn physics, only to a certain extent. But at least to kniw the difference
between lethally kicking a dog and lifting with a foot.
scritto: I think I speak for everybody, except maybe the ZenMaster, when I say
we're all pretty sure you *don't* appear to know the difference.
scritto: The side effects of violence is obvious and well-documented. What makes
you think other methods have side effects?
Rene: The side effects of medication also, only the records are kept more secret.
scritto: Again: The side effects of violence is obvious and well-documented -
and you continue to advocate using violence on your dogs.
scritto: A dog can better enjoy freedom without getting hurt if it was trained right.
I'm sure the woman Charlene met thought her dog would enjoy freedom without
a leash, too. Well, he sure is free now, at the Rainbow Bridge - and still his
owner will continue to not leash her new dog, waiting for another accident
to happen.
Rene: How can you be so sure about that? How can you be so sure that this
event did not change him?
scritto: "Him" the dog is changed all right. "Her" the owner, changed? You
haven't changed since we started this exchange. The ZenMaster hasn't changed.
What makes you think this woman who caused her dog's death will change?
See what happens to stupid owners? Pity the dogs - Michelle
Rene: Simple - her last dog is flat now
scritto: And that's how *she's* changed?
Rene: - my dog is happily jumping around me
scritto: Because at this moment, you're not pulling it up by its hind legs
or feeding it cat poop and cardboard?
Rene: - The ZENdogs are probably happy too
scritto: Because they've learnt from their master that violence is the best
way to get acquainted? Heaven help us if you really do become an engineer at
the end of this school year. I'll never drive a VW again! - Michelle
ZZendog
> It is my opinion that the vast majority of performing big cats and
> elephants live quiet lives of desperation full of abuse and tyranny from
> brutal little dictators with a show to put on. It makes me SICK.
:Michael, this is the first time I ever remember you using this phrase.
:Regardless whether I agree or disagree with your views, politics,
attitude
:or anything else, this one phrase shows that you aren't beyond hope.
Good
:for you.
:The phrase? "It is my opinion..."
Believe it or not, there are rare circumstances in this world, where I'm
not entirely sure I know what I'm talking about. I know that comes as a
shock to all my fans out there and I don't want you to lose faith in me,
but believe it or not, I am human (let's just keep that between ourselves
huh?) and since I have never actually seen Siegfried and Roy train lions
and tigers, I don't know how they do it, but I can't imagine that it's
much fun for the big guys.
Now, I have seen elephants trained and anyone with a brain knows that
circus elephants are brutalized, plain and simple when they are trained,
of this I'm sure.
:For once you have allowed for the possibility of (1) there being another
:opinion and (2) it, not yours, might be better, more informed, or
correct.
:Or not. But recognizing the possibility is a step in the right
direction.
But really folks, what happened was that someone from a circus lobby
dressed as the fat lady in drag, broke into my house and held a gun to my
head and forced me to type the line "It is my opinion" before that post.
I'm think I'm going to have to get some bigger dogs.
Michael T.
Zen Guerrilla Dog
Changing The Muzzle of Dog Training
NEW POWER MEDIA LINK!
http://members.aol.com/Skilllz/PowerMedia.html
http://members.aol.com/intreppid/Winning.html
Home page:
http://members.aol.com/ZZendog/ZenDogTest.html
scr...@scritto.com
In article <3372C2...@earthlink.com>, The says...
>
>scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>
>> He used his dogs for martial arts practice, and is so proud of it he feels
>> the need to keep re-telling his story. You feel it's fine to kick a 90-pound
>> woman. I'd like to see the two of you get together.
>
>you and beg forgiveness for preventing a vicious Chow from getting his
>ear completely ripped off. The next time he attacks the son of the
>CALLIE, the QUEEN of BITCHES, I will just step back and let her take
>care of him.
I think everyone except maybe Rene here is praying there won't be a next time.
>> If he continues with how he's handling his dogs, he will kill them one day.
>> I think you might kill yours as well.
>
>Yes, I now see the error of my ways and I repent. I now see that I was
>on a slippery slope to hell without a rope and that I am evil incarnate
>and I'm glad you caught me in time because there just might be hope for
>me yet.
Time will tell, won't it?
>> "Him" the dog is changed all right. "Her" the owner, changed? You haven't
>> changed sicne we started this exchange. The ZenMaster hasn't changed.
>> What makes you think this woman who caused her dog's death will change?
>> See what happens to stupid owners? Pity the dogs - Michelle
>
>Oh but I have changed Great Leader, and you, you have made me the better
>person that I am today and I am not worthy....
>
>Michael T.
>Kick Guerrilla Smack
>Punching the Muzzles of Puppies
>Until they listen
>http://www.kickdogs.com
>
>The chief difference between a man and a dog, is that if you pick up a
>dog out of the gutter and feed him, you can still kick him later, but a
>man will kick you back
>
> Mark Twaine
Have you really? Is that why you picked this phrase for your signature file?
'Cos you know you can use your dogs for martial arts practice as long as you
feed them? - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
>> the need to keep re-telling his story. You feel it's fine to kick a 90-pound
>> woman. I'd like to see the two of you get together.
>
>you and beg forgiveness for preventing a vicious Chow from getting his
>ear completely ripped off. The next time he attacks the son of the
>CALLIE, the QUEEN of BITCHES, I will just step back and let her take
>care of him.
I think everyone except maybe Rene here is praying there won't be a next time.
>> If he continues with how he's handling his dogs, he will kill them one day.
>> I think you might kill yours as well.
>
>Yes, I now see the error of my ways and I repent. I now see that I was
>on a slippery slope to hell without a rope and that I am evil incarnate
>and I'm glad you caught me in time because there just might be hope for
>me yet.
Time will tell, won't it?
>> "Him" the dog is changed all right. "Her" the owner, changed? You haven't
>> changed sicne we started this exchange. The ZenMaster hasn't changed.
>> What makes you think this woman who caused her dog's death will change?
>> See what happens to stupid owners? Pity the dogs - Michelle
>
DogStar716
> The problem is, even when people correct you, you insist you are right.
Now
> there will be people out there who will use your advice that kicking a
> dog is okay, pulling it up by its hindlegs is fine, and dogs should not
> be leashed.
Hi Scritto,
You forgot letting your dog eat cardboard! :)
The ZenMaster
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> He used his dogs for martial arts practice, and is so proud of it he feels
> the need to keep re-telling his story. You feel it's fine to kick a 90-pound
> woman. I'd like to see the two of you get together.
Oh great leader of the Bleeding Hearts (and Minds), I bow down before
you and beg forgiveness for preventing a vicious Chow from getting his
ear completely ripped off. The next time he attacks the son of the
CALLIE, the QUEEN of BITCHES, I will just step back and let her take
care of him.
> If he continues with how he's handling his dogs, he will kill them one day.
> I think you might kill yours as well.
Yes, I now see the error of my ways and I repent. I now see that I was
on a slippery slope to hell without a rope and that I am evil incarnate
and I'm glad you caught me in time because there just might be hope for
me yet.
> "Him" the dog is changed all right. "Her" the owner, changed? You haven't
> changed sicne we started this exchange. The ZenMaster hasn't changed.
