Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Making things better (outside the US)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

roo

unread,
May 31, 2001, 2:23:37 AM5/31/01
to
Hi there, this is for people outside the US, to ask what you think can be
done to tackle problems with dog-human relationships, like neglect of dogs
and people getting bitten. We've heard from people within the US, and so far
they don't seem to think that regulations are desirable.

So what about you guys from Australia, Canada, and Europe? Below is a
summary of suggestions. How far do you think they are feasible, for the
country you live in, from your own local knowledge? Do you have any more
suggestions as to what is needed/would work in your country?Your answers
will be helpful for anyone campaigning to try and make things better, eg for
Brits trying to change the existing UK regulations.

1) Dog breeders should use bite inhibition techniques so they sell pups that
are less likely to bite people.

2) Kids need training on how to behave with dogs, at school, as part of the
curriculum, and from parents.

3) So parents and teachers need education too (so it's ongoing and not just
a one-off visit from an animal welfare organization).

4) Potential dog owners need inexpensive educational resources to learn
about pups' needs before they obtain them, plus they need ongoing access to
resources to help in raising them.

5) No 'stupid teens and thug/druggies' should be allowed a dog for
'protection'.

6) All novice dog owners should attend basic obedience and animal care
classes.

7) Dog ownership is only permitted with a licence, and the licence fee is
used for educational resources. Licenses are only granted if owners commit
themselves to responsible dog ownership, eg not letting dog bark all day in
yard/garden unattended, or run loose in traffic, or produce unwanted
litters.

8) Free poop-picking-up-bags should be located in public parks, so owners
have no excuse not to pick up poop.

9) What can be done about wildlife protection? (A key issue in Australia and
Scandinavia)
--------------
PS Suggestions 1-6 are adapted from an article by a respected US author

Thanks for all your thoughts on this.

Alikat


David & Janette Sweeney

unread,
May 31, 2001, 1:30:38 AM5/31/01
to

"roo" <r...@kanga.net> wrote in message
news:9f4o16$oe9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Hi there, this is for people outside the US, to ask what you think can be
> done to tackle problems with dog-human relationships, like neglect of dogs
> and people getting bitten. We've heard from people within the US, and so
far
> they don't seem to think that regulations are desirable.
>
> So what about you guys from Australia, Canada, and Europe? Below is a
> summary of suggestions. How far do you think they are feasible, for the
> country you live in, from your own local knowledge? Do you have any more
> suggestions as to what is needed/would work in your country?Your answers
> will be helpful for anyone campaigning to try and make things better, eg
for
> Brits trying to change the existing UK regulations.
>
> 1) Dog breeders should use bite inhibition techniques so they sell pups
that
> are less likely to bite people.

and educate new owners, on dog behaviour


>
> 2) Kids need training on how to behave with dogs, at school, as part of
the
> curriculum, and from parents.

very good point this one, especially how to approach a dog and if attacked
what to do, ie: don't run drop to the ground cover your ears and pull into a
tight ball.


>
> 3) So parents and teachers need education too (so it's ongoing and not
just
> a one-off visit from an animal welfare organization).

true dog clubs could bring pooches of different breeds along and educate the
kids.


>
> 4) Potential dog owners need inexpensive educational resources to learn
> about pups' needs before they obtain them, plus they need ongoing access
to
> resources to help in raising them.

just as police and secureity doggies need special training, I think K9
parential classes would be good.


>
> 5) No 'stupid teens and thug/druggies' should be allowed a dog for
> 'protection'.
>
> 6) All novice dog owners should attend basic obedience and animal care
> classes.
>
> 7) Dog ownership is only permitted with a licence, and the licence fee is
> used for educational resources. Licenses are only granted if owners commit
> themselves to responsible dog ownership, eg not letting dog bark all day
in
> yard/garden unattended, or run loose in traffic, or produce unwanted
> litters.

good yes like it.


>
> 8) Free poop-picking-up-bags should be located in public parks, so owners
> have no excuse not to pick up poop.

could be a problem with vandals and firebugs, but a good idea anyway, also
offlead parks for dogs that have complted basic obediance.


>
> 9) What can be done about wildlife protection? (A key issue in Australia
and
> Scandinavia)
> --------------
> PS Suggestions 1-6 are adapted from an article by a respected US author
>
> Thanks for all your thoughts on this.
>
> Alikat
>

> all good points Alikat lets see if we get some good posts.Dave


Lutie Sheridan

unread,
May 31, 2001, 4:09:56 AM5/31/01
to
In Fremantle, where I live, in Western Australia, free poo bags are
available in most places that dogs are allowed off the lead - on the dog
beach for example. It does help with the poo problem - also you'll find
that a lot of the other people who own dogs help by carrying extra bags and
asking "Do you need a bag for that" to the person whose dog has just pooed.
Of course this wont help with those that are determined not to care - but
usually people that care enough to bring their dogs down to the beach can be
convinced to care enough to pick up the poo - especially since there is a
$100 fine for leaving it there. We also have dog licensing laws here - where
you have to licence your dog, and sign a form at the time saying you have
adequate fencing etc. I thought that was fairly standard all over the
world. A ranger can give an on the spot fine for a dog not wearing it's
tags - even if it is on a leash. Dogs that are considered 'dangerous' by
the council (because of complaints) have to wear a special type of collar to
let people know they are dangerous, and are not allowed off lead in public.
There are fairly hefty fines for a 'dangerous dog' not wearing it's collar,
and major ones for a dangerous dog off lead.

I think the responsibility for dog control rests with the dog owners and dog
breeders myself - but the council certainly does everything it can here. I
don't think public schools should be asked to teach dog related subjects -
but I quite like the idea of the council holding classes before it will
issue a licence, and not granting a licence under certain circumstance.

I can see how it can be argued that owning a dog is a 'basic right' (which I
disagree with) and that what I am suggesting leans too much towards 'a
police state' where the Govt. controls who can and cannot own dogs but I am
afraid I really do believe that some people should not own dogs - for the
sake of the dogs and the public at large.

Lutie

"roo" <r...@kanga.net> wrote in message
news:9f4o16$oe9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

Paul B

unread,
May 31, 2001, 5:37:40 AM5/31/01
to
I think your looking at it from a dog lovers POV. All those points are
great in theory but people who aren't interested in dogs aren't going to be
interested in learning about how to react in front of a dog etc.
Unfortunately so many people buy pups for their kids who lose interest and
the dog is soon neglected (and never trained).

