MY Brown Dogs Rescue : )
BRDOGS
A rant came on..so here I go...
Yesterday I left at 3:30 am to do a show.
Eight hour trip.
I am tired but at least the "Brown Dogs" can eat for awhile : )
Arrived home a wee bit ago.
The machine had mucho messages on it and SEVENTEEN were about Chessies
to be given up : (
Anyway, I am not going to go into them all, and I am only going to go
into one,"count your blessings" ; )
This one has really got me going...
A man called in a panic.
He "rescued" a dog through CBRR&R and
he drove down south to get him.
He has had the dog for two days and cannot keep him.
Seems the dog is aggressive and tried to attack his wife.
He told me he has called MANY people that were involved with this dog
(Chessie rescue people)
and NO ONE has yet to return his call.
He told me that I was the only one to return his call.
AND I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANYWAY WITH THIS DOG!
This person should not have been able to rescue a Chessie as he never
had a dog before,with this family. he has a few young children, his wife
is VERY ILL ...
He told me he was told that this TWO YEAR old male Chessie would not
need much exercise?
Yikes!!!
So right now the dog is coming here and I am the one that is going to
have to take care of this adoption gone bad.
: (
The guy cannot keep the dog and will not drive the dog all the way down
South.
That is why dogs "shipped" far away is not a good thing,huh?
Maybe you "rescuers" out there should reevaluate what you are doing, and
one thing...
You should strive for adoptions that should be forever and when you
adopt a dog out, be there for the person after the adoption,huh?
It is a MATTER of LIFE AND DEATH for the dogs,huh?
Oh and one more thing. Lots of people have told me that they have
donated to CBRR&R because they thought I was involved.
Well I have never received any of that money as I am not with this
group,okay?
For the people that have donated, many thanks, but the only rescue I am
involved in, is MINE
and I am so happy to be ALONE and doing things MY WAY, the best way...
No brag just fact...
Sorry I never have been modest ; )
Brown Dogs Rescue...since 1971
A dogs life is too short...
Their only fault really...
Sue Eveland
that I'm strong enough to handle some of the heartbreaks that I'm sure come
with.
God Bless You For What You Do.
Sue E & Desi
Carole
I don't rescue "brown dogs" but I hear you loud and clear. Rescue is
fullfilling but darn hard. You do the work, you get to spout off and do
it your way. I hope you feel better after venting and feel free to rant
anytime. I especially enjoy them. <g> I get accused of being too picky
about dog placements sometimes but I don't care. I am the one training
the dog and putting in the time and emotion and money so I have final
say. Your friend and admirer in rescue....Carole
roodog
>You go girl!
Where am I going? ; )
I know off to watch The Sopranos!
I agree with what you are saying and respect your opinion.
Thank you.
>I don't rescue "brown dogs" but I hear you loud and clear. Rescue is
>fullfilling but darn hard.
I love rescuing dogs, I have to say. Honestly if I could, that is all I
would
do, but I need to pay to be able to do my rescue," my way" so sometimes I
gotta work : (
Good thing I pay myself well though,huh? ; )
You do the work, you get to spout off and do
>it your way.
Hey that's me. MISS SPOUTER!!!
I hope you feel better after venting and feel free to rant
>anytime.
I feel fine especially that the dog is " safe" and will find a good home.
A good permanent home.
I even have someone already picked out for him : )
I especially enjoy them. <g>
YOu do? Funny that is what everyone says ; )
I get accused of being too picky
>about dog placements sometimes but I don't care. I am the one training
>the dog and putting in the time and emotion and money so I have final
>say.
I understand. : )
Your friend and admirer in rescue....Carole
Thanks
Woof!
Paulette~
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
available you have to wonder what happens to the dogs.
As for long distance rescue - I do it all the time and it works - maybe you
should be questioning the integrity and screening skills of the others
rescuing in your breed instead of questioning long distance adoptions.
So tell us how you have contacted the official rescue and asked about 'their
side' of the this adoption - who knows if the man told the truth or if
anyone actually advised him to get this dog? who knows if what he is saying
to you has any basis in reality at all?
If he is local to you and the CBR rescue knows about you and your efforts
AND you are working cooperatively with others who do rescue in your breed
maybe you should ask why you were not called to check this adopter out?
Bad mouthing other rescuers on an adopters say so instead of checking things
out yourself or instead of working cooperatively with the others who have a
similar mission simply does no good at all for the dogs.
I got a dog out of a situation where the people claimed they got it from
rescue - tracking back it turned out this was a dog from an ARL that the
people had been told had no history because it was picked up as a stray and
they had been advised NOT to adopt it by every rescuer they spoke to
(including me) - well they did adopt it as it was a cheap fee to get it out
and it bit their obnoxious brat of a kid (5 minutes of listening to this kid
and I wanted to bite him too!) so the husband tied the dog to a chain link
fence and beat it with a pipe - the skull fracture ultimately led to the
dog's death :-( but to hear those people talk 'rescue placed a vicious dog
with them and then would not take it back'.
Nancy
BRDOGS <BRD...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6665-38D...@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Hi Guys~
>
> A rant came on..so here I go...
>
> Yesterday I left at 3:30 am to do a show.
>
> Eight hour trip.
>
> I am tired but at least the "Brown Dogs" can eat for awhile : )
>
> Arrived home a wee bit ago.
>
> The machine had mucho messages on it and SEVENTEEN were about Chessies
> to be given up :
>
BRDOGS
>Well that's what's sad about working independently -
>when you are not available you have to wonder >what happens to the
dogs.
Sad? I don't think so. I choose to work my way as the NEW rescue group
doesn't know too much.
In fact a lot of the supposed Chessie rescue people never even have had
a Chessie before.
Oh and I ALWAYS know what happens to MY dogs, and most of the others
too.
> As for long distance rescue - I do it all the time and
>it works - maybe you should be questioning the
>integrity and screening skills of the others rescuing
>in your breed instead of questioning long distance >adoptions.
Well I don't and I won't.
Why should I ? I have more than enough adopters for my dogs, that I have
worked hard to find.
> So tell us how you have contacted the official
>rescue and asked about 'their side' of the this >adoption
There is NO OFFICIAL rescue, Nancy. Just a new group with a bunch of
people that are confused.
Most do not know what is going on ever.
I wish them nothing but good luck though, as there are SO MANY dumped
dogs, however I don't feel I like to pick up their mistakes,huh?
I mean no one has ever had to take care of mine, EVER!
>- who knows if the man told the truth or if anyone >actually advised
him to get this dog?
The dog was listed by CBRR&R. The man got the dog from them and then
they ignored him, according to him.
Myself I don't believe anyone. I just KNOW that this guy wanted help and
called the people thet he had dealt with.
Then he called me.
Sometimes TOO , way too manynovice volunteers, and no "mentors" really
means much more work.
I don't believe you like it, if all of a sudden there were all these
people that were "rescuing" your breed, and then you were finding and
fixing all the problems,huh?