> What makes you think this woman who caused her dog's death will change?
> See what happens to stupid owners? Pity the dogs - Michelle
Oh but I have changed Great Leader, and you, you have made me the better
scr...@scritto.com
In article <19970509195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, dogst...@aol.com says...
Yes, how could I?! - Michelle ;>
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5kvedr$m...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <3372C2...@earthlink.com>, The says...
>>
>>
>>Oh great leader of the Bleeding Hearts (and Minds), I bow down before
>>you and beg forgiveness for preventing a vicious Chow from getting his
>>ear completely ripped off. The next time he attacks the son of the
>>CALLIE, the QUEEN of BITCHES, I will just step back and let her take
>>care of him.
>
> I think everyone except maybe Rene here is praying there won't be a next time.
Of course I also hope there will be no next time. As I read in some other post
MeKim also receives training now, soon MeKim will be a meditating nice
little doggie and the whole problem is over.
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5l1ngf$a...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
No, it will not, because ZenMaster is still kicking Callie and you are still
feeding your dog(s) cat poop and cardboard and *recommending* it to other
people. - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <6262.707...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>
>
>On 09-May-97 09:13:58, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
>(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>>says...
>
>>>No - you were the ONLY one to be confused.
>
>>So says you. I was the only one who felt it necessary to express my concern
>>that others might be confused.
>
I doubt I'm the only one who failed to see the relevance of four words above
to the rest of the exchange.
>>>Again, *I* addressed *MY* reply *TO* Renee, not you. *YOU* had *NO* idea how
>>>to *READ* a quoted reply so instead of asking/querying, you decided to shoot
>>>off your *BIG* *MOUTH* and instead of apologising for an obvious mistake,
>>>you feel foolisha nd are continuing this. That SHOWS stupidity on your part.
>>>Anyone else knowing a mistake has been made would apologise. Not you.
>
>>This is the first time you've conceded that you made your reply to *Rene*.
>
>LIAR! I have said it at LEAST 3 times yet in your bloody-minded way, you
>obviously didnt see it. Calm down, READ and then you wont make a fool of
>yourself over something like this when it is so easily avoided.
Sorry. I looked in DejaNews, and you said at least three times that *other
people* would have read that you made your reply to "Rene." Seeing how your
greatness appears to exist in only your own mind, I doubt you have the ability
to read other people's, so why don't you try not speaking for them?
>>Interesting you now choose to spell the name the feminine way. Is that a typo
>> or are you hoping Rene is female?
>
>Of what POSSIBLE use is this question? Nothing to do with the topic of this
>area or your current incorrect assertions. Nothing better to say, so say
>something anyway? That it?
No. I was pointing out that your interest in barging in on the exchange between
Rene and me stemmed from your belief that "Rene" is a very *petite* German
female. Nothing wrong with that. People meet people all the time on the Web,
and sometimes they get wed ...
>>>I call you stupid only because the shoe, which in your case is firmly
>>>planted in your MOUTH, *FITS*! The reasons I typed above clarify why.
>
>>The reasons you typed above show your level of maturity. The posts I've made
>>show the level of mine.
>
>Exactly. A fool posts in the wrong and shown proof, continues to argue they
>are right. A fool is generally immature. I am glad you have finally agreed.
I agree that a fool (your favourite word) is generally immature. However, I
don't think you're a fool or that your posts shows you to be one. I think
(and your posts suggest) that you are a lonely little latchkey kid, not unlike
what Rene's posts show Rene up to be.
>>>You dont happen to have a clue, do you? I tell you what - when you find one,
>>>do yourself a favour and use it. What has Ms. Hanson to do with ANYTHING
>>>else in here? Trying to draw in someone of notoriety to "strengthen" a weak
>>>argument? You ought to be in politics yourself with that decidedly stupid
>>>attack. Of course, it is only MORE proof you KNOW you are wrong and wont
>>>admit to it, shutup or go away.
>
>>Oh, I wouldn't want to be in politics. Then I'll have to be pleasant to
>>people I think are not too bright. Ms. Hanson has nothing to do with dogs,
>
>Obviously, from the tone of your letters to anyone you disagree with, you
>think everyone but yourself not too bright. Isnt it amazing that YOU are the
>only GENIOUS in the world?
You said it, not me. ZenMaster knows I'm Ms. Mensa. He said it, not me.
>>but your line of argument and style are very similar.
>
>As opposed to what? At least, in my case, I had a valid argument. You argue
>over NOTHING.
What's your argument? I must have missed it while lost in awe at your
expansive vocabulary.
>>>If you dont know what the word means, look it up in your dictionary. Dont
>>>feel bad for not knowing much. Just admit to it!
>
>>Let me guess, you have no idea what I do for a living.
>
>Let ME guess - you think I care?
Maybe you should, if you want to direct your attacks to my English.
>>>Peopple DO know what is going on. You are making an increasing fool of
>>>yourself from an incorrect start. Your typings make you appear more a fool,
>>>simple as that. If a letter is addressed, in the reply-line as "Renee"
>>>having said this in the first place, then how could anyone who knows what
>>>they are doing on the net see it any other way? You DONT know what you are
>>>doing. That much is obvious. Instead of admitting your error and doing the
>>>right thing and apologising, you continue to be a twit about it. Admit it.
>>>Admit you are wrong. We wont hold that against you. What *IS* annoying is
>>>your continued defence of your position. That is just stupidity.
>
>>So why do you need to keep telling people how stupid you think they should
>>think I am? I don't tell them what to think. I find it strange you keep
>
>Why do you need to keep telling anybody you correspond with how stupid THEY
>are?
Because smart people don't need to be told.
>>referring to Rene as "Renee" after all that talk about Rene's gender. I
>>wonder how Rene's floor is doing with Rene ROTFL so hard.
>
>I find it strange you think that it matters at all but then small things amuse
>small minds.
I'm not so interested in Rene's gender that I would bother to spell it "Renee"
when told that was the feminine version. (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)
>>>Not in the least. It started saying "Renee" but of course you didnt see that
>>>so as far as you are concerned, you are right. Of course you are NEVER
>>>wrong!
>
>>That's right. I'm never wrong. When I'm in doubt, I question.
>
>No, when you're in doubt, you accuse, bitch, scream and shout!
And you would hear that all the way in Australia.
>>>Would you now try to deny common sense?
>
>>No, I'm trying to deny you.
>
>The you ADMIT to denying common sense?
You are not common sense. Common - yes, especially on Usenet. Sense? HAHAHAHAHA!
>>>You can prove differently?
>
>>I have. You, on the other hand, have not.
>
>You have proven only the foolishness of your stance whereas on the other hand,
>I dont need to prove what is obvious and that is - you are wrong and still
>argue about it.
I am not arguing. Wise men discuss. I am exchanging posts with someone not
very wise. It's unfair competition, but nonetheless, the Greg persists.
>>>Very strange, so why do you continue with your error, following it up with
>>>stupidity?
>
>>In your words - which, I might add, doesn't amount to much.
>
>Obviously it amounts to more than YOU will ever match.
Your words will amount to more than mine? Again, in your own mind.