Here in NZ all dogs have to be registered each year and must wear a collar
with a coloured disc attached, the disc has a number on it which identifies
the dog and who owns it. Thus any wandering dog can be identified and the
owners contacted and fined if they are deemed to be irresponsable. To own
more than one dog here you must apply to the council who inspect your
property making sure it is fully fenced and suitable in other ways and you
must obtain all immediate neighbours permission in writing.

There are few real restrictions on taking dogs in public places here,
legally they must be on a leash in all public areas except the numerous ( in
Auckland anyway) off leash parks and areas. But in reality most dog walkers
let their dogs off leash at any public park, usually considerately although
the vast amounts of dog poo left about makes me wonder how long it will be
before the councils really crack down.
Dogs are banned from most beaches throughout the summer months (in some
areas they are allowed on after 7pm) but are permitted on the beaches in
winter as long as they are under control (ie off leash is permitted).

Dogs are very popular here and no one thinks twice about seeing one
anywhere.

However irresponsable dog ownership is as bad here as probably anywhere and
the SPCA, Humane Society and the dog pounds are full of neglected, lost,
abandoned and unclaimed dogs. I'm sure dogs here are just as barky, bitey
and unruly as anywhere.

There is no real solution. There will always be people who for whatever
reason end up abusing or neglecting their pets. Probably educating children
about how animals really feel and what care they really need is the place to
start as adults more often than not have preconcieved ideas about how to
treat and deal with dogs for better or worse.

Paul

"David & Janette Sweeney" <swee...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:KbmR6.28946$hV3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...

Cindy

unread,
May 31, 2001, 11:16:15 AM5/31/01
to
In article <3b15...@news.wa.apana.org.au>,

Lutie Sheridan <lu...@odyssey.apana.org.au> wrote:
>In Fremantle, where I live, in Western Australia, free poo bags are
>available in most places that dogs are allowed off the lead - on the dog
>beach for example.

These bags (blue & baby powder scented *roll of eyes*) are available
in many of the parks here in Southern California as well. My favorite
is the signage, though. In toney, well-to-do areas, the signs say
"Please clean up dog nuisances". In "rougher" areas you get a graphic
sign: dog hunched to poop, the poop, and a hand coming down to clean it.

--Cindy

Marilyn

unread,
May 31, 2001, 11:35:24 AM5/31/01
to

roo <r...@kanga.net> wrote in message
news:9f4o16$oe9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi there, this is for people outside the US, to ask what you think can be
> done to tackle problems with dog-human relationships, like neglect of dogs
> and people getting bitten. We've heard from people within the US, and so
far
> they don't seem to think that regulations are desirable.
>
> So what about you guys from Australia, Canada, and Europe? Below is a
> summary of suggestions. How far do you think they are feasible, for the
> country you live in, from your own local knowledge? Do you have any more
> suggestions as to what is needed/would work in your country?Your answers
> will be helpful for anyone campaigning to try and make things better, eg
for
> Brits trying to change the existing UK regulations.
>
> 1) Dog breeders should use bite inhibition techniques so they sell pups
that
> are less likely to bite people.

and temperament test pups - ascertain suitability etc.
and only be allowed to sell puppies bred by their own dog/s
and offer written puppy development (behaviour) guide
and offer written pre-school training advice
and try to insist all puppies go on to attend a good puppy socialisation
group
and allow all clients access, to see and socialise with their chosen pup
from 3 weeks old
and allow all clients to visit pups with mother at stages up to 49 days
and people socialise pups
and design pup's accomodation to include clearly defined sleep/play/eating
areas
and to be checked for all the above (plus) in order to be awarded a 'good
breeder certificatation'.

>
> 2) Kids need training on how to behave with dogs, at school, as part of
the
> curriculum, and from parents.

Absolutely!

>
> 3) So parents and teachers need education too (so it's ongoing and not
just
> a one-off visit from an animal welfare organization).

Absolutely!

>
> 4) Potential dog owners need inexpensive educational resources to learn
> about pups' needs before they obtain them, plus they need ongoing access
to
> resources to help in raising them.

Wonderful things..... video recorders and computers

>
> 5) No 'stupid teens and thug/druggies' should be allowed a dog for
> 'protection'.

Yeah, and the rest .... agreed, but not so easy :-(

>
> 6) All novice dog owners should attend basic obedience and animal care
> classes.

Yep

>
> 7) Dog ownership is only permitted with a licence, and the licence fee is
> used for educational resources. Licenses are only granted if owners commit
> themselves to responsible dog ownership, eg not letting dog bark all day
in
> yard/garden unattended, or run loose in traffic, or produce unwanted
> litters.

Yep, a licence - with a course and test first - like if we wanna drive a car
:-)


> 8) Free poop-picking-up-bags should be located in public parks, so owners
> have no excuse not to pick up poop.

Yep. Our local warden gives out various goodies to dog training clubs.

> 9) What can be done about wildlife protection? (A key issue in Australia
and
> Scandinavia)
> --------------
> PS Suggestions 1-6 are adapted from an article by a respected US author
>
> Thanks for all your thoughts on this.
>
> Alikat

Great Post Alikat :-)
Best regards,
Marilyn

>
>


Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin

unread,
May 31, 2001, 4:58:01 PM5/31/01
to

Marilyn <marilyn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b166...@news1.vip.uk.com...
snip

> and allow all clients access, to see and socialise with their chosen pup
> from 3 weeks old
snip
nope no way anyone and everyone would get to handle pups at this age - clean
approved visitors only who know what they are doing - and no one from an
area with a parvo breakout!
Nancy


Alison

unread,
May 31, 2001, 4:54:09 PM5/31/01
to
Hi Alikat,
I'd like to see all dogs microchipped and licensed, all potential owners
and homes checked by the local authorities, a law against leaving a dog
alone all day and education in schools.
Our area( middx) had a big problem with dog mess on the pavements. The
council provided dog waste bins in the parks and on grass verges (but not
bags) and put notices up saying people will be fined if they don't clear up
after their dog. The situation has improved but there are always some people
who will not co-operate.
Alison

roo <r...@kanga.net> wrote in message
news:9f4o16$oe9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

Helle Haugenes

unread,
May 31, 2001, 6:03:58 PM5/31/01
to
On Thu, 31 May 2001 07:23:37 +0100, "roo" <r...@kanga.net> wrote:

[..]