I don't want ANYTHING to do with CBRR&R as I am my own rescue, and have
been doing such way before most of these "rescuers have been born."
I have tried to help them and when they call for help or any problems I
have always availed myself to them, HOWEVER I do not want to be part of
this group.
> who knows if what he is saying to you has any >basis in reality at
all?
True.
This has happened quite a few times, and not only to me but to another
one that does her rescue of brown dogs, and I am so thankful for her!
>If he is local to you and the CBR rescue knows
>about you and your efforts, NAncy I AM RESCUE do you understand that?
Ask anyone in Chessies and they will tell you so. I am the one that has
been and will be Chessie Rescue
He never contacted me, and I never knew him until he called.
HOWEVER I will not work with CBRR&R with their adoptions, as they do
many referrals and I do not. I want HANDS ON ADOPTIONS
.
AND you are working
>cooperatively with others who do rescue in your
>breed maybe you should ask why you were not >called to check this
adopter out?
Why me? There are supposedly many other people that belong to CBRR&R,
who live MUCH CLOSER to this man,why weren't they asked to check him
out?
Why ???
Or better yet, why couldn't they find a home closer to where the dog
lived? Or at least closer to a the person that was doing the rescue.
> Bad mouthing other rescuers on an adopters say so
>instead of checking things out yourself or instead of
>working cooperatively with the others who have a
>similar mission simply does no good at all for the >dogs.
I stated facts, Nancy.
Tonight a dog came from Illinois. A Chessie that was suppose to have
been HELPED by CBRR&R and I was told the dog was helped. Well the
shelter called and said noone came to get the dog, and now the dog has
been sent here.
Now how come in over SIX MONTHS there has been a Chessie in rescue and
noone in Illinois or thereabouts could take this dog?
COME ON!!!
I don't get it and I hope I never will.
I will "bad mouth" anyone that could get a dog killed.
>I got a dog out of a situation where the people >claimed they got it
from rescue - tracking back it >turned out this was a dog from an ARL
that the >people had been told had no history because it >was picked up
as a stray and they had been >advised NOT to adopt it by every rescuer
they >spoke to (including me) - well they did adopt it as it >was a
cheap fee to get it out and it bit their >obnoxious brat of a kid (5
minutes of listening to >this kid and I wanted to bite him too!) so the
>husband tied the dog to a chain link fence and >beat it with a pipe -
the skull fracture ultimately led >to the dog's death :-( but to hear
those people talk '>rescue placed a vicious dog with them and then
>would not take it back'.
>Nancy
The dog was adopted through the CBRR&R. I havebeen in contact with
people from that group, and noone :knew" anything until I started naming
names...
Anyway the two dogs are fine and I will be able to sleep tonight, and
looking forward to not beng bothered by these people.
Paulette~
BRDOGS
It's me again.
I just wanted to say how VERY fortunate the Brown Dogs are for having a
wonderful lady in their corner.
Jane Peabody, a very nice,sweet,non confronattional,modest woman,(the
antithesis of me, I know) ; )
that I have great fondness for. : )
She is ALWAYS there to help no matter how full or how tired she is.
Jane lives in Maine and has Safe Harbor Kennels.
Anyway all
Pleasant Dreams
Paulette~
The nasty girl...
MEGONSAX
That is also said about me all the time :}
I rescue huskies. This is is a very hard breed to rehome, as they
generally have behavior problems by the time they get here {jumpimg walls,
digging, tearing up things} My husband says that I would screen out God, I
told him that I would have to evaluate the situation, after all he is REALLY
busy <VBG>
Megon Sax
Az Husky Rescue
Have2CBRs
whew - here goes.
this is christy and i am on the board of directors for CBR R&R. our group is
only in it's second year of operation and is growing very rapidly. we have
recently become incorporated and are trying very hard to become more
'organized'. upon reading the recent thread about having to rescue a CBR R&R
rescue, i did a little investigating. it is very important to us that a member
of our organization does not operate in the manner that was described. the
only information supplied was the dog's name so i've had very little to go on.
but this is what i have found:
Otter, was an owner placement located in Baltimore Md. he's the only otter i
can find and he is still listed at our site. yes, CBR R&R provided the listing
space for this dog. the listing space only. CBR R&R has information available
for those wishing to adopt one of 'ours' or an 'owner placement'. please visit
this link to see the advantages and disadvantages of each explained:
http://www.cbrrescue.org/diff.htm
this is a quote from from the link above showing the disadvantages of adopting
directly from an owner: Disadvantages: In these cases, Chesapeake Bay
Retriever Relief & Rescue has not evaluated the dog's health, condition,
temperament or behavior - we have not met the dog or its current owners. You
must ask questions of the owner and try to meet the dog before the adoption so
you can evaluate the dog's temperament and condition. In these cases, the
owners may want to sell the dog - the proceeds of this adoption do not go to
the Chesapeake Bay Retriever Relief & Rescue Fund. If the adoption does not
work out - former owners are often reluctant to take back the dog.
we go to great lengths to insure the proper placement of one of ours. we are
always upfront and honest about every issue concerning the dog, no matter how
minor we think it to be. the new owners know as much as we do about the
chessie prior to adopting it. we learn as much as we can about the family
wanting to adopt to try to determine the best possible match for the family, if
in fact any chessie would be good for them. we phone interview them, we check
references, and we visit with them. we always follow up with every placement.
we contact on a regular basis and ask for pictures as well. and when the
opportunity arises, we re-visit with some as well.
yes there are some volunteers that are new at it, and i for one am there to
answer all their questions and point them in the right direction. as i said,
we are fairly new and in the very near future we will have a volunteer
coordinator who's duties will include directing the individual rescuer.
we are an all volunteer, not-for-profit organization dedicated to rescuing
chessies in need and placing them in permanent loving homes. i have only been
rescuing for 2 years. i have only had chessies for 9. because of the help
and guidance of others when i started, i am very successful at what i do.
i have had the great pleasure of working with jane peabody on many, many
occassions, and by working together we have saved several chessies.
i do hope this has cleared things up a bit. we are here to help the chessies
who need us and we do the best we can.
sincerely,
christy
Lynn Kosmakos
Have2CBRs wrote:
>
> i've recently joined this group and came just in time to represent CBR R&R.
Welcome, Christy, and I'm glad you were here to offer the
background on the case that was mentioned. An owner referral
is a totally different thing than a dog owned and placed by
a rescue organization and illustrates well the point that was
made about not taking an adopter's story as gospel.
Rescue is hard enough work without causing needless conflict
with the people we should be working with and supporting.
Lynn K.
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
bashing you did not have all the information. This is not an unusual thing
with her.
Keep up the good work and do try to work cooperatively with those who will
work with you. Personally I have found that having a positive relationship
with others doing rescue to be an advantage but apparently some people feel
differently., though I don't think you do!
Nancy
Have2CBRs <have...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000320115911...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> i've recently joined this group and came just in time to represent CBR
R&R.
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
snip
>
> There is NO OFFICIAL rescue, Nancy. Just a new group with a bunch of
> people that are confused.