>>>The amount of posts you make only means the amount of blabber you can make.
>>>A wide person once said "God made us with 2 ears and 1 mouth. Take the hint
>>>and listen twice as much". That much wouldnt penetrate your "I am always
>>>right" attitude, would it?
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>>>|Sydney, Australia. |
>
>>A "wide" person (HAHAHAHAHAH!) probably did, according to you. You, Rene
>>and ZenMAster should get together!!! Thank goodness for DejaNews!!!- Michelle
>
>Thanks goodness for fools like you. Without you, the rest of the world wouldnt
>know how well off they REALLY are.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>|Sydney, Australia. |
Oh, I think the world knows how well off they are.
*You* don't seem to - Michelle
gregh
On 09-May-97 09:13:58, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>In article <6260.7067...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>No - you were the ONLY one to be confused.
>So says you. I was the only one who felt it necessary to express my concern
>that others might be confused.
No - so it WAS!
>>Again, *I* addressed *MY* reply *TO* Renee, not you. *YOU* had *NO* idea how
>>to *READ* a quoted reply so instead of asking/querying, you decided to shoot
>>off your *BIG* *MOUTH* and instead of apologising for an obvious mistake,
>>you feel foolisha nd are continuing this. That SHOWS stupidity on your part.
>>Anyone else knowing a mistake has been made would apologise. Not you.
>This is the first time you've conceded that you made your reply to *Rene*.
LIAR! I have said it at LEAST 3 times yet in your bloody-minded way, you
obviously didnt see it. Calm down, READ and then you wont make a fool of
yourself over something like this when it is so easily avoided.
>Interesting you now choose to spell the name the feminine way. Is that a typo
> or are you hoping Rene is female?
Of what POSSIBLE use is this question? Nothing to do with the topic of this
area or your current incorrect assertions. Nothing better to say, so say
something anyway? That it?
>>I call you stupid only because the shoe, which in your case is firmly
>>planted in your MOUTH, *FITS*! The reasons I typed above clarify why.
>The reasons you typed above show your level of maturity. The posts I've made
>show the level of mine.
Exactly. A fool posts in the wrong and shown proof, continues to argue they
are right. A fool is generally immature. I am glad you have finally agreed.
>>You dont happen to have a clue, do you? I tell you what - when you find one,
>>do yourself a favour and use it. What has Ms. Hanson to do with ANYTHING
>>else in here? Trying to draw in someone of notoriety to "strengthen" a weak
>>argument? You ought to be in politics yourself with that decidedly stupid
>>attack. Of course, it is only MORE proof you KNOW you are wrong and wont
>>admit to it, shutup or go away.
>Oh, I wouldn't want to be in politics. Then I'll have to be pleasant to
>people I think are not too bright. Ms. Hanson has nothing to do with dogs,
Obviously, from the tone of your letters to anyone you disagree with, you
think everyone but yourself not too bright. Isnt it amazing that YOU are the
only GENIOUS in the world?
>but your line of argument and style are very similar.
As opposed to what? At least, in my case, I had a valid argument. You argue
over NOTHING.
>>If you dont know what the word means, look it up in your dictionary. Dont
>>feel bad for not knowing much. Just admit to it!
>Let me guess, you have no idea what I do for a living.
Let ME guess - you think I care?
>>Peopple DO know what is going on. You are making an increasing fool of
>>yourself from an incorrect start. Your typings make you appear more a fool,
>>simple as that. If a letter is addressed, in the reply-line as "Renee"
>>having said this in the first place, then how could anyone who knows what
>>they are doing on the net see it any other way? You DONT know what you are
>>doing. That much is obvious. Instead of admitting your error and doing the
>>right thing and apologising, you continue to be a twit about it. Admit it.
>>Admit you are wrong. We wont hold that against you. What *IS* annoying is
>>your continued defence of your position. That is just stupidity.
>So why do you need to keep telling people how stupid you think they should
>think I am? I don't tell them what to think. I find it strange you keep
Why do you need to keep telling anybody you correspond with how stupid THEY
are?
>referring to Rene as "Renee" after all that talk about Rene's gender. I
>wonder how Rene's floor is doing with Rene ROTFL so hard.
I find it strange you think that it matters at all but then small things amuse
small minds.
>>Not in the least. It started saying "Renee" but of course you didnt see that
>>so as far as you are concerned, you are right. Of course you are NEVER
>>wrong!
>That's right. I'm never wrong. When I'm in doubt, I question.
No, when you're in doubt, you accuse, bitch, scream and shout!
>>Would you now try to deny common sense?
>No, I'm trying to deny you.
The you ADMIT to denying common sense?
>>You can prove differently?
>I have. You, on the other hand, have not.
You have proven only the foolishness of your stance whereas on the other hand,
I dont need to prove what is obvious and that is - you are wrong and still
argue about it.
>>Very strange, so why do you continue with your error, following it up with
>>stupidity?
>In your words - which, I might add, doesn't amount to much.
Obviously it amounts to more than YOU will ever match.
>>The amount of posts you make only means the amount of blabber you can make.
>>A wide person once said "God made us with 2 ears and 1 mouth. Take the hint
>>and listen twice as much". That much wouldnt penetrate your "I am always
>>right" attitude, would it?
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>>|Sydney, Australia. |
>A "wide" person (HAHAHAHAHAH!) probably did, according to you. You, Rene
>and ZenMAster should get together!!! Thank goodness for DejaNews!!!- Michelle
Thanks goodness for fools like you. Without you, the rest of the world wouldnt
know how well off they REALLY are.
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5l2726$b...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
1) Do you really think the ZenMaster kicks Callie on a regular basis? Or does
he just want to tease you all a little bit by just writing about that?
2) I have 1 dog only.
3) I have no cats, so it would take quite some effort to get some cat poop
to feed my dog. My questions rather had the intention to find out what
the problems are, if the dog eats cat poop by chance.
4) Again I have to apologize that my dog is too intelligent to be compared
to other dogs, so sometimes the advice I give does not fit your or
other doofus dogs.
My dog can distinguish between cardbords (which are for playing) and
Food (which is for eating)
If your dog can not distinguish those two items, then we have here a
serious case of eating disorder, that should of course be addressed
before exposing the dog to card board.
DogStar716
Zenmaster wrote:
>Thank you for stepping forward and as the great leader of the Third
>Wave, you have emerged victorious in a close battle with LabLover, so I
>hereby christen you as the great leader of the Bleeding Hearts, the
>third camp to oppose me.
>Koehlerites--force only, no food (great leader David Dikeman)
>Psychologists--drugs and conditioning, i.e. "fooling" (Led by Dr.
>Dodson)
>Bleeding Hearts--no force, only love and kisses (Led by Michelle
>scritto@scritto)
>
>The Great Triumvirate house of superficial cards that is falling to the
>relentless tides and rhythms of the ZenMaster's supernatural advance.
>
>Michael T.
>Zen Guerrilla Dog
I think he's losing it, folks! Every post gets stranger and stranger!
The ZenMaster
Hey, thanks for flooding my email box with five hundred forty or so
copies of that tribute to Callie, you did a real nice job, but I still
can't give you any advice because you were supposed to do it in the
newsgroups.