>So what about you guys from Australia, Canada, and Europe? Below is a
>summary of suggestions. How far do you think they are feasible, for the
>country you live in, from your own local knowledge? Do you have any more
>suggestions as to what is needed/would work in your country?Your answers
>will be helpful for anyone campaigning to try and make things better, eg for
>Brits trying to change the existing UK regulations.

Will you answer your own message too? :-)

>1) Dog breeders should use bite inhibition techniques so they sell pups that
>are less likely to bite people.

IMO breeders should be required to do whatever possible to deliver
well-adjusted puppies to the new owners. Good breeders already do
this, but a lot of breeders don't. To make such a regulation will be
impossible, but perhaps each breed club could decide on and publish a
set of guidelines for each breed?

>2) Kids need training on how to behave with dogs, at school, as part of the
>curriculum, and from parents.

We can't expect parents to take the responsibility, other than to
teach children respect for all life. Same goes for schools, really,
children need to be taught about animals in general (respect, welfare,
how to behave around them, and where the milk comes from :-) But, dogs
specifically is more than we can expect.

>3) So parents and teachers need education too (so it's ongoing and not just
>a one-off visit from an animal welfare organization).

Same as in 2)

>4) Potential dog owners need inexpensive educational resources to learn
>about pups' needs before they obtain them, plus they need ongoing access to
>resources to help in raising them.

Absolutely. Apart from the breeder and breed clubs, little is done to
educate new owners before they get the puppy. Before-you-get-the-puppy
classes would really be great if there was some way to let people know
about them in time. Breeder and breed club?

As for help raising the puppy, the breeders plays a big part and it's
free. There are a few professional training 'institutions' which are
quite expensive. The majority of classes, though, are offered by the
local dog clubs. These instructors work for free and the classes are
quite affordable. The clubs usually have socialiasation evenings as
well. However, people who lives in the more rural areas don't have a
lot of offers.

>5) No 'stupid teens and thug/druggies' should be allowed a dog for
>'protection'.

Hm.. how can this be controlled? I don't see how it can be done, and
frankly, who is to decide who are 'stupid teens and thug/druggies'?
Again, a big part of the responsibility to select the right buyers is
on the breeder, but there's only so much a breeder can do.

>6) All novice dog owners should attend basic obedience and animal care
>classes.

This would be great, but hardly achievable. Perhaps the price of the
puppy could include these classes? I know that a re-homing
organization in town is doing this. The new owners pay like Ł200 for
the dog, and vet check-up, a everyday obedience book and a basic
obedience class is included (Btw the price for a pure-bred puppy is
about Ł500-800).

>7) Dog ownership is only permitted with a licence, and the licence fee is
>used for educational resources. Licenses are only granted if owners commit
>themselves to responsible dog ownership, eg not letting dog bark all day in
>yard/garden unattended, or run loose in traffic, or produce unwanted
>litters.

I dunno if I'm crazy about this idea. Registering the dog, yes
definately, but a ownership licence nah.

>8) Free poop-picking-up-bags should be located in public parks, so owners
>have no excuse not to pick up poop.

Yes! And more trash cans in public, lots of them!

>9) What can be done about wildlife protection? (A key issue in Australia and
>Scandinavia)

The laws here are already very strict on that issue, leash laws during
spring and summer, and compulsory 'e-shock training' to
sheep/wildlife-proof hunting dogs. Also, any dog chasing livestock or
wild animals can be killed if not obtainable.

What do you think? Too much? Other alternatives?

>--------------
>PS Suggestions 1-6 are adapted from an article by a respected US author

Who, please?

Helle
--

Helle Haugenes

FAQ for no.alt.hunder: http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~haugenes/faq
Mailinglisten Hunder pĺ Yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hunder
(Et godt alternativ for hundeinteresserte)

Marilyn

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 3:08:11 AM6/1/01
to

Alison <alis...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9f6b0u$2fcni$1...@ID-80210.news.dfncis.de...

> Hi Alikat,
> I'd like to see all dogs microchipped and licensed, all potential owners
> and homes checked by the local authorities, a law against leaving a dog
> alone all day and education in schools.
> Our area( middx) had a big problem with dog mess on the pavements. The
> council provided dog waste bins in the parks and on grass verges (but not
> bags) and put notices up saying people will be fined if they don't clear
up
> after their dog. The situation has improved but there are always some
people
> who will not co-operate.
> Alison
>
Hi Alison,
We have bins here too (Somerset).... BUT, there's a field at the back of my
home (with a bin), that 'bout once a month I have to go pick up all the bags
that have been thrown across the field by louts during the night.

Where in Middx?
best regards,
Marilyn

roo

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 7:02:51 AM6/1/01
to
Hi again, Helle asked me what I thought of these points, so here goes:

First apologies to those of you outside the US whose countries I haven't
mentioned, like Paul from NZ!


"roo" <r...@kanga.net> wrote in message
news:9f4o16$oe9$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Hi there, this is for people outside the US, to ask what you think can be
> done to tackle problems with dog-human relationships, like neglect of dogs
> and people getting bitten. We've heard from people within the US, and so
far
> they don't seem to think that regulations are desirable.

.Comment:...This IMO seems to be because we use language differently. We
speak English, but it's not the same language. For an Australian, New
Zealander, or European, to regulate something means to try and influence it
(hopefully for the better), which may or may not involve restrictive laws
(check Oxford Shorter dict if you want). People from the US seem to see
regulations in a narrower sense, ie restrictive laws.

This is important as many misunderstandings can arise from thinking you know
what someone means, when you may not. So there are many US members who would
support some or all of these suggestions, yet say they oppose regulation. It
seemed very odd to me until I realised how Americans understand the word.
And PS what I say below only refers to the UK!


>
> So what about you guys from Australia, Canada, and Europe? Below is a
> summary of suggestions. How far do you think they are feasible, for the
> country you live in, from your own local knowledge? Do you have any more
> suggestions as to what is needed/would work in your country?Your answers
> will be helpful for anyone campaigning to try and make things better, eg
for
> Brits trying to change the existing UK regulations.
>
> 1) Dog breeders should use bite inhibition techniques so they sell pups
that
> are less likely to bite people.
>

Comment: seems a very good idea, and there are some good answers on how it
could be done.
The position in Britain seems to be different from the US, tho. We seem to
have our pups younger in the UK, plus many pups don't come from breeders,
but from ordinary families, so there needs to be an effort to get through to
anyone caring for pups that bite inhibition and socialization with people
and other dogs are very important. A license scheme could help - see 7)

> 2) Kids need training on how to behave with dogs, at school, as part of
the
> curriculum, and from parents.