Well make up your mind - there is either a rescue you refer to as CBR R&R or
there isn't - from all the evidence there is such a group and even you
called them a rescue for your breed.
Nice doubletalk but as usual you have so much fun bashing others you lose
the benefits to the dogs in the confusion.
Perhaps if you have all these wonderful homes waiting for dogs you could
join the group, add some expertise and match *their* waiting dogs up with
deserving owners....
Nancy
Esk...@flash.net
> Otter, was an owner placement located in Baltimore Md. he's the only otter i
> can find and he is still listed at our site. yes, CBR R&R provided the listing
> space for this dog. the listing space only. CBR R&R has information available
> for those wishing to adopt one of 'ours' or an 'owner placement'.
This is *exactly what I figured it was as I was following this thread!
It shows that we ALL should give the benefit of the doubt before
making assumptions.
Jennifer Frey
bashing but since I am part of the "new rescue group" CBR R&R I will add my
little bit.
CBR R&R is now a non profit rescue org. We recently accepted our bylaws in
Jan. We are in the process of coming up with SOPs and member applications.
Before we were only a group of people tied together by a common bond - The
love of the brown dogs. Now we can offically rescue these wonderful dogs.
Yes I will admit that things might not have been run like other rescue
groups but we are learning and trying our best. MANY MANY Chessie's have
been put into WONDERFUL homes. Yes we have had some follies but we are not
perfect. We have dogs listed on our site that are strictly owner placements
and we have a paragraph stating the difference between owner placements and
rescued dogs. We can not save every chessie and we are deciding on a policy
about chessie's that have biten or been outwardly aggressive.
Again we are doing the best we can and in the coming months I am sure are
policy's will be much tighter. every incorp rescue group has to start
somewhere. So unless you have never been confused or less then perfect
please do not put CBR R&R down for working towards a national rescue org
that has already helped save chessies all over the country.
Jen Johnson
CBR R&R
MCSPCA
----------
In article <8b6gnm$4r$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Nancy Holmes or Nelson
Ruffin" <fmka...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> BRDOGS <BRD...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:7071-38D...@storefull-136.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> snip
>>
>> There is NO OFFICIAL rescue, Nancy. Just a new group with a bunch of
>> people that are confused.
AussieResc
have someone meet the dog before placing it on a webpage. I'm with Aussie
rescue and we are always encouraged to meet any dog that we may refer adopters
to. Just a suggestion.
Pat
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/aussieresc">Aussies in Shelters</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/paltm81324">Dakota's Rescue Page</A>
Lynn Kosmakos
AussieResc wrote:
>
> My only comment is that if a dog is an owner referral you still may want to
> have someone meet the dog before placing it on a webpage.
Remember that it was a national organization involved, without
coverage in all geographic areas, and it was a long distance
adoption with that the rescue didn't even know had happened.
Lynn K.
BRDOGS
>Well make up your mind - there is either a rescue
>you refer to as CBR R&R or there isn't - from all the
>evidence there is such a group and even you called
>them a rescue for your breed.
>Nice doubletalk but as usual you have so much fun
>bashing others you lose the benefits to the dogs in >the confusion.
>Perhaps if you have all these wonderful homes
>waiting for dogs you could join the group, add some
>expertise and match *their* waiting dogs up with
>deserving owners....
>Nancy
There ia an ACC Rescue which started recently and you have to be an ACC
member, of which I am one.
There is an CBRR&R and it can be anyone who does rescue and it is not
part of ACC.
And I am not part of this group.
I AM NOT A JOINER and never will be. I have however tried to be a mentor
to some of the people that are doing rescue, and have helped this group
many times.
As for me having enough homes for all the Brown Dogs in need, well that
just is not a reality.
I do believe a ONE person doing as many adoptions as I do a year, and
working so very hard and passionately at what I am doing is quite
enough and any more for me would be too much.
I am not about to have to train a whole group of volunteers across
country,okay?
You don't need so many volunteers, you need a selective few wise
volunteers, that ant to learn to help the 'Brown Dogs"
I have trained my volunteers here and that is enough for me to handle.
And things are very well for me and my dogs...
Paulette~
Dogman
[...]
>>Perhaps if you have all these wonderful homes
>>waiting for dogs you could join the group, add some
>>expertise and match *their* waiting dogs up with
>>deserving owners....
>>Nancy
>I have trained my volunteers here and that is enough for me to handle.
[...]
Gracie, work at your own pace, and in your own way, and learn how to
ignore idiots like Nancy "The Screaming Banshee" Holmes.
She's become a TROLL in her old age, and if she were a dog, she'd have
been put down years ago.
Geeeeeeez, what a bitch.
--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
The Nicholas Regush/ABC News column for Wednesday 3/15:
Fighting the HIV Party Line - The Gay Community Like the Straight One Offers Little Solace for Non-Conformists
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/secondopinion/secondopinion.html
For everything you've ever wanted to know about Jerry Howe
and our other trolls and scumbags, go here:
http://www.i1.net/~dogman/trolls.html
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
around bashing the people who *are* working together based on misinformation
to boost your own ego and then expect praise for it.
Nancynews:2703-38D...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net...snip
Dogman
>Dogman wrote:
>
>> Gracie, work at your own pace, and in your own way, and learn how to
>> ignore idiots like Nancy "The Screaming Banshee" Holmes.
>> She's become a TROLL in her old age, and if she were a dog, she'd have
>> been put down years ago.
>> Geeeeeeez, what a bitch.
>
>I think you're being a bit unfair here.
I agree. I should have dumped on Holmes much more than I did, but I
was called to dinner.
>Lord knows, Nancy and I
>have gone to the mats more than once, but I read this differently.
>What I saw as a gratuitious attack on the professionalism, judgement
>and experience of a national breed rescue group.
I didn't see Paulette attacking anyone, did you?
She said she prefers to work independently.
So what?
So do a lot of people.
As far as her frustrations with some members of national groups goes,
who hasn't been frustrated by incompetence, a lack of judgement, and
the experience of certain so-called rescuers?
It goes with the territory, but that was far from any attack on the
work that national rescue organizations do.
I used to let myself get jacked around by the national orgs., too,
that's why I try not to have anything to do with them myself.
There are just too many people like Nancy "The Mordant Bitch" Holmes
to work with.
The horror. The horror.
>Nncy very
>correctly questioned whether what was presented as fact was verified.
>It turned out that it wasn't.
But did you see the *way* she did it?
Was that really necessary?
>It's pretty hard to fault Nancy in
>any way for that.
I try to fault Nancy Holmes as often as I can.
I almost consider it my obligation.
>I see this rather tawdry episode as an example of what happens
>when people let ego get in the way of rescue work.
Yes, it does, and it also serves to illustrate's Paulette's point
pretty nicely, don't you think?
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
person is making a fair analysis - I'm guessing a certain chessie owner who
admires drunkman for unknown reasons whined for help here - but lately I
have drunkman blocked which along with blocking jerry has improved the
groups no end!