Michael T.
Zen Guerrilla Dog
Changing The Muzzle of Dog Everything
http://members.aol.com/ZZendog/ZenDogTest.html
NEW FEATURE!
http://members.aol.com/Skilllz/PowerMedia.html
--
邢 唷��
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5l46v9$d...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>1) Do you really think the ZenMaster kicks Callie on a regular basis? Or does
> he just want to tease you all a little bit by just writing about that?
Cruelty to animals is not funny. Nobody other than you is laughing.
>2) I have 1 dog only.
One dog abused is too many.
>3) I have no cats, so it would take quite some effort to get some cat poop
> to feed my dog. My questions rather had the intention to find out what
> the problems are, if the dog eats cat poop by chance.
That's not what everybody read. Again, another example to support responsible
posting.
>4) Again I have to apologize that my dog is too intelligent to be compared
> to other dogs, so sometimes the advice I give does not fit your or
> other doofus dogs.
> My dog can distinguish between cardbords (which are for playing) and
> Food (which is for eating)
> If your dog can not distinguish those two items, then we have here a
> serious case of eating disorder, that should of course be addressed
> before exposing the dog to card board.
I said nothing about the intelligence of my dogs. In your case, however, I
am not surprised if he is more intelligent than you - it doesn't take much.
You are not qualified to give advice on dogs, doofus or otherwise. Please,
don't. - Michelle
dogsnus
Re...@ms1.hinet.net wrote:
> 4) Again I have to apologize that my dog is too intelligent to be compared
> to other dogs, so sometimes the advice I give does not fit your or
> other doofus dogs.
is using now.
Go away Rene, far, far away.
Terri
dogsnus
DogStar716 wrote:
> I think he's losing it, folks! Every post gets stranger and stranger!
Yeah, but you've got to admit, it gets easier and easier just to mark
"thread read". End of that !
Terri
gregh
On 09-May-97 09:21:58, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>In article <3486.7067...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>Most definitely and you obviously have a LOT of that to do. The problem is
>>that NOWHERE do you apologise for your mistake but continue to attack in
>>defence of your erroneous position. Grow UP!
>And what erroneous position is that, pray?
I addressed my original letter to rene. You cant see that.
>>Funny that because what I typed was TO Renee and it CLEARLY said so. You
>>said it above. Your inability to read a quote for what it is, is your WHOLE
>>problem. Learn to read properly, admit you are wrong and apologise for your
>>mistakes and you have a chance of growing up. YOU were caught out in your
>>own stupidity! Dont come onto the net accusing people of doing something
>>wrong just because you have no idea HOW to handle things on the net. LEARN
>>it, then speak from experience instead of ACCUSING and speaking from
>>STUPIDITY.
>I said what you type to RENE was not clear that you were typing to RENE. I
>read fine. I do know that deaf people tend to talk louder than normal people
>- so maybe that's your problem?
It was only UNCLEAR to YOU. I told you that it was addressed TO rene and
anyone reading it could see that.
>>We were ALL beginners at one stage. The difference here is that when *I* was
>>a beginner, I asked and learned. You, on the other hand, accuse, rant and
>>rave.
>I think it's very clear if I *do* accuse, rant and rave. Losing control
>there, I see.
It isnt I doing the ranting and raving so accusing me of it in this instance
is only mirroring your own position onto someone else. I believe psychiatrists
love people who do that!
>>My post was not wrong. This is the whole thing. If you knew what the hell
>>you were doing, you would see that is the case. Obviously you dont know what
>>you are doing, though.
>Your post confused people. I didn't say it was wrong. Your post made it seem
>like I was the person who didn't know Chows from China, and that's not true.
Nope. It confused YOU, not "people". It was quite plain to see what was
meant by me, to anyone knowing what they are doing with the net. You dont, so
it was unclear to YOU.
>>As opposed to you who MAY have one but refuses to use it.
>I use mine plenty. I question as to whether you have one or not. I notice you
>didn't try to defend that.
You are th eone making claims.
>>Cant think of anything ELSE to say when you are wrong and wont admit it?
>As you correctly surmised in another post - I am never wrong. - Michelle
Nothing like a good attitude and that reply from you was NOTHING like a good
attitude!
gregh
On 11-May-97 02:14:16, scritto assaulted me about OFF-TOPIC [Re: CLARIFICATION
(Was:Re: (Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))]
>In article <6262.707...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>
>>
>>On 09-May-97 09:13:58, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
>>(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>>>In article <6260.7067...@hartingdale.com.au>,
>>>gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>>
>>>>No - you were the ONLY one to be confused.
>>
>>>So says you. I was the only one who felt it necessary to express my concern
>>>that others might be confused.
>>
>>No - so it WAS!
>I doubt I'm the only one who failed to see the relevance of four words above
>to the rest of the exchange.
I doubt you have the comprehension of how the net works to doubt ANYTHING to
be honest, but that doesnt stop you sticking your bib in, proving yourself
wrong and like an idiot, continuing to argue you are right no matter HOW much
proof you read.
>>>>Again, *I* addressed *MY* reply *TO* Renee, not you. *YOU* had *NO* idea
>>>>how to *READ* a quoted reply so instead of asking/querying, you decided to
>>>>shoot off your *BIG* *MOUTH* and instead of apologising for an obvious
>>>>mistake, you feel foolisha nd are continuing this. That SHOWS stupidity on
>>>>your part. Anyone else knowing a mistake has been made would apologise.
>>>>Not you.
>>
>>>This is the first time you've conceded that you made your reply to *Rene*.
>>
>>LIAR! I have said it at LEAST 3 times yet in your bloody-minded way, you
>>obviously didnt see it. Calm down, READ and then you wont make a fool of
>>yourself over something like this when it is so easily avoided.
>Sorry. I looked in DejaNews, and you said at least three times that *other
>people* would have read that you made your reply to "Rene." Seeing how your
>greatness appears to exist in only your own mind, I doubt you have the
>ability to read other people's, so why don't you try not speaking for them?
The incredible thing is that when you first came up with your stupidity, you
quoted the whole letter to me, including what I had quoted to rene and it
SHOWED you to be wrong. In case I accidentally chopped out the reply-line
showing who it went to, I carefully checked what you typed and I was right -
YOU were wrong. I pointed out to you that if a letter starts saying Rene's
name in the reply-line, you HAVE to know, if you have any idea what you are
doing on the net, that it is not meant to be addressed to anyone BUT rene
though it is open for anyone to read. You have, since that, denied the obvious
all the time. This proves you are an argumentative twit without a clue,
hellbent on just making a nuisance of yourself. Do yourself a favour - become
conversant with how things work on the net before making your erroneous
claims. Your only claim to FAME so far is your ineptitude with the net and
your readiness to argue to the DEATH, inthe face of proof. Such people - and
that IS you - are taken by many people as being totally worthless on ANY point
of view. If you HOPE to be taken seriously, endeavour to try and find out how
things you use actually work.
>>>Interesting you now choose to spell the name the feminine way. Is that a
>>>typo
>>> or are you hoping Rene is female?