Comment: Yes. People who are most likely to be bitten are kids, from
articles I've read. You end up having a dog-phobic child, and maybe the dog
is put down. I often have to explain to kids that running past a dog and
screaming is not nice for the dog. Tho I find it's teenage boys who are the
worst behaved. Kids should learn how to play near dogs, how to avoid getting
biiten, and this includes not trying to cuddle dogs tied up outside shops,
as they are often nervous being left alone unable to escape, so are more
likely to bite. Kids have delicate skin that's more likely to be damaged,
esp on the face and hands. In kids' interests, they need to learn the basics
of being near dogs.


>
> 3) So parents and teachers need education too (so it's ongoing and not
just
> a one-off visit from an animal welfare organization).
>

Comment: yes, even if it's something as simple as a booklet which explains
how to get on with dogs and not get bitten, plus a bit on responsibilities
of dog ownership and benefits of having a dog..

> 4) Potential dog owners need inexpensive educational resources to learn
> about pups' needs before they obtain them, plus they need ongoing access
to
> resources to help in raising them.
>

Comment: yes, we need more classes in the UK. Maybe this could be done
through a licensing system - see 7)

> 5) No 'stupid teens and thug/druggies' should be allowed a dog for
> 'protection'.
>

Comment: I'm going to stray into territory I don't know a lot about here,
and it's a contentious issue, so all this is prefaced with IMHO.

This is really a 'guard/attack dog' issue.

You have two things to look at here, one is the breed of the dog, and the
other is how it is trained.
Any dog can bite, but some dogs are more likely to, and to inflict serious
damage if they do.
I have known affectionate, gentle rottweilers and wolf hybrids, but I
wouldn't go near one if it had been trained to bite. Conversely, my dog
Conor's brother, (see 'Micky' in 'fear of traffic') euthanazed for being
allowed to run loose and bite people, was not a threat, and would let me put
my fingers in his mouth to take out nasty things he picked up to eat. He was
small and easy to handle by anyone with an ounce of common sense, whereas
you need someone who's highly skilled to rehabilitate certain breeds.

There has been research done by Hart and Hart on US breeds, cited in
Bradshaw, J.S.,
'Determination of behavioural traits of pure-bred dogs using factor analysis
and cluster analysis; a comparison of studies in the USA and UK' from
'Research in Veterinary Science', 1998, 66, 73-76, along with Bradshaw's own
work on UK dogs, which can be criticized on the grounds of flawed concepts,
but which does indicate that one needs to be very careful in training and
handling certain breeds.

So I think that you need both special treatment for dogs trained to bite, eg
not being allowed off the leash in public places, and for dogs from the more
challenging breeds kept as family pets. For example, potential owners need
more info on breed characteristics, just in case they are not aware that
these dogs represent a challenge, and special help with training, in
particular, bite inhibition and socialization with people. They should also
not be left chained up, or tied up outside shops where any children can
approach - a recipe for disaster.

Of course, many dogs are cross-breeds, so to work out which dogs are
'challenging' you maybe need help from a trainer (see 7).

> 6) All novice dog owners should attend basic obedience and animal care
> classes.
>

comment: yes, see 7)

> 7) Dog ownership is only permitted with a licence, and the licence fee is
> used for educational resources. Licenses are only granted if owners commit
> themselves to responsible dog ownership, eg not letting dog bark all day
in
> yard/garden unattended, or run loose in traffic, or produce unwanted
> litters.
>

Comment: We had a license system in the UK, but it was abolished. It
shouldn't be very difficult to bring back in, and would have a number of
advantages. The license fee could be used to raise funds for education, eg
more training classes and educating children on safe play with dogs.
The fee could be waived for people on low incomes, and pensioners.
Pensioners anyhow tend to be at home with their dogs all day, so the dogs
don't bark and create problems as much as dogs left alone.

I think that the license should be a precondition of having a dog, so that
you can target people before they make mistakes, before they they get the
pup home, and it could be renewed annually at a lower fee.

Potential owners should be able to obtain information on health and
behavioral characterstics of breeds that they are considering, plus basic
needs of dogs, to see if they can meet them.

If responsibilities are clearly set out, then owners can't claim ignorance
(eg owner of Mickey's mum, who said that if she got pregnant again he'd have
her put down - she eventually went to a rescue center with her second
'accidental' litter of pups). Potential owners can be made to sign a pledge
on not leaving dog barking in yard/allowing bitches to produce unwanted
litters/picking up poop, etc.

The license fee could include free training classes, and free microchipping,
and owners could go away with an information pack, plus information on
resources available. Trainers could assess the dogs to see if they are from
especially challenging breeds, and make suggestions for rehoming if the
owners find they cannot cope.

I don't know about home visits and fencing, as happens in Australia/NZ. My
home would not be considered suitable for dogs, as the yard/garden is
puppy-proof, but not dog proof. Mine don't escape because I don't let them
out in the yard/garden unattended, but take them out several times a day -
luckily there are a lot of very good walking areas just across the road. How
do you assess who shouldn't have a dog? Rescue centers already do this, but
it would be considered very intrusive if a licensing system did it. I think
the 'responsibility pledge' would act as a filter. For example, people out
at work all day would realise that there are problems leaving a dog alone.

OK, so not all trainers use the best methods, and even the best trainers
will sometimes make mistakes, but those are separate issues. There are some
things that all trainers agree on, and more effort can be made to help
existing trainers update their skills and learn to tackle a wider range of
problems.

> 8) Free poop-picking-up-bags should be located in public parks, so owners
> have no excuse not to pick up poop.

comment: yes - it works well in some parts of Spain


>
> 9) What can be done about wildlife protection? (A key issue in Australia
and
> Scandinavia)

comment: I think cat/sheep chasing is more of a problem in Britain, and
tackling that should come into training class curricula. Hedghogs need
protection - I have known dogs kill hedgehogs, but mine have learnt that
they are nice and must be respected. My pups used to get very excited when
we met one but we just stopped to look at the hedgehog and I told them to
sit, and that it was a 'good hedgehog' and they eventually learnt to ignore
them.