Nancy
Lynn Kosmakos <lkos...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38D81EBD...@home.com...
>
>
> Dogman wrote:
>
> > Gracie, work at your own pace, and in your own way, and learn how to
> > ignore idiots like Nancy "The Screaming Banshee" Holmes.
> > She's become a TROLL in her old age, and if she were a dog, she'd have
> > been put down years ago.
> > Geeeeeeez, what a bitch.
>
> I think you're being a bit unfair here. Lord knows, Nancy and I
> have gone to the mats more than once, but I read this differently.
> What I saw as a gratuitious attack on the professionalism, judgement
> and experience of a national breed rescue group. Nancy very
> correctly questioned whether what was presented as fact was verified.
> It turned out that it wasn't. It's pretty hard to fault Nancy in
> any way for that.
>
> I see this rather tawdry episode as an example of what happens
> when people let ego get in the way of rescue work.
>
> Lynn K.
Dogman
> We are in the process of coming up with SOPs and member applications.
Oh oh...already signs of "organizationitis"!
>Before we were only a group of people tied together by a common bond - The
>love of the brown dogs.
Jen, that's about all that should be required.
>We can not save every chessie and we are deciding on a policy
>about chessie's that have biten or been outwardly aggressive.
Those are precisely the kinds of "policies" I'm talking about.
Once they're all chipped in stone, common sense flies right out the
window -- and good dogs end up DYING.
You'll do a lot better having very few, very flexible "policies."
The fewer the better,in fact.
>Again we are doing the best we can and in the coming months I am sure are
>policy's will be much tighter.
That's going in the wrong direction, in my opinion.
As your group's level of experience grows, your "policies" should
become looser, not tighter.
>So unless you have never been confused or less then perfect
>please do not put CBR R&R down for working towards a national rescue org
>that has already helped save chessies all over the country.
In my opinion, Paulette's not putting down your work, Jen. She's just
being frank about many of the *foibles* associated with rescue work,
especially organizational rescue work.
A dog rescue can entail just one dog and one human; rescue work really
doesn't require an "organization."
Lynn Kosmakos
Sally Hennessey
wrote:
Hear, hear. We see an awful lot of this in Greyhound rescue/adoption,
because there are so many groups. Perhaps many of the groups or
individuals don't have the level of experience that others have, but
they are still saving lives.
Egos have no place in this work. I think the vast majority of us do
the best we can, and I will never believe that there is anyone out
there who has not made a mistake.
Sally Hennessey
Lynn Kosmakos
Dogman wrote:
> I didn't see Paulette attacking anyone, did you?
----------snippets of the Sun. 7:27 post--------------------
Sad? I don't think so. I choose to work my way as the NEW rescue group
doesn't know too much.
In fact a lot of the supposed Chessie rescue people never even have had
a Chessie before.
There is NO OFFICIAL rescue, Nancy. Just a new group with a bunch of
people that are confused.
Most do not know what is going on ever.
Sometimes TOO , way too manynovice volunteers, and no "mentors" really
means much more work.
I don't believe you like it, if all of a sudden there were all these
people that were "rescuing" your breed, and then you were finding and
fixing all the problems,huh?
I don't want ANYTHING to do with CBRR&R as I am my own rescue, and have
been doing such way before most of these "rescuers have been born."
The dog was adopted through the CBRR&R. I havebeen in contact with
people from that group, and noone :knew" anything until I started naming
names...
Anyway the two dogs are fine and I will be able to sleep tonight, and
looking forward to not beng bothered by these people.
---------end quotes---------------------------------------------
Those are some pretty strong words, particularly when they are
based on a case that is not at all as it was presented, and
where the rescue was indeed blameless. Yes, I think "attack" is
a fair characterization and I'm frankly astounded that an apology
has not been published.
> As far as her frustrations with some members of national groups goes,
> who hasn't been frustrated by incompetence, a lack of judgement, and
> the experience of certain so-called rescuers?
That would certainly be frustrating, if it were the case. But none
of those things apply to the case that prompted the comments and
we have no reason to believe that they should apply to this group.
And I see no constructive purpose in publishing something so
detrimental about a rescue group. It can only hurt the dogs.
> Yes, it does, and it also serves to illustrate's Paulette's point
> pretty nicely, don't you think?
No. I see successful rescue as cooperative, not competitive, and
competition is always based on ego. For example, every rescue
keeps stats on dogs rescued (dogs physically taken into custody,
with legal ownership to the rescue, and placed in homes). But
those stats are useful only for fund raising and as descriptors
of the rescue's operations. Not as bragging rights.
Lynn K.
Sally Hennessey
wrote:
>> Yes, it does, and it also serves to illustrate's Paulette's point
>> pretty nicely, don't you think?
>
>No. I see successful rescue as cooperative, not competitive, and
>competition is always based on ego. For example, every rescue
>keeps stats on dogs rescued (dogs physically taken into custody,
>with legal ownership to the rescue, and placed in homes). But
>those stats are useful only for fund raising and as descriptors
>of the rescue's operations. Not as bragging rights.
Hear, hear again. It could not have been said better than this, Lynn.
Sally Hennessey
BRDOGS
gone to the mats more than once, but I read this differently.
You sure did.
What I saw as a gratuitious attack on the professionalism, judgement
and experience of a national breed rescue group.
OH PLEEZEEEEEEEEEE!
> Nancy very correctly questioned whether what was
>presented as fact was verified. It turned out that it >wasn't.
YOU think that? Well I am here to say it WAS verified, and I did not
make ANY INCORRECT statements.
>It's pretty hard to fault Nancy in any way for that.
I> see this rather tawdry episode as an example of
>what happens when people let ego get in the way of
>rescue work.
>Lynn K.
This is jst so over the top. YOU think anything you want, I KNOW that
this is because "so called rescue people" are running around, and not
knowing what they are doing.
Yes, I do have an ego, but it is not because of me and my rescue.
So YOU do things YOUR WAY and I'll do things my way, and I will rant at
anyone I believe is screwing up with a dog, and then I have to fix it.
Hey, I do not ask people to call from cross country because someone else
in rescuing is ignoring them.
In fact I have stated many times I only want to deal with the Brown Dogs
here in m area...
I cannot however ignore someone in need, when a dogs life is at stake.
Oh an Lynn why not get YOUR FACTS straight before you say I haven't huh.
As I am definitely right as usual about the Brown Dogs and the things
that are going on in rescue.
BRDOGS
>I'm guessing a certain chessie owner who admires
>drunkman for unknown reasons whined for help here
>- but lately I have drunkman blocked which along
>with blocking jerry has improved the groups no end!
>Nancy
Oh Nancy, I haven't even seen this till this morning.
I would never WHINE to someone,and I do believe that you and are are
capable of going at it without me having to get back up huh?
YOU have a way about you and so don't I and are personalities are
definitely quite different, but even when we are at odds, I thought we
had a belief in saving dogs,and to me that is what it is all about, not
YOU not ME NOONE except the dogs,huh?