>>
>>Of what POSSIBLE use is this question? Nothing to do with the topic of this
>>area or your current incorrect assertions. Nothing better to say, so say
>>something anyway? That it?
>No. I was pointing out that your interest in barging in on the exchange
>between Rene and me stemmed from your belief that "Rene" is a very *petite*
>German female. Nothing wrong with that. People meet people all the time on
>the Web, and sometimes they get wed ...
What has that to do with this area or your assertions?
As to BARGING IN, there AGAIN, you dont understand how NEWS works and PROVE
it. If you want a conversation that no-one is SUPPOSED to barge in on, use
EMAIL. News is open to ANYONE to read and comment on. If you dont know THAT
much, you dont have a clue what you are doing on the net.
>>>>I call you stupid only because the shoe, which in your case is firmly
>>>>planted in your MOUTH, *FITS*! The reasons I typed above clarify why.
>>
>>>The reasons you typed above show your level of maturity. The posts I've
>>>made show the level of mine.
>>
>>Exactly. A fool posts in the wrong and shown proof, continues to argue they
>>are right. A fool is generally immature. I am glad you have finally agreed.
>I agree that a fool (your favourite word) is generally immature. However, I
Ahhh so you finally agree you are a fool! Good! We agree on SOMETHING!
>don't think you're a fool or that your posts shows you to be one. I think
Your posts show you ARE one, however. You proved back then that you have no
clue how the prog ou use works on the net and you have proven it again in this
letter yet, in the face of proof which you obviously dont have the knowledge
to interpret, you argue you are right! THAT is a FOOL! When people start on
the net, they usually try and find out how things work. You have proven you
havent yet you argue you are right! Incredible!
>(and your posts suggest) that you are a lonely little latchkey kid, not
>unlike what Rene's posts show Rene up to be.
Ahhh! Everyone you disagree with is in that category except - wonder of
wonders - you! Amazing! Your ability to show up your own shortcomings is only
surpassed by your inability to understand the medium you choose to use yet
still argue you are right, though you have been shown proof many times that
you are wrong! Ever wonder why everyone you disagree with is in that category
you made up but you arent?
>>>>You dont happen to have a clue, do you? I tell you what - when you find
>>>>one, do yourself a favour and use it. What has Ms. Hanson to do with
>>>>ANYTHING else in here? Trying to draw in someone of notoriety to
>>>>"strengthen" a weak argument? You ought to be in politics yourself with
>>>>that decidedly stupid attack. Of course, it is only MORE proof you KNOW
>>>>you are wrong and wont admit to it, shutup or go away.
>>
>>>Oh, I wouldn't want to be in politics. Then I'll have to be pleasant to
>>>people I think are not too bright. Ms. Hanson has nothing to do with dogs,
>>
>>Obviously, from the tone of your letters to anyone you disagree with, you
>>think everyone but yourself not too bright. Isnt it amazing that YOU are the
>>only GENIOUS in the world?
>You said it, not me. ZenMaster knows I'm Ms. Mensa. He said it, not me.
AHHH! You think you are a genious... and there we have it! Nothing like having
a "superiority complex" is there? Now I *KNOW* why only YOU in thew WHOLE
WORLD are ever RIGHT and everybody else is wrong! Thank you for that
clarification!
>>>but your line of argument and style are very similar.
>>
>>As opposed to what? At least, in my case, I had a valid argument. You argue
>>over NOTHING.
>What's your argument? I must have missed it while lost in awe at your
>expansive vocabulary.
That you dont know what you are doing on the net and argue from the wrong
perspective, always showing yourself up for a fool though proof that you are
wrong has been shown to you many times. I addressed to "rene" (however you
want to spell it) yet you cant see how that is done and therefore accuse
instead of trying to learn. Did it ever occur to you that there is a CHANCE
you are wrong and have a look WHY? Nope.
>>>>If you dont know what the word means, look it up in your dictionary. Dont
>>>>feel bad for not knowing much. Just admit to it!
>>
>>>Let me guess, you have no idea what I do for a living.
>>
>>Let ME guess - you think I care?
>Maybe you should, if you want to direct your attacks to my English.
Your own proof on your ability to understand the net is enough. Use the net?
Understanding of it is needed, too.
>>>>Peopple DO know what is going on. You are making an increasing fool of
>>>>yourself from an incorrect start. Your typings make you appear more a
>>>>fool, simple as that. If a letter is addressed, in the reply-line as
>>>>"Renee" having said this in the first place, then how could anyone who
>>>>knows what they are doing on the net see it any other way? You DONT know
>>>>what you are doing. That much is obvious. Instead of admitting your error
>>>>and doing the right thing and apologising, you continue to be a twit about
>>>>it. Admit it. Admit you are wrong. We wont hold that against you. What
>>>>*IS* annoying is your continued defence of your position. That is just
>>>>stupidity.
>>
>>>So why do you need to keep telling people how stupid you think they should
>>>think I am? I don't tell them what to think. I find it strange you keep
>>
>>Why do you need to keep telling anybody you correspond with how stupid THEY
>>are?
>Because smart people don't need to be told.
You prove THAT premise to be false. You claim to be smart and keep needing to
be told!
>>>referring to Rene as "Renee" after all that talk about Rene's gender. I
>>>wonder how Rene's floor is doing with Rene ROTFL so hard.
>>
>>I find it strange you think that it matters at all but then small things
>>amuse small minds.
>I'm not so interested in Rene's gender that I would bother to spell it
>"Renee" when told that was the feminine version. (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)
I'm not interested in the spelling of it at all, other than to get the point
across that I didnt address that initial letter to you in the first place. YOU
seem to be the one with the fetish about it, having brought it all up.
>>>>Not in the least. It started saying "Renee" but of course you didnt see
>>>>that so as far as you are concerned, you are right. Of course you are
>>>>NEVER wrong!
>>
>>>That's right. I'm never wrong. When I'm in doubt, I question.
>>
>>No, when you're in doubt, you accuse, bitch, scream and shout!
>And you would hear that all the way in Australia.
....with YOUR attitude, I am sure they hear it out near Orion!
>>>>Would you now try to deny common sense?
>>
>>>No, I'm trying to deny you.
>>
>>The you ADMIT to denying common sense?
>You are not common sense. Common - yes, especially on Usenet. Sense?
>HAHAHAHAHA!
If you cant see that common sense can exist anywhere, then as the Yanks say "3
strikes and you are OUT!". That is the 3rd time you have said something
foolish.
>>>>You can prove differently?
>>
>>>I have. You, on the other hand, have not.
>>
>>You have proven only the foolishness of your stance whereas on the other
>>hand, I dont need to prove what is obvious and that is - you are wrong and
>>still argue about it.
>I am not arguing. Wise men discuss. I am exchanging posts with someone not
>very wise. It's unfair competition, but nonetheless, the Greg persists.
I see. I am not very wise, you are a genious. That PROVES the case, doesnt it?
You ARE arguing, however. If you had a clue how to use the net, you would
realise you were wrong. Anything after that IS arguing.
>>>>Very strange, so why do you continue with your error, following it up with
>>>>stupidity?
>>
>>>In your words - which, I might add, doesn't amount to much.