> --------------
> PS Suggestions 1-6 are adapted from an article by a respected US author
>
> Thanks for all your thoughts on this.
>
> Alikat

Yes, thanks again all those who have helped to educate me, I have learnt a
lot from your contributions. Don't plan on posting for a while now, have a
backlog of stuff to do, as it took a long while to think about and write
this. Alikat
>
>


Helle Haugenes

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 7:56:35 AM6/1/01
to
On Thu, 31 May 2001 15:30:38 +1000, "David & Janette Sweeney"
<swee...@bigpond.com> wrote:

[..]
>Alikat:


>> 8) Free poop-picking-up-bags should be located in public parks, so owners
>> have no excuse not to pick up poop.

>could be a problem with vandals and firebugs, but a good idea anyway,

The poop bags can be placed above a trash can stinking of *filled*
poop bags. That way the vandals might want to keep a distance :-) It
might not solve the problem with the firebugs, whatever that is.

>also
>offlead parks for dogs that have complted basic obediance.

Off lead parks is something I really miss. I consider off leash time
for dogs important for their 'happiness'. To accomplish this
'happiness', I have to break the law three times a day 6 months a
year. It would be nice if I could have somewhere I could let my dog
off leash without breaking the law, although I would probably still
use the forest. Thus perhaps only break the law once or twice a day
:-)

Helle
--

Helle Haugenes

Mailinglisten Hunder på Yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hunder

Helle Haugenes

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 8:21:40 AM6/1/01
to
On Thu, 31 May 2001 21:37:40 +1200, "Paul B"
<NOSPAM...@zfree.co.nz> wrote:

>I think your looking at it from a dog lovers POV. All those points are
>great in theory but people who aren't interested in dogs aren't going to be
>interested in learning about how to react in front of a dog etc.

That's a very good point. However, kids are generally very interested
in animals and I think it would be great if there was some way to
integrate animal care and behavior into the biology, or even social
science, curriculum in school.

I've mentioned it before, that I am often approached by neighbor kids
who's first question is whether the dog bites (that's what their
parents tell them). Although I'm content with the fact that these kids
will not approach a dog without asking the owner, it's sad that the
reason why they don't is that they grow up thinking that dogs are
dangerous.

[..]


>Here in NZ all dogs have to be registered each year and must wear a collar
>with a coloured disc attached, the disc has a number on it which identifies
>the dog and who owns it. Thus any wandering dog can be identified and the
>owners contacted and fined if they are deemed to be irresponsable.

Sounds sensible. The problem with collars though, is that they come
off. So if someone wants to abandon their dog, all they need to do is
take the collar off and let the dog loose. IMO the collar tags should
be in addition to ID chips.

>To own
>more than one dog here you must apply to the council who inspect your
>property making sure it is fully fenced and suitable in other ways and you
>must obtain all immediate neighbours permission in writing.

Wow! Does it work? How do people (dog owners) feel about this? It's a
wonderful rule for any neighbor who likes being difficult. But, maybe
NZ people are laid-back and tolerating?

>There are few real restrictions on taking dogs in public places here, [..]

Pretty much like I'm used to, except for the off leash parks that
don't exist here. Dogs are allowed on the beaches, but it seems like
most owners use their common sense and keep their dogs away from
people or wait until the sunbathers are gone to walk their dogs.

[..]


>There is no real solution. There will always be people who for whatever
>reason end up abusing or neglecting their pets. Probably educating children
>about how animals really feel and what care they really need is the place to
>start as adults more often than not have preconcieved ideas about how to
>treat and deal with dogs for better or worse.

Yup!

Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 5:34:42 PM6/1/01
to

Helle Haugenes <haug...@idi.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:pecdht047nqokogta...@4ax.com...
snip

> >2) Kids need training on how to behave with dogs, at school, as part of
the
> >curriculum, and from parents.
>
> We can't expect parents to take the responsibility, other than to
> teach children respect for all life. Same goes for schools, really,
> children need to be taught about animals in general (respect, welfare,
> how to behave around them, and where the milk comes from :-) But, dogs
> specifically is more than we can expect.
Actually the AKC has a free program available to schools. Here kids are no
where as likely to run into a whale or wolf as a dog but they get lots of
training on wildlife and ecology.
Nancy


Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 5:36:56 PM6/1/01
to

roo <r...@kanga.net> wrote in message
news:9f7soi$vqp$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
snip

> The position in Britain seems to be different from the US, tho. We seem to
> have our pups younger in the UK, plus many pups don't come from breeders,
Ah a sematics problem anyone who owns a bitch who has a litter is considered
a breeder here in the US. The majority of dogs are from one time litter
producers - ie families who let the dog 'litter'.

Snip
Nancy

Helle Haugenes

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 6:02:10 PM6/1/01
to

Does this mean that people are considered breeders when they
accidently let their bitch out during season and have a litter?

I think something like this:

- a breeder is someone who has one or more litters of a pure breed,
where both parents are registered and the litter is approved by the
breed club.

- a 'backyard' breeder is someone who doesn't meet one or more of the
above requirements, but breeds her/his dog deliberatly or have several
litters. Often mixes. This type of breeder is difficult to reach in
order to inform about the type of guidelines I suggested in another
message in this thread.

BTW 'Backyard' breeder sounds kinda negative and in most of the time
it is (IMNSHO). In some cases though, for instance with herders or
sled dogs, the breeders are very serious in what they do, but simply
do not care about registrations, shows or trials to have their dogs
accepted. I guess I wouldn't call these people 'backyard' breeders.

Glenda Watkins

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 5:45:50 AM6/2/01
to
Mrs. Holmes,

Things have gone far enough. It's time to intervene and impose
your will. If others see you as the villain, that's their problem.
Time is sure to prove you right. Forgiving and healing can come later.
Right now you need to march into the middle of the room and start
taking action. Send the people who have been dead weight for too long
packing and give those who have worked hard what they have been asking
for. You are as much a part of the product and the production as
anybody, so
you have plenty at stake. Take no prisoners!

Glenda

Marilyn

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 8:02:59 AM6/2/01
to

Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin <fmka...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9f6ake$8is$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...