And I will always be available and I do thank you for telling me of any
brown dogs in need that you hear about, as I have always gone the
distance to get them,huh?
BRDOGS
>Yes, it does, and it also serves to illustrate's
>Paulette's point pretty nicely, don't you think?
>--
: )
KLGFCG
Dogman, have you ever been in a rescue group? It's one thing for an individual
rescuer to have less tight policies but it's an automatic downfall for a group.
There are just too many people involved in group decision making to evaluate
each case that comes in without the whole thing turning into an argument. As
for biters and aggressive dogs, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be
consideration given to cases individually but in my humble opinion there are
way too many behaviorally sound and wonderful dogs *dying* because people want
to waste their time working with aggressive dogs that won't be ready for
adoption for quite a while if ever. Same goes for feral cats-- trap, neuter,
release; any socialization efforts take homes away from cats who don't need all
the extra effort and could go into homes right away. Not to say that sometimes
the extra effort isn't worth it, just that in the grand scheme of things we
can't save them all and we need to maximize time, space, and resources so we
can help as many as possible. Finally, while I don't agree with all the
flaming, etc. going on around here, Paulette, your ego drives me crazy and I
can see why you're getting nailed about it. Yeah, your way may work for you,
but the constant "Here I am, I'm so great" is very, very grating to those of us
who are working hard in rescue, not getting any praise, and not seeking any
praise. Anyone willing to foster a dog or do what you've done for years is
great, but do we need to hear it all the time? Whew... there's my two cents.
~Kerra
BRDOGS
J F writes
>So unless you have never been confused or less
>then perfect please do not put CBR R&R down for
>working towards a national rescue org that has >already helped save
chessies all over the country.
Really? I don't think so. I have seen your aoptions and the names, and
one time I called the CBR on it, as a lot of those names on the adoption
list were MY adoptions, and I have no idea why MY adoptions would be put
on a board,that I do not belong.
AND do not want to belong
As I believe "hands on adoptions" are the way to go...
Look it, as far as I am concerned there is always room for more people
to rescue brwon dogs.
However, I don't want to fix the mistakes of your rescue.
I do not want to be involved at all ever with this group.
I have stated this many many times,huh?
I want to be left alone, and not have to pick up others problems.
I have never had more aggravation,then when this thing started, as noone
knows what the other is doing, and also many shelters and pounds and
"breed rescues" are calling me telling me how no one gets back to them.
Perhaps your group should have a meeting, and try to come up with some
training for your rescue volunteers.
Just this week there was a dog in Minnesota, that someone wrote me
about.
I contacted them and the "rescue person" stated that the dog is
"scary",and the dog is too jumpy!
Of course the rescue person never had a Chessie and didn't know
Chessies, but this was the Chessie contact? ; (
MY doG!!!
Put the dog down because of that????
Anyway all is well as the dog got sent this way...
AND the dog is a typical Chessie....
No problemo what so ever.
I hardly ever am confused Jennifer,especially in my rescue.
You see confusion makes screw ups.
As for CBRR&R I have always tried to help them. I get calls all the time
from people in CBRR&R.
As for perfect, well I do strive for perfection.
So you say you are helping Chessies all over the country,huh?
Great.
How about Chesies in Illinois?
No rescue people there?
Let me ask you something Jennifer. Do you have Chessies?
How many?
How long?
How many "hands on adoptions" have yo done?
MANY people that are in CBRR&R do not even KNOW Chessies, but like in
all things they want to say that they are doing "rescue"
Also CBRR&R is not anything to do with American Chesapeake Club,or ACC
rescue,right?
How come many of your rescuers,don't do anything?
Have any been trained to know what to do?
Even the "big shots" : ) on your group, call me with their problems, and
I have always been available to hep them because a dogs life is at
stake.
Ask.around with your group, and I am sure they will tell you that
Paulette really knows her Chessies and always has the right answer and
will fix the problem.
Hey I could care less if anyone likes me or not, or thinks whatever but
I do know they value my opinion highly about rescue and Chessie and
problemo dogs.
And if YOU or they don't well that's your problem,not mine
And of course the "beloved brown dogs" that is why I put up with so
much!
NOW you have come out of the "woodwork" to say I am putting your rescue
down,huh?
WHO the heck are you anyway?
I couldn't find anyone that knew you.
How long have you be in rescue?
Why not go do a rescue today,huh?
And make in PERMANENT!!!
As for me putting down CBRR&R, I don't believe I have done that
whatsoever. I will however always be frank and matter of fact.
Now let me just say this. YOU would never hear from me if I was not MADE
to get involved in CBRR&R,as I mind my own business.
I do not go looking for dogs or people that have a problem with CBRR&R.
I do however get annoyed at the ineptness of the adoptions, and I am not
about to "bail" every dog or person that calls me up, after they got a
dog through you.
I get annoyed with a bunch of ignorant rescuers that when I try to
explain how things really should be done, and then they go off, willy
nilly and "screw up"
It is as if they have blinders on, and don't want to learn.
So be it.
As in all oorganizations, there ae problems, huh?
Well you see you get a few problems and then when it isn't fixd, it just
gets magnified.
Volunteers need guidance..most people do..
As I told someone else over on CBRR&R,after this last incident, I am
done with this, and to PLEASE do not email me and I would really want to
be left alone, and KNOW nothing about your group, or your adoptions, as
I have enough of my own, thank you very much..
It makes far more work, to have to refix something, than doing it right
the first time.
We can put an end to all of this,okay?
Make sure you tell everyone over at CBRR&R that Paulette is an
egotistical tyrant and not to have any contact with her whatsoever, and
also tell the people that adopted a dog through you, NOT to call me huh?
You know I find it odd, that a dog came from down South, and was adopted
to someone in Massachusetts, and no home visit, or even a question was
sent to me to ask if I had even dealt with this man.
Or another person in rescue here was never called either.
Why is that?
Don't say it is because I told them I didn't want to be botheres, as I
didn't say that until AFTER this last fiasco. : (
Oh yes, I know, you did a good adoption and didn't need any help or info
about this man at all,huh?
: (
Right...
Well I would have much preferred to give you info about someone BEFORE
you do an adoption so far away, then have to take the dog after you have
done an adoption, and almost cost a dog his life.
<sigh>
Whenever I have someone that wants a dog from me I ask other people in
rescue if they"know" anything about the person.
You may believe I do not work well with others, well that definitely is
not true, as the people that I have been dealing with for years and
decades, well we get along perfectly...
A very good think, I think...
You know Jennifer, I have been in a shelter group from the beginning,
and was iin fact Chairman and Treasurer,of a shelter here.
To get us to really know about things, I would have weekly meetings for
the people that worked at the selter, and we would discuss many problems
and how to deal with it.
The one thing that was needed the most, is there has to be a final
person in charge figure or final say in an adoption and an evaluation.
There has to be a bit or organization, because this really does make for
good adoptions.