>>
>>Obviously it amounts to more than YOU will ever match.
>Your words will amount to more than mine? Again, in your own mind.
...only because YOU think you are a genious - a premise only supported by your
own statement.
>>>>The amount of posts you make only means the amount of blabber you can
>>>>make. A wide person once said "God made us with 2 ears and 1 mouth. Take
>>>>the hint and listen twice as much". That much wouldnt penetrate your "I am
>>>>always right" attitude, would it?
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>>>>|Sydney, Australia. |
>>
>>>A "wide" person (HAHAHAHAHAH!) probably did, according to you. You, Rene
>>>and ZenMAster should get together!!! Thank goodness for DejaNews!!!-
>>>Michelle
>>
>>Thanks goodness for fools like you. Without you, the rest of the world
>>wouldnt know how well off they REALLY are.
>Oh, I think the world knows how well off they are.
>*You* don't seem to - Michelle
There again, foolishness number 4. You think the world knows how well off it
is. I would hate to be your ISP if you have emailed every person in the world
and gotten a reply. Amazing they all think they are well off and not one
thought the opposite. That means that all those people with varying sicknesses
and suffering injustices are all WHINGERS from YOUR POV. Amazing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
|Sydney, Australia. |
| |
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
In article <5l55oc$s...@drn.zippo.com>
scr...@scritto.com wrote:
> In article <5l46v9$d...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>>1) Do you really think the ZenMaster kicks Callie on a regular basis? Or does
>> he just want to tease you all a little bit by just writing about that?
> Cruelty to animals is not funny. Nobody other than you is laughing.
Do you think he will kick Callie in a way that it will cause pain? If so,
would he hesitate to cut her nails as outlined in another post?
>
>
>
>>3) I have no cats, so it would take quite some effort to get some cat poop
>> to feed my dog. My questions rather had the intention to find out what
>> the problems are, if the dog eats cat poop by chance.
>
> That's not what everybody read. Again, another example to support responsible
> posting.
So far, nobody clearly told me what is the problem with feeding cat poop to the
dog, maybe you can give a clear answer.
I think the aesthetic problem becomes immediately clear when the cat poop is
heated in the microwave, so what about responsible posting?
>
>>4) Again I have to apologize that my dog is too intelligent to be compared
>> to other dogs, so sometimes the advice I give does not fit your or
>> other doofus dogs.
>> My dog can distinguish between cardbords (which are for playing) and
>> Food (which is for eating)
>> If your dog can not distinguish those two items, then we have here a
>> serious case of eating disorder, that should of course be addressed
>> before exposing the dog to card board.
>
> I said nothing about the intelligence of my dogs. In your case, however, I
> am not surprised if he is more intelligent than you - it doesn't take much.
Both of us don't eat card board !
> You are not qualified to give advice on dogs, doofus or otherwise. Please,
> don't. - Michelle
What qualifies you?
DogStar716
dogsnus <Te...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>Yeah, but you've got to admit, it gets easier and easier just to mark
>"thread read". End of that !
>Terri
I know, you are right, I'm sure it's just a phase for me, it will pass...
Katie
Greg,
I believe this is the beginning of your original article:
On 29-Apr-97 22:01:53, Rene assaulted me about (Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts
someone in doghouse)
>Michelle said:
>I think we were talking about dogs, and
>the dog we were talking about here is a Chow, and now I remember
>somewhere I read they were bred to be Chinese war dogs.
Nope. They were bred to be food, guards and pets in the royal Chinese
households. No doubt some people DID use them some of them in war at sometime
but they arent an aggressive dog so breeding for WAR really seems silly to me.
<End of Greg text / Katie's snipperoni>
NOTICE the "Michelle said:" and IMMEDIATELY following this "I think we were
talking about dogs, and the dog we were talking about here is a Chow, and now
I remember somewhere I read they were bred to be Chinese war dogs."
I don't care if your attribute above the words MICHELLE SAID:, include "Rene
assaulted me"....it doesn't matter. The MICHELLE SAID: ruins that attribute.
Get over it, you were wrong, Greg.
Now, can everyone just drop it??!? I'm sure no one cares and I'm even more
certain that no one is listening anymore.
Take it to email if you feel the need to....killfile each other if you need
to. Believe me, this is just making both of you look more and more foolish.
Katie
~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=
Proud mom of Indigo Princess and Abby Normal
kati...@hotmail.com
~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=
Scritto
Re...@ms1.hinet.net wrote:
> Do you think he will kick Callie in a way that it will cause pain? If so,
> would he hesitate to cut her nails as outlined in another post?
He has written that he kicks his dogs. I know of no way anyone can kick
a living thing and not cause it pain. Since I don't know the ZenMaster,
I can only go by what he posts. I wouldn't know if he would hesitate to
cause his dogs pain in any other way.
I think I've addressed your other concerns in another post - Michelle
--
Kevin Traster and Michelle Lee
Pen, Paper & Mouse, Ink.
scr...@scritto.com
A detailed description of our services and pricing can be found at
http://scritto.com
scr...@scritto.com
In article <3377FF...@earthlink.com>, The says...
>
>Scritto wrote:
>>
>> Re...@ms1.hinet.net wrote:
>>
>> > Do you think he will kick Callie in a way that it will cause pain? If so,
>> > would he hesitate to cut her nails as outlined in another post?
>>
>> He has written that he kicks his dogs.
>
>
>No I haven't written that I kick MY dogs. On one occasion I kicked
>someone else's untrained vicious Chow who was attacking MY Chazz, and
>who was about to get Attacked himself by MY Callie if I didn't stop his
>forward progress immediately. Got that clear now? And no, I didn't
>hurt him at all. Got that? No, you'll never get it, but at least my
>fingers can get a good workout typing it OVER AND OVER to you.
If dogs could talk ...
> I know of no way anyone can kick
>> a living thing and not cause it pain. Since I don't know the ZenMaster,
>> I can only go by what he posts. I wouldn't know if he would hesitate to
>> cause his dogs pain in any other way.
>
>Except for the electric cattle prod I use on them when they don't finish
>their dinner or when they don't sit straight, and the baseball bat when
>they drool on the carpet, but other than that, I don't cause them any
>pain.
>
>Michael T.
Ah, but you do, you've written - Michelle
LabLover
Re...@ms1.hinet.net wrote in article <5lcen1$2...@netnews.hinet.net>...
> In article <5l7f73$a...@drn.zippo.com>
> scr...@scritto.com wrote:
>
> > In article <5l70jm$e...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
> >
<<<HUGE SNIP OF STUFF >>>
> > After all, the dog was just given to you. You're not a
> > real dog lover at all.
>
> But the dog loves me.
>
> >
> >>> You are not qualified to give advice on dogs, doofus or otherwise.
Please,
> >>> don't. - Michelle
> >>What qualifies you?
> >
> > I, unlike you, love dogs and would never hurt them through stupidity or
> > otherwise. - Michelle
>
> Loving dogs does not prevent stupidity (Seen from the logic point of
view)
>
> Stupidity doesn't matter if the dog is clever enough.
This has GOT to be one of the most idiotic things I've seen out here.