Well, they'de just have to clean up and approve all the owners then :-)
Marilyn

>


Patch

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 8:54:47 AM6/2/01
to

"Alison" <alis...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9f6b0u$2fcni$1...@ID-80210.news.dfncis.de...
> Hi Alikat,
> I'd like to see all dogs microchipped

Its voluntary for the next five years after which the plan is compulsory
chipping [ UK].

Patch


Jerry Howe

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 9:40:35 AM6/2/01
to
Yes.

"Marilyn" <marilyn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9fajkj$pii$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...

Patch

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 11:51:01 AM6/2/01
to

"Glenda Watkins" <gle...@isptours.com> wrote in message
news:3B18B5CE...@isptours.com...

Huh ? Is it me or it this a bit cryptic ?

Patch


John DeRosa

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 12:11:14 PM6/2/01
to
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 16:51:01 +0100, "Patch"
<d.guipag...@ntlworld.com> belched up this opinion:

>Huh ? Is it me or it this a bit cryptic ?

I vote for cryptic...

Jerry Howe

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 1:55:47 PM6/2/01
to
Unfortunately nancy lacks the necessary qualities...

"Glenda Watkins" <gle...@isptours.com> wrote in message
news:3B18B5CE...@isptours.com...

Patch

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 5:08:23 PM6/2/01
to

"John DeRosa" <stu...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:i04ihtca84v2k0lmr...@4ax.com...

Phew !! Glad I`m not the only one confused about it <g>

Patch


David & Janette Sweeney

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 12:30:04 AM6/3/01
to

"Patch" <d.guipag...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pzcS6.12347$HL5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> hey Patch good to see your still with us...Dave


Patch

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 8:45:17 PM6/3/01
to

"David & Janette Sweeney" <swee...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:2FyS6.36710$hV3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Fanx - have been having pain in the butt server and computer problems, plus
a day of the lines being down in the area, so running behind somewhat.

Patch


Jason

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 12:41:47 PM6/4/01
to

David & Janette Sweeney wrote:
> > Phew !! Glad I`m not the only one confused about it <g>
> >
> > Patch
> >
> hey Patch good to see your still with us...Dave

120 messages in less than 3 days, how could you miss her? Maybe you
just have her kill-filed like I do.

--
..........
Jason :
·········:
Bluheelr :
··········

Jerry Howe

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 5:20:46 PM6/4/01
to
That'd be a good idea. Why bother to read stuff you ain't bright
enough to understand???

"Jason" <bluh...@westexskysports.com> wrote in message
news:3B1BBA4B...@westexskysports.com...

Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin

unread,
Jun 10, 2001, 6:15:42 PM6/10/01
to

Helle Haugenes <haug...@idi.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:123ght092lt2h8is3...@4ax.com...

> Does this mean that people are considered breeders when they
> accidently let their bitch out during season and have a litter?
Yes they are the breeders of that litter.

>
> I think something like this:
>
> - a breeder is someone who has one or more litters of a pure breed,
> where both parents are registered and the litter is approved by the
> breed club.

Not quite - here no breed club approval is needed. And this description
neatly covers puppy mills as well as hobby breeders of purebreds.

>
> - a 'backyard' breeder is someone who doesn't meet one or more of the
> above requirements, but breeds her/his dog deliberatly or have several
> litters. Often mixes. This type of breeder is difficult to reach in
> order to inform about the type of guidelines I suggested in another
> message in this thread.

This can be the one time breeder too.

>
> BTW 'Backyard' breeder sounds kinda negative and in most of the time
> it is (IMNSHO). In some cases though, for instance with herders or
> sled dogs, the breeders are very serious in what they do, but simply
> do not care about registrations, shows or trials to have their dogs
> accepted. I guess I wouldn't call these people 'backyard' breeders.

You left out hobby and purpose breeders - I think that would cover the
above.
Nancy


roo

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 12:46:07 PM6/11/01
to
Hi Guys,

This is a bit OT, but not altogether...It's a question for 'Our US
Readers'..

We need to learn about each other's cultures to communicate in this ng, eg
language differences.

The way we in Britain learn about you guys in the States is through TV.

So my question is, which of these TV programs we get in Britain gives an
accurate (if only partial) portrayal of US society:

South Park
Twin Peaks
King of the Hill
Jerry Springer Show
Rikki Lake
Beavis and Butthead
The Sopranos
Baywatch
Frasier
Friends
Cheers?

And what else do you think we need to put in our US Studies curriculum, to
understand you better?

Alikat


"Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin" <fmka...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9g0rf7$b6l$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...

Jdoee

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 12:55:00 PM6/11/01
to
Interestingly enough, the cartoon series are more closely related to reality
than the live action. South Park accurately reflects the way children that
age will talk to each other when there are no adults around. Same with
Beavis and Butthead. Likewise, King of the Hill is a good illustration of
the little joys and disasters of family life. One aspect of King of the
Hill that is especially good is how the Hills relate to their Cambodian
immigrant neighbors. The kids are great friends, the mothers cold but
trying, and the fathers are extremely competitive.

As long as we are talking TV series, you should add 'Malcolm in the Middle'
another show about family life. jdoee and Stacey Dog

----------

Kind2dogs

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:05:28 PM6/11/01
to
>Subject: Re: OT or not OT
>From: "roo" r...@kanga.net
>Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 12:46 PM
>Message-id: <9g2si0$ffh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>

>
>Hi Guys,
>
>This is a bit OT, but not altogether...It's a question for 'Our US
>Readers'..
>
>We need to learn about each other's cultures to communicate in this ng,
>eg
>language differences.
>
>The way we in Britain learn about you guys in the States is through TV.
>
>So my question is, which of these TV programs we get in Britain gives an
>accurate (if only partial) portrayal of US society:
>
>South Park

Never watched it

>Twin Peaks

A BIZARRE show and not typical of life here in my area anyway.

>King of the Hill

Is that the one with the mail guy?

I love that show!

I think that is fairly typical of middle class people, although we don't have
many two family homes here, in fact I don 't know of any really. There are
mother in law apartments though.


>Jerry Springer Show

Ohhh ACK! I have to say WHERE do these people cme from?

I don't know anyone(Cape Cod) here like that!

>Rikki Lake

Don't watch it

>Beavis and Butthead
Never watched it

>The Sopranos

Ahh I can say an unequivocal YES but not here so much as in the old days of the
North End in Boston.