Like I said we would have a weekly meeting here, and I would have a lot
of procedures that I worte for people to take home,and when a "rescuer"
was deemed knowledgeable, that is when they could almost "go on their
own" and do an evaluation and an adoption from start to finish...almost.
: )
Also no volunteers were allowed to do anything except watch for a few
weeks,to see how things are done...
So very much easier, at least the people that "volunteered" thought so,
as they got consistency, training, patience,and of course "kindness and
respect"
So I will close that I wish EVERYONE especially CBRR&R nothing but good
will as I am once and always thinking of saving dogs...
It has always been my passion and my mission...
Paulette~
>In my opinion, Paulette's not putting down your
>work, Jen. She's just being frank about many of the
>*foibles* associated with rescue work, especially >organizational
rescue work.
Absolutely.
>A dog rescue can entail just one dog and one
>human; rescue work really doesn't require an >"organization."
Of course you are right again, Dogman...
; )
Paulette
Brown Dogs Rescue...
BRDOGS
about what she knows nothing of...
>Those are some pretty strong words,
TRUTHFUL words.
> particularly when they are based on a case that is
>not at all as it was presented, and where the rescue >was indeed
blameless.
Like I said Lynn, you know NOTHING about this whatsoever, as if you did
you would KNOW that CBRR&R had everything to do with this.
> Yes, I think "attack" is a fair characterization and
>I'm frankly astounded that an apology has not been >published.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
Are you kidding, or on you on drugs????
Never will there be an apology fromme for someone eless ineptness, that
could get a dog KILLED!!!
I didn't just write this here you know, I wrote it on the Chessie
borards and lists also.
NOONE has said one word on these boardss, except tell me I am right,
including the CBRR&R folk that wrote...
Oh yes it's so odd that you think that CBRR&R didn't have anything to do
with this "adoption" when it is right there on the web site!!!
Geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>As far as her frustrations with some members of
>national groups goes, who hasn't been frustrated by
>incompetence, a lack of judgement, and the >experience of certain
so-called rescuers?
Hey, I don't have a problem with "screwups" when it is a first time and
you tried to help. I do have a problem with people NOT learning from
their screw ups.
>That would certainly be frustrating, if it were the
>case. But none of those things apply to the case
>that prompted the comments and we have no
r>eason to believe that they should apply to this >group.
Talk about annoying! You have no facts whatsoever, and you are maing
statements that are not true.
AND if you supposedly do have such statements that CBRR&R were not
involved well please state where you found this?
Anone, go to CBRR&R page and check out "Otter"
There is the dog, right there in black and white!
NOw that is all I am about to say right now of this as I could give a
flying fig,what people think they KNOW and what I KNOW to be the truth.
Now everyone out there, who do you believe?
Someone that is in the know about the Chessies, and has rescued the dog?
Or another person albeit usually in the know,and who does rescue but has
stated many times she does not know about Chessies or hunting dogs.
WHO has she gotten info from???
I mean come on, I wouldn';t be "blathering" about her and her problems
in her breed,huh?
Gezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> And I see no constructive purpose in publishing
>something so detrimental about a rescue group. It >can only hurt the
dogs.
Nope I don't believe such.. You can stop dogs from being KILLED.
>Yes, it does, and it also serves to illustrate's >Paulette's point
pretty nicely, don't you think?
>No. I see successful rescue as cooperative, not
>competitive, and competition is always based on >ego.
Oh geezzzze if that was the case I would nevr help anyone...
> For example, every rescue keeps stats on dogs
>rescued (dogs physically taken into custody, with >legal ownership to
the rescue, and placed in >homes)
So???
> But those stats are useful only for fund raising and
>as descriptors of the rescue's operations. Not as
>bragging rights.
>Lynn K.
Hey Lynn, it's not bragging if it's fact!!!
Let's drop it huh, as obviously you do not know what happened in this
case, or the other Brown Dogs adoptions...
Paulette~
roodog
Well just don't read me if I drive you crazy,huh?
Yes true I think VERY HIGHLY of myself and so do the dogs. : )
Like I said don't read me.
In fact I find it odd that I have never seen you post.
Hmmmmmmm
Coming out of the closet,huh?
Paulette~
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
roodog
>My only comment is that if a dog is an owner referral you still may want to
>rescue and we are always encouraged to meet any dog that we may refer
adopters
>to. Just a suggestion.
>Pat
><A HREF="http://members.aol.com/aussieresc">Aussies in Shelters</A>
><A HREF="http://members.aol.com/paltm81324">Dakota's Rescue Page</A>
An excellant sugestion and one that I mentioned to them when they first
started up.
roodog
would answer under MY Brown Dogs Rescue
>Have2CBRs <have...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000320115911...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
>> i've recently joined this group and came just in time to represent CBR
>R&R.
Really?
>> whew - here goes.
>>
>> this is christy and i am on the board of directors for CBR R&R.
My my.
Where are you?
our group
>is
>> only in it's second year of operation and is growing very rapidly. we
>have
>> recently become incorporated and are trying very hard to become more
>> 'organized'. upon reading the recent thread about having to rescue a CBR
>R&R
>> rescue, i did a little investigating. it is very important to us that a
>member
>> of our organization does not operate in the manner that was described.
Again really?
There are many people in your organization acting ike this, why not call
some
of the people that have had to save these dogs after they have beed
adopted,huh?
>the
>> only information supplied was the dog's name so i've had very little to go
>on.
Of course
If you are on the board, don't you believe you should KNOW about the dogs
adopted,out?
>> but this is what i have found:
>>
>> Otter, was an owner placement located in Baltimore Md. he's the only
>otter i
>> can find and he is still listed at our site. yes, CBR R&R provided the
>listing
>> space for this dog.
And aren't I the one that gave out the info on the Chessie list?
Geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
the listing space only. CBR R&R has information
>available
>> for those wishing to adopt one of 'ours' or an 'owner placement'.
If you are going to list you should at least have intervieved the owner and
the adopter.
please
>visit
>> this link to see the advantages and disadvantages of each explained:
>> http://www.cbrrescue.org/diff.htm
So???
Then why do you LIST rescuers for people to call and ask for help in their
area?
>>
>> we go to great lengths to insure the proper placement of one of ours. we
>are
>> always upfront and honest about every issue concerning the dog, no matter
>how
>> minor we think it to be.
Really?
Well I could go on and on as you know not of what you speak there Christy.
Like I said why not ask some REAL RESCUERS about what dogs that have been
dumped on them after the CBRR&R rescuers have vanished...
the new owners know as much as we do about the
>> chessie prior to adopting it. we learn as much as we can about the family
Yup Which AIN'T MUCH, which is a BIG PROBLEM!
>> wanting to adopt to try to determine the best possible match for the
>family, if
>> in fact any chessie would be good for them. we phone interview them, we
>check
>> references, and we visit with them. we always follow up with every
>placement.
You do,huh?
How long after the adoption?
>> we contact on a regular basis and ask for pictures as well. and when the
>> opportunity arises, we re-visit with some as well.