Rene, you and ZenMoron are two of a kind. And you will probably think
that's a compliment... How sad.
Honestly, why do you have a dog? You don't really seem to care about the
dog. You don't seem to really care how the dog is treated (the whole
hanging by the legs and cardboard thing). ZenMoron's problem is his ego.
Yours just seems to be ignorance. It just seems unbelievable that you
really *are* that ignorant. Amazing.
Michelle, Cassie the Lab (aka LittleOne) and JakeyBuddy the GSDx
Katie
In article <5l7pg7$n...@drn.zippo.com>, scr...@scritto.com wrote:
<snip of my post>
>Thanks, Katie, for your post - I think I'm past that point. Now I'm
>interested in seeing if Gregh has anything new to say. He won't killfile me
>and I think killfiling him is too easy. It'd be all right with me if you
>killfiled me, though - Michelle
Nahhh.....I'll just do what everyone else probably did...kill the thread. ;-)
And he doesn't have anything new to say......
In article <2865.7073...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
wrote:
>I am also sick of people with snotty attitudes bagging ME when they made the
>mistake in the first place. I didnt originally post to Michelle but she took
>it as I did because, like you, she cant read a quote properly.
His quoting was confusing....he snipped badly. But, obviously he's far too
defensive to ever get that point. Ah well, I'm off to peruse the
groups.....and don't worry, Greg, I'll try to not make *too* many mistakes.
Katie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kati...@SPAM.hotmail.com
kati...@SPAM.aol.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re...@ms1.hinet.net
> In article <5l70jm$e...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>
>>So far, nobody clearly told me what is the problem with feeding cat poop to the
>>dog, maybe you can give a clear answer.
>>I think the aesthetic problem becomes immediately clear when the cat poop is
>>heated in the microwave, so what about responsible posting?
>
> Again, *Engineer*, why don't *you* eat the cat poop, since it's so
> full of protein,
Michelle, get a mirror, put it in front of you and your dog and you see:
Dogs and humans are different! (Surprise for you!)
I already eat French soft cheese (Camembert), that is also full of proteins
and stinks. A dog's preference is wider, thats it.
>and "the aesthetic problem becomes immediately clear when
> the cat poop is heated in the microwave"? What about responsible posting?
> We're still trying to get that across to you. In fact, maybe if we kept
We?? I think its only you.
> you busy enough with this thread, you won't have so much time to sprout
> nonsense in other threads.
There is a lot of nonsense in many other threads, too. Do you keep them all
busy?
Strange this rec.pets.dogs.behaviour group sometimes rather looks like a
rec.humans.behaviour group.
>
>
>>Both of us don't eat card board !
>
> Of course, you won't eat cardboard and cat poop - but what fun to
> experiment, huh? After all, the dog was just given to you. You're not a
Chris & MaryBeth
Re...@ms1.hinet.net wrote in article <5lcen1$2...@netnews.hinet.net>...
> In article <5l7f73$a...@drn.zippo.com>
> scr...@scritto.com wrote:
<snip>
> >and "the aesthetic problem becomes immediately clear when
> > the cat poop is heated in the microwave"? What about responsible
posting?
> > We're still trying to get that across to you. In fact, maybe if we kept
Rene wrote....
> We?? I think its only you.
WE !!!!!!!! Never forget to include me in this also Rene.....and Terri and
many many others who have tried to get alot of info across to you. Why in
the world would you say it is only
scritto??????????????????????????????????????????
Go back to ALL of your posts and you will see almost ALL of us at one time
or another have condradicted you on your irresponsible attitude towards
your poor dog. Geeze Loiuse !!!!!!!!!!!!
Mary Beth
The ZenMaster
LabLover wrote:
> This has GOT to be one of the most idiotic things I've seen out here.
> Rene, you and ZenMoron are two of a kind. And you will probably think
> that's a compliment... How sad.
Let me correct you, I am one of a kind aka incomparable, no offense to
Rene, you or any other variety of human being. When God made me, he
said to himself, "Damn, I'm starting to make these things a little TOO
much in my own image" and so he stopped and retooled his assembly line
back to the circa Richard Nixon level.
> Honestly, why do you have a dog? You don't really seem to care about the
> dog. You don't seem to really care how the dog is treated (the whole
> hanging by the legs and cardboard thing). ZenMoron's problem is his ego.
I correct you again. My ego is my strength. It pulses with the
strength of a thousand men and allows me to undertake monumental tasks
like Completely and Utterly taking over this newsgroup in terms of the
Marketplace of Ideas.
You couldn't do that on your best day. You are a whining sniping harpy
and your problem is your whining sniping harpiness. You have nothing to
contribute to the Changing of the Muzzle, in fact, I take that back, you
have to have a Muzzle before you can change it, and guess what, you're
"it"
Now, if you want to know what my weakness is, it is my inability to
focus on one task for more than a short period of time. I have
attention deficit disorder, although I really don't consider it a
disorder. The Average person's brain is like the city of Tulsa at
midnight on Tuesday and mine is like Manhattan on Saturday night.
There's so much to do, so many places to go, that it's hard to make up
your mind what you are going to do next. That's why I have to keep
telling the world that I'm Changing the Muzzle, or I will never get it
done.
You'll miss me terribly when I go into a state of Multimedia Muzzle
Changing semi-seclusion. You'll be the first one to go into withdrawal
when I don't post as often and you'll probably change your name to
"ZenMasterLover" to try to get me back. I think you are already
exhibiting classic signs of dependency. Be careful.
Michael T.
Change The Muzzle
http://members.aol.com/ZZendog/ZenDogTest.html
NEW FEATURE!
http://members.aol.com/Skilllz/PowerMedia.html
> Michelle, Cassie the Lab (aka LittleOne) and JakeyBuddy the GSDx
>
>
--
邢 唷��
scr...@scritto.com
In article <2660.7074...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>
>
>On 13-May-97 05:02:31, scritto assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
>(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>>In article <5l7ds3$1ach$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
>>Kati...@SpamIAm.hotmail.com says...
>>interested in seeing if Gregh has anything new to say. He won't killfile me
>>and I think killfiling him is too easy. It'd be all right with me if you
>>killfiled me, though - Michelle
>
>said all along, I directed TO Rene. Your problem was that you couldnt
>recognise this.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
>|Sydney, Australia. |
No, Greg, Katie proved my point - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <3298.7074...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au says...
>
>
>On 13-May-97 02:13:22, scritto assaulted me about OFF-TOPIC [Re: CLARIFICATION
>(Was:Re: (Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))]
>>says...
>
>>>I addressed my original letter to rene. You cant see that.
>
>
>No, the majority of people on the net KNOW how to read a quoted reply. There
>is you and one other person who agrees with you.
There are at least three who have posted.
>No-one else has a problem. If you cannot see that it started with RENE being
>mentioned first and though is addressed TO Rene, that is YOUR problem not
>shared by MOST people in the world using the net.
So say you, one person.
>>>It was only UNCLEAR to YOU. I told you that it was addressed TO rene and
>>>anyone reading it could see that.
>
>>You tell me it was addressed to Rene - but if it was clear in the original
>>post, you would not have needed to tell anyone.