>Baywatch

Yes, as there are some beautiful young people here in summer.

>Frasier

Yup. SO MANY SHRINKS with their idiosyncrasies.

>Friends

Yup, at least a group of people that hang out a lot together.

>Cheers?

Yes, in fact my cousin worked at the place.

>
>And what else do you think we need to put in our US Studies curriculum,
>to
>understand you better?

Hmmmm Well don't go see the PERFECT STORM, as it is a bogus account of
swordfishermen, and I know of what I speak.

As for Sex and the City these woman are quite something.

YIKES!

Talk about easy women or like my Mom use to say trollops.

I don't think there is that much on tv that relates to how we are here, but in
movies I have loved some, like Cookies Fortune,Midnight in the Garden of Good
and Evil,oh yes and JAWS the first one as they filmed it right here!

My favourite program from your country is LoveJoy.

They had the antiques business down pat and whoever wrote it really had to be
in the know.

Paulette~

A dogs life is too short...
Their only fault really...

Helle Haugenes

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:25:36 PM6/11/01
to
On 11 Jun 2001 17:05:28 GMT, kind...@aol.com (Kind2dogs) wrote:

[..]
>>Frasier
>>Friends
>>Cheers?

Me too.. watch them, I mean. In addition I watch ER (it's getting a
little old isn't it?) and Judging Amy (Is she ever going to have an
affair with Bruce, her assistant, or is that only my imagination?).

[..]


>Hmmmm Well don't go see the PERFECT STORM, as it is a bogus account of
>swordfishermen, and I know of what I speak.

How funny you should say that, Paulette. I saw it two days ago and
guess who I thought about; You! :-) And now you're telling me it's
bogus :-( What about the characters? I loved them!

>As for Sex and the City these woman are quite something.

>YIKES!

I hate it.. almost as much as Clueless Ick! If any of these gives an
accurate portrayal of the US I'd be quite surprised.

Helle :-)

Rocky

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:20:05 PM6/11/01
to
"roo" <r...@kanga.net> wrote in
news:9g2si0$ffh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Baywatch

I'd like to *think* that Baywatch is indicative of the U.S. The
slow motion shots and everything.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

J1Boss

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:22:56 PM6/11/01
to
Alikate asked:
>
>Hi Guys,

>So my question is, which of these TV programs we get in Britain gives an
>accurate (if only partial) portrayal of US society:
>
>South Park

Ech - have never been able to sit through more of a moment of this!

>Twin Peaks

never got interested in it - but a bit non-normal!

>King of the Hill

I love King of the Hill, and I would say it's pretty on the money, particularly
for the area of the country.

>Jerry Springer Show

never have seen anything but news clips about it.

>Rikki Lake

same as above.

>Beavis and Butthead

Feel the same way as about South Park

>The Sopranos

One of my favorite shows! Pretty realistic I believe, although it's not like
everyone in the US belongs to the mob! ;-D

>Baywatch

never seen it, but tan shapely people in bathing suits in CA is pretty common.

>Frasier

Pretty true to life I think - another show I like.

>Friends

Those friends can't possibly be making enough money to live where they do! Not
very realistic at all.

>Cheers?

Way too common I think - a lot of people in many parts of the world have that
as their reality though - no actual life, so their bar becomes that for them.

>And what else do you think we need to put in our US Studies curriculum, to
>understand you better?
>
>Alikat

Geez - what does anyone, anywhere need to learn more about other cultures? I
don't think anything can possibly substitute for the real thing - actually
visiting the place. That goes for other places within your own country as well
as traveling to foreign countries. I think in any country, life varies quite a
bit between city and suburb, or generally urban and rural. I need to see a lot
more of the US - many places I have never been and only know about from media
of some sort. Never the same as being there.

So - you coming to the US for a visit? ;-D

Janet Boss
Best Friends Dog Obedience
"Nice Manners for the Family Pet"

"Second-hand dogs AREN'T second-rate"
see Lucy at: http://www.flyball.com/nsl/

Helle Haugenes

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:32:16 PM6/11/01
to
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:46:07 +0100, "roo" <r...@kanga.net> wrote:

[..]


>The way we in Britain learn about you guys in the States is through TV.
>
>So my question is, which of these TV programs we get in Britain gives an
>accurate (if only partial) portrayal of US society:

>South Park, Twin Peaks, King of the Hill, Jerry Springer Show, Rikki Lake
>Beavis and Butthead, The Sopranos, Baywatch, Frasier, Friends, Cheers?

LOL..

>And what else do you think we need to put in our US Studies curriculum, to
>understand you better?

I think we need to add Ally McBeal, Pizza Gang (?), Oprah, Chicago
Hope, NYPD Blue, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawson's Creek (?).. All of
these are popular here (in addition to those Alikat mentioned).

Btw Alikat, I have a question for you as well, about Absolutely
Fabulous.. how accurate does that show portray the UK society? Hehe..
I should hope not so very accurate ;-)

Jenn

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:39:31 PM6/11/01
to
I'm Canadian, with very limited experience as to whether these shows are
true-to-life in the US. I do like most of them though! I have a question for
you folks in the UK though! I love the UK shows we get here. Is Coronation
Street very accurate?

Jenn

"Kind2dogs" <kind...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010611130528...@ng-cc1.aol.com...

Cindy

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:48:46 PM6/11/01
to
In article <9g2si0$ffh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, roo <r...@kanga.net> wrote:

>The way we in Britain learn about you guys in the States is through TV.

This could explain a lot.

>So my question is, which of these TV programs we get in Britain gives an
>accurate (if only partial) portrayal of US society:
>
>South Park
>Twin Peaks
>King of the Hill
>Jerry Springer Show
>Rikki Lake
>Beavis and Butthead
>The Sopranos
>Baywatch
>Frasier
>Friends
>Cheers?

*jaw drops open*

OK, let me ask you. How much would we learn about you from:

Absolutely Fabulous
Benny Hill
Monty Python
etc
?

--Cindy

Cindy

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 1:50:21 PM6/11/01
to
In article <Xns90BD738028DFCau...@130.133.1.4>,

Rocky <australia...@cadvision.com> wrote:
>"roo" <r...@kanga.net> wrote in
>news:9g2si0$ffh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> Baywatch
>
>I'd like to *think* that Baywatch is indicative of the U.S. The
>slow motion shots and everything.