Why would you not have had somone visit Otter's new home?
Supposedly there are "rescuers near where Otter went to.
>>
>> yes there are some volunteers that are new at it, and i for one am there
>to
>> answer all their questions and point them in the right direction.
So then YOU have all the answers to their questions, huh?
Got one for you?
What about Chessies in Illinois?
Isn't there anyone to help out there?
Why do dogs get killed or abandoned in shelters there for up to a year!
: (
They did nothing and now the dog has been shipped here.
Now I am sure that ther are many CBRR&R people that are working hard to help
the Brown Dogs, but the ones that are really making mistakes well, that is
the
ones that I know as I get the dog eventually...
as i
>said,
>> we are fairly new and in the very near future we will have a volunteer
>> coordinator who's duties will include directing the individual rescuer.
Good
>>
>> we are an all volunteer, not-for-profit organization dedicated to rescuing
>> chessies in need and placing them in permanent loving homes. i have only
>been
>> rescuing for 2 years. i have only had chessies for 9. because of the
>help
>> and guidance of others when i started, i am very successful at what i do.
Good>>
>> i have had the great pleasure of working with jane peabody on many, many
>> occassions, and by working together we have saved several chessies.
>>
You have huh?
Well why not ask Jane all about the problems and the dogs that get dumped on
us,huh?
Hmmmmmmm never heard her mention your name.
>> i do hope this has cleared things up a bit. we are here to help the
>chessies
>> who need us and we do the best we can.
I think you just added to the confusion!!
Anyway
Like I said leave me out of any of your problems, and BTW Jane is not a
member
of CBRR&R either.
Paulette~>>
>> sincerely,
>> christy
>>
>
Just found this I and I am IN AWE!
Did you or one of your board members not write me and ask me for info which
I
gave YOU.
I told Brenda N all about Otter.
Get a grip on your info huh?
What you just said was accurate to the point that it was on the board,
HOWEVER
you did not mention that noone returned this man's frantic calls,huh?
Also I find it VERY sneaky of you to start a new thread, as I just now came
upon it.
Why not state where you are and how you know all about OTTER,huh?
Or better yet why not ASK someone in the know for which you are obviously
not.
buglady
TELLING THE TRUTH and hide behind that, but others call it telling tales out
of school. Whether or not it is the truth isn't the point as not all truths
should necessarily be aired. If you are not physically capable of rescuing
all the Chessies in the US by yourself, there's got to be someone else to do
it. Whether or not they're doing it *right* by your standards isn't the
point either. If you're not willing to be a mentor to these groups, perhaps
it would be better to say nothing, even though they don't seem to be
operating according to your standards.
buglady
take out the dog before replying
BRDOGS wrote in message
<24386-38...@storefull-136.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Dogman
>Dogman wrote:
>
>> I didn't see Paulette attacking anyone, did you?
>
>----------snippets of the Sun. 7:27 post--------------------
>Sad? I don't think so. I choose to work my way as the NEW rescue group
>doesn't know too much.
No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact, and of her
preferences.
>In fact a lot of the supposed Chessie rescue people never even have had
>a Chessie before.
No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact.
>There is NO OFFICIAL rescue, Nancy. Just a new group with a bunch of
>people that are confused.
No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact.
>Most do not know what is going on ever.
>Sometimes TOO , way too manynovice volunteers, and no "mentors" really
>means much more work.
No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact, and of her
frustrations.
>I don't believe you like it, if all of a sudden there were all these
>people that were "rescuing" your breed, and then you were finding and
>fixing all the problems,huh?
No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact, and of her
frustrations.
>I don't want ANYTHING to do with CBRR&R as I am my own rescue, and have
>been doing such way before most of these "rescuers have been born."
No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact.
>The dog was adopted through the CBRR&R. I havebeen in contact with
>people from that group, and noone :knew" anything until I started naming
>names...
No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact, and of her
frustrations.
>Anyway the two dogs are fine and I will be able to sleep tonight, and
>looking forward to not beng bothered by these people.
No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact, and of her
preferences.
What? Paulette doesn't have a right to prefer not being bothered by
these folks?
Give me a break.
>---------end quotes---------------------------------------------
>Those are some pretty strong words,
What's so strong about them?
What?
Is it against some law somewhere to imply that working with certain
national rescue orgs. can be a very frustrating ordeal at times?
Is it against the law somewhere to state that you'd rather not work
with national orgs?
What?
>particularly when they are
>based on a case that is not at all as it was presented, and
>where the rescue was indeed blameless.
I think the jury is still out on whether the org was "blameless,"
don't you?
>Yes, I think "attack" is a fair characterization
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but *I* think your opinion
that it was an "attack" is a crock of shit.
Yes, that's *my* opinion.
I simply think you became *defensive* about it because Paulette was
criticizing a national rescue organization, like it was blasphemous or
something to ever criticize a rescue organization!
>and I'm frankly astounded that an apology
>has not been published.
Oh please...apologize for what????????????
For stating her opinion?
Give me a freakin' break.
>> As far as her frustrations with some members of national groups goes,
>> who hasn't been frustrated by incompetence, a lack of judgement, and
>> the experience of certain so-called rescuers?
>
>That would certainly be frustrating, if it were the case.
Again, it appears to be the case, but the jury may still be out on it.
So what?
What's wrong with criticizing a rescue organization?
>But none
>of those things apply to the case that prompted the comments and
>we have no reason to believe that they should apply to this group.
Those kinds of things apply to just about every rescue group I've ever
dealt with, at one time or another.
>And I see no constructive purpose in publishing something so
>detrimental about a rescue group. It can only hurt the dogs.
Bullshit!
It should serve as a wake-up call to the rescue organization, and make
it straighten out it's act.
Criticism is a "good thing."
If folks can criticize the Church (or any religion), our government,
etc., why can't they criticize a rescue group???????????
>> Yes, it does, and it also serves to illustrate's Paulette's point
>> pretty nicely, don't you think?
>
>No. I see successful rescue as cooperative, not competitive, and
>competition is always based on ego.
I see successful rescue operations as one human rescuing one dog at a
time, and to hell with "organizations."
Many organizations are more concerned with compliance to their "SOPs"
and "policies" than they are with the DOGS!
>For example, every rescue
>keeps stats on dogs rescued (dogs physically taken into custody,
>with legal ownership to the rescue, and placed in homes).
So what?
When they start keeping stats on how many dogs they end up KILLING
over their stupid policy decesions and precious "SOPs," I'll rethink
my opinion of most of them.
>But those stats are useful only for fund raising and as descriptors
>of the rescue's operations. Not as bragging rights.
Yeah, right.
Apparently you still believe in the tooth fairy, too.
It simply amazes me that you're more concerned with Paulette
criticizing a particular rescue organization (and for valid reasons)
while having not one unkind word to say about the *manner* in which
Nancy "The Mordant Bitch" Holmes was critizing Paulette!
FUCK Nancy Holmes.
Having to deal with bitches like Holmes should be reason enough to
avoid many rescue "organizations" like the plague, in my opinion.