>
>If it was unclear, it was only so to you and your friend Katie. Other than
>that, it was VERY clear. You have started this monster argument about it,
>since and you continue to deny the obvious - it STARTED with "Rene" being the
>person to whom it was addressed, just as the quote from your friend Kaite
>pointed out!
I didn't start an argument. You did.
>>>It isnt I doing the ranting and raving so accusing me of it in this instance
>>>is only mirroring your own position onto someone else. I believe
>>>psychiatrists love people who do that!
>
>>Why do you think I waste my time with you?
>
>....because you love to argue no matter what the cause. I have seen other
>posts from you not directed at me. If there is an argument, there is Michele.
There is no argument. I don't argue with lesser minds.
>>>Nope. It confused YOU, not "people". It was quite plain to see what was
>>>meant by me, to anyone knowing what they are doing with the net. You dont,
>>>so it was unclear to YOU.
>
>>How many people do you personally know on this newsgroup?
>
>How many people in the world do YOU personally know that use this newsgroup?
More than you.
>>>You are th eone making claims.
>
>>I ask valid questions. I make reasonable requests.
>
>No. You keep arguing AGAINST the bleedingly obvious. This is because you dont
>know what you are looking at. That isnt a crime of course but you should look
>back over it when pointed out that you are wrong and see why. My quotes, for
>all the years I have been on the net, have been the same in email and
>newsgroups and until YOU started squawking, not ONE other person in the world
>had a problem knowing to whom the letter was addressed. Just you.
How many years *have* you been on the Net?
>>>Nothing like a good attitude and that reply from you was NOTHING like a good
>>>attitude!
>
>>So say you - Michelle |
>
>OOOOOo good comeback. Very cutting!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
I know. Thank you - Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5ld1vl$jne$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, Kati...@SpamIAm.hotmail.com says...
>>interested in seeing if Gregh has anything new to say. He won't killfile me
>>and I think killfiling him is too easy. It'd be all right with me if you
>>killfiled me, though - Michelle
>
>
>And he doesn't have anything new to say......
Yes, you noticed that, too! ;> -Michelle
scr...@scritto.com
In article <5lcen1$2...@netnews.hinet.net>, Re...@ms1.hinet.net says...
>>
>>>So far, nobody clearly told me what is the problem with feeding cat poop to the
>>>dog, maybe you can give a clear answer.
>>>I think the aesthetic problem becomes immediately clear when the cat poop is
>>>heated in the microwave, so what about responsible posting?
>>
>> Again, *Engineer*, why don't *you* eat the cat poop, since it's so
>> full of protein,
>
>Michelle, get a mirror, put it in front of you and your dog and you see:
>Dogs and humans are different! (Surprise for you!)
>I already eat French soft cheese (Camembert), that is also full of proteins
>and stinks. A dog's preference is wider, thats it.
Actually, Rene, I know that dogs are different - any dog is smarter than you.
>>and "the aesthetic problem becomes immediately clear when
>> the cat poop is heated in the microwave"? What about responsible posting?
>> We're still trying to get that across to you. In fact, maybe if we kept
>
>We?? I think its only you.
It's not just me.
>> you busy enough with this thread, you won't have so much time to sprout
>> nonsense in other threads.
>
>There is a lot of nonsense in many other threads, too. Do you keep them all
>busy?
>Strange this rec.pets.dogs.behaviour group sometimes rather looks like a
>rec.humans.behaviour group.
And you say dogs and humans are different ...
>>>Both of us don't eat card board !
>>
>> Of course, you won't eat cardboard and cat poop - but what fun to
>> experiment, huh? After all, the dog was just given to you. You're not a
>> real dog lover at all.
>
>But the dog loves me.
What's your point?
>>>> You are not qualified to give advice on dogs, doofus or otherwise. Please,
>>>> don't. - Michelle
>>>What qualifies you?
>>
>> I, unlike you, love dogs and would never hurt them through stupidity or
>> otherwise. - Michelle
>
>Loving dogs does not prevent stupidity (Seen from the logic point of view)
>
>Stupidity doesn't matter if the dog is clever enough.
I'm not stupid - Is stupidity your excuse? - Michelle
gregh
On 13-May-97 02:13:22, scritto assaulted me about OFF-TOPIC [Re: CLARIFICATION
(Was:Re: (Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))]
>In article <3384.707...@hartingdale.com.au>, gr...@hartingdale.com.au
>says...
>>I addressed my original letter to rene. You cant see that.
>I, along with a whole bunch of other people.
No, the majority of people on the net KNOW how to read a quoted reply. There
is you and one other person who agrees with you.
No-one else has a problem. If you cannot see that it started with RENE being
mentioned first and though is addressed TO Rene, that is YOUR problem not
shared by MOST people in the world using the net.
>>It was only UNCLEAR to YOU. I told you that it was addressed TO rene and
>>anyone reading it could see that.
>You tell me it was addressed to Rene - but if it was clear in the original
>post, you would not have needed to tell anyone.
If it was unclear, it was only so to you and your friend Katie. Other than
that, it was VERY clear. You have started this monster argument about it,
since and you continue to deny the obvious - it STARTED with "Rene" being the
person to whom it was addressed, just as the quote from your friend Kaite
pointed out!
>>It isnt I doing the ranting and raving so accusing me of it in this instance
>>is only mirroring your own position onto someone else. I believe
>>psychiatrists love people who do that!
>Why do you think I waste my time with you?
....because you love to argue no matter what the cause. I have seen other
posts from you not directed at me. If there is an argument, there is Michele.
>>Nope. It confused YOU, not "people". It was quite plain to see what was
>>meant by me, to anyone knowing what they are doing with the net. You dont,
>>so it was unclear to YOU.
>How many people do you personally know on this newsgroup?
How many people in the world do YOU personally know that use this newsgroup?
>>You are th eone making claims.
>I ask valid questions. I make reasonable requests.
No. You keep arguing AGAINST the bleedingly obvious. This is because you dont
know what you are looking at. That isnt a crime of course but you should look
back over it when pointed out that you are wrong and see why. My quotes, for
all the years I have been on the net, have been the same in email and
newsgroups and until YOU started squawking, not ONE other person in the world
had a problem knowing to whom the letter was addressed. Just you.
>>Nothing like a good attitude and that reply from you was NOTHING like a good
>>attitude!
>So say you - Michelle |
OOOOOo good comeback. Very cutting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sysop of Amiga's Sci-Fi BBS gr...@hartingdale.com.au Chow Chow lover! |
gregh
On 15-May-97 04:58:46, Katie assaulted me about Re: CLARIFICATION (Was:Re:
(Was: Re: FIGHTING CHOW Puts someone in doghouse))
>His quoting was confusing....he snipped badly. But, obviously he's far too
>defensive to ever get that point. Ah well, I'm off to peruse the
>groups.....and don't worry, Greg, I'll try to not make *too* many mistakes.
Katie,
I dont know WHY you deny the obvious. My quote was correct and even the bit
YOU quoted back at me PROVED the point. Why do you have a problem with
something even YOU prove is correct - that the quote I did was correct and the
letter directed at Rene? I dont see what you have to gain by arguing in the
wrong so constantly!