Hate to burst your...um...bubble.

That's not even accurate of southern California.

--Cindy

roo

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 2:25:14 PM6/11/01
to

"Cindy" <tit...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:2w7V6.39012$Uo3.1...@news6.giganews.com...

Hi Cindy and other People from the US and Helle,

And there I was, sitting with my notebook and ballpoint pen, writing down
all the US idiomatic expressions from 'Jerry Springer, like 'You Ho' ', and
'Whadeva', and now you tell me it's not an accurate reflection of what you
are like. Well, I will have to study another program now.

We love the Sopranos in this house, tho' the dogs only really like TV when
there are animals on, especially cats and horses. We also like South Park
and King of the Hill, and my husband is mesmerised by Buffy the Vampire
Slayer. Can't say there's much of a plot in Baywatch stories, but some UK
males don't seem to mind. Ally Mc Beal can be funny, but she needs a good
cooked breakfast. We are Twin Peakies - 'The Owls are Not What They Seem'
etc. You either love it or you hate it, like S Park.

Beavis and B is OK for MTV fans with raging hormones, very popular with 13
year olds in the UK, but I can only tolerate it in smallish doses. (I used
to share an apartment with a biker, who was very like B and B, so it brings
back memories.) King of the Hill is very gentle and subtle. Can't say I have
much time for Friends, but then it's maybe geared to a younger age
group.Frasier is OK, but I'd argue not as sparky as South Park. Like the dog
in Frasier, of course. Trouble is, Conor blocks our view of the TV and barks
when the dog comes on, and we are watching it in bed.

British TV - yes Ab Fab, Coronation Street, and Monty Python all tell you a
lot about the Brits. Monty Python has been criticized on grounds of being
'little boy' humor, eg not many good roles given to women, women are seen as
strange creatures, but I still find it funny, and like the sense of the
absurd (eg sketch on 'I want a license for Eric, my pet Bee'. The 'four
Yorkshiremen' is another classic. 'When I were young, we lived in middle of
motorway' 'We lived in bottom of lake', each trying to outdo the other in
tales of tough childhoods. Trouble is, when you get older, you find you
start telling younger people things like this! Coronation Street and Ab Fab
also reflect British humor in different ways. British soaps tend to have
strong female characters - true of Coronation Street. Benny Hill is
probably more popular abroad than in Britain, fairly unimaginative and
mysogynist, and old fashioned now - ie the taboos it relies on to create
humor no longer exist to the same extent.

This is a very personal view, though, some of the other Brits might
disagree!

Alikat


Cindy

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 2:33:33 PM6/11/01
to
In article <9g32br$4v1$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, roo <r...@kanga.net> wrote:
>
>"Cindy" <tit...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
>news:2w7V6.39012$Uo3.1...@news6.giganews.com...
>> In article <9g2si0$ffh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, roo <r...@kanga.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> OK, let me ask you. How much would we learn about you from:
>>
>> Absolutely Fabulous
>> Benny Hill
>> Monty Python
>> etc
>> ?
>>
>> --Cindy
>
>Hi Cindy and other People from the US and Helle,
>
>And there I was, sitting with my notebook and ballpoint pen, writing down
>all the US idiomatic expressions from 'Jerry Springer, like 'You Ho' ', and
>'Whadeva', and now you tell me it's not an accurate reflection of what you
>are like. Well, I will have to study another program now.

If all you want is LANGUAGE, any of these will give you samples. (So
will Usenet, for that matter!) I thought you were looking for
CULTURE, though.

Best one for that is visit. Come on over, we won't bite! Much.

--Cindy

Kind2dogs

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 2:33:17 PM6/11/01
to
>Subject: Re: OT or not OT
>From: australia...@cadvision.com (Rocky)
>Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 1:20 PM
>Message-id: <Xns90BD738028DFCau...@130.133.1.4>

I just bet you would. ; )

Eat your heart out Matt, it's like that here!

Kind2dogs

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 2:35:49 PM6/11/01
to
>Subject: Re: OT or not OT
>From: tit...@eris.io.com (Cindy)
>Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 1:48 PM
>Message-id: <2w7V6.39012$Uo3.1...@news6.giganews.com>

>
>In article <9g2si0$ffh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, roo <r...@kanga.net> wrote:
>
>>The way we in Britain learn about you guys in the States is through TV.
>
>This could explain a lot.
>
>>So my question is, which of these TV programs we get in Britain gives an
>>accurate (if only partial) portrayal of US society:
>>
>>South Park
>>Twin Peaks
>>King of the Hill
>>Jerry Springer Show
>>Rikki Lake
>>Beavis and Butthead
>>The Sopranos
>>Baywatch
>>Frasier
>>Friends
>>Cheers?
>
>*jaw drops open*


I thought this was a fun question, not a reality question, or was it?

It wasn't meant to be on the money was it?

>OK, let me ask you. How much would we learn about you from:
>
>Absolutely Fabulous
>Benny Hill
>Monty Python
>etc
>?
>
>--Cindy


I love LOVEJOY!

roo

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 2:43:11 PM6/11/01
to

"Cindy" <tit...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
news:1a8V6.39075$Uo3.1...@news6.giganews.com...

> In article <9g32br$4v1$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, roo <r...@kanga.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Cindy" <tit...@eris.io.com> wrote in message
> >news:2w7V6.39012$Uo3.1...@news6.giganews.com...
> >> In article <9g2si0$ffh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, roo <r...@kanga.net>
wrote:

> >


> >And there I was, sitting with my notebook and ballpoint pen, writing down
> >all the US idiomatic expressions from 'Jerry Springer, like 'You Ho' ',
and
> >'Whadeva', and now you tell me it's not an accurate reflection of what
you
> >are like. Well, I will have to study another program now.
>
> If all you want is LANGUAGE, any of these will give you samples. (So
> will Usenet, for that matter!) I thought you were looking for
> CULTURE, though.
>

Language is part of culture, and when I say 'culture' I mean how people live
and understand the world around them. Didn't like to imply that you guys had
lives as depicted on Jerry Springer, so thought I'd better keep the culture
out of it when I mentioned that program. He's a real cynic, that guy, with
his 'thought for today' at the end. It is voyeuristic rubbish, but still
fascinates me.
Alikat

>
> --Cindy


roo

unread,
Jun 11, 2001, 2:55:10 PM6/11/01