Dogman
Kim
advice about a CBR or other situations, she has been more than helpful and
always asked for follow-up information. We are on opposite sides of the
Mason-Dixon line but she is the first person I think of when I see or hear
of a CBR in need. And if Paulette says it ain't good, then it ain't good!!
Kim
buglady wrote in message ...
Mary Healey
> >----------snippets of the Sun. 7:27 post--------------------
> >Sad? I don't think so. I choose to work my way as the NEW rescue group
> >doesn't know too much.
>
> No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact, and of her
> preferences.
That's opinion, not fact. As are all the other statements you've
designated "fact". As you very accurately noted with the following:
> For stating her opinion?
Thanks for playing. Back to the killfile you and your browndog buddy
go.
*plonk*
M.
Dogman
>You know Paulette, my mother had that hurtful habit too. You can call it
>TELLING THE TRUTH and hide behind that, but others call it telling tales out
>of school.
What "tale" did she tell?
Is there some law against telling it like it is?
>Whether or not it is the truth isn't the point as not all truths
>should necessarily be aired.
Oh please...Paulette was simply decribing her recent experience; if
the org. *is* at fault, it should take it all in as constructive
advice and get its act together.
For chrissakes, she isn't critizing the Pope, is she?
When did rescue organizations become religious icons?
>If you are not physically capable of rescuing
>all the Chessies in the US by yourself, there's got to be someone else to do
>it.
Then let them do it!
But they don't need to screw people around in the process, do they?
>Whether or not they're doing it *right* by your standards isn't the
>point either.
This isn't about "standards," it's about screwing people around and
wasting their time!
Time that could be better spent rescuing a DOG somewhere.
>If you're not willing to be a mentor to these groups, perhaps
>it would be better to say nothing,
Paulette is one of the most helpful rescuers you'll ever run across,
Bugs.
But even she has her limit of frustrations.
Why aren't you equally critical of the way Nancy "The Beast" Holmes
replied to Paulette?
Huh?
>even though they don't seem to be
>operating according to your standards.
Again, it's not about standards, it's about wasting people's time!
And if that's all they're going to do, waste people's time, they
should get out of rescue altogether.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeez.
Dogman
Ruffin" <fmka...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>I'm guessing a certain chessie owner who admires
>>drunkman for unknown reasons
She admires me for the right reasons.
Just one of them, is that I pegged *you* correctly as a stupid and
nasty bitch a long time ago.
Better to be Drunkman than &^%*woman.
>>- but lately I have drunkman blocked which along
>>with blocking jerry has improved the groups no end!
That's great to know, Holmes!
Because talking about you behind your back is almost as much fun as
telling you to your face to stick it in your ear.
Laissez les bons temps rouler!
:>)
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
honestly the presentation of the 'other' group of people was IMO more than
honest and direct -they provide web space for owner rehomed dogs to be
seen - they have nothing to do with the adoption or screening of either the
owner, the dog or the new owners. Their 'fault' is in allowing the owner's
dog to be seen on their webpage along with advice on screening etc - gee how
terrible NOT - but you will believe they are a bad group because "Paulette
the lady who likes to slam other rescues' says so - IMO that kind of
'effort' on her part can certainly kill more dogs than offering to help ever
will.
Nancy
Kim <kimb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8bb9ep$jmi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Let me tell you all something. Every time I have ever written Paulette for
> advice about a CBR or other situations, she has been more than helpful and
> always asked for follow-up information. We are on opposite sides of the
> Mason-Dixon line but she is the first person I think of when I see or hear
> of a CBR in need. And if Paulette says it ain't good, then it ain't good!!
>
>
> Kim
>
>
> buglady wrote in message ...
> >TELLING THE TRUTH and hide behind that, but others call it telling tales
> out
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
about - the closest I have come to that is an email from you that you would
have to 'tell me sometime' about the dogs. Then I see them advertised again
in the local paper and tell you again. Oh well.
Your posts make it obvious (over quite a long time) that you enjoy running
other people down and yourself up.
I think the CBR rescue group did a perfectly good deed by letting the dog
that was to be dumped by the owner be advertised on their site for OWNER
placement with the advice in place to help owners and potential adopters do
things right. The fact that the responsible people (owner and adopter) did
not does not reflect upon the group putting the picture on the net at all -
the fact that you felt you had to slam them without knowing all the facts
(gee and where have I seen you do that before?) is typical of you and
extremely counterproductive to the rescuing of the dogs.
Nancy
who is pretty sure drunkman does not spend his time in rpdrescue searching
for my posts
BRDOGS <BRD...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28926-38...@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> >I'm guessing a certain chessie owner who admires
> >drunkman for unknown reasons whined for help here
> >- but lately I have drunkman blocked which along
> >with blocking jerry has improved the groups no end!
> >Nancy
>
> Oh Nancy, I haven't even seen this till this morning.
>
> I would never WHINE to someone,and I do believe that you and are are
> capable of going at it without me having to get back up huh?
>
> YOU have a way about you and so don't I and are personalities are
> definitely quite different, but even when we are at odds, I thought we
> had a belief in saving dogs,and to me that is what it is all about, not
> YOU not ME NOONE except the dogs,huh?
>
> And I will always be available and I do thank you for telling me of any
> brown dogs in need that you hear about, as I have always gone the
> distance to get them,huh?
>
> Paulette~
>
>
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
roodog <roo...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:38E6...@MailAndNews.com...
> This was listed on the rescue board under a differnt thread, but thought I
you know you are digging it deeper with every protest
gee if I did not know better I would think 'all those dogs' that you claim
to have 'saved' from a certain local behaviorist were really dogs dumped on
you by another rescue group
PULEASE
give it a rest - this group is about rescue not about slamming rescues
because they are not as perfect as fallible little you
Nancy
Dogman
[snipped the usual Nancy "*&%$woman" Holmes invective, to spare folks
from having to read it twice]
>Nancy
>who is pretty sure drunkman does not spend his time in rpdrescue searching
>for my posts
You can be damn sure of that, &^%$woman.
Your posts usually make me want to puke, and I see more than enough of
them already in r.p.d.behavior.
By the way, was that really poor ol' Nelson who was holed up in that
apartment in Baltimore?
It figures. A guy would probably do just about anything to get away
from a freakin' &^%* like you, eh?
Even take hostages...
--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
The Nicholas Regush/ABC News column for Wednesday 3/22:
Shrinking Violets - When It Comes to Medical Controversies, Some Doctors Fear Speaking Out
KLGFCG
that I realized it was pointless. Obviously Paulette does not do well unless
she's being praised, she reacts to any criticisms with sarcasm and narcissistic
comments. I cannot prove or disprove anything about her individual rescue
efforts and if what she says is true, she probably is doing a lot to help her
"brown dogs." Yet the trampling of others trying their best is a huge sore
point for me. So, in short, it would be my recommendation that we all just drop
it. By the way Paulette, I post when I see something worth posting about, not
indiscrimately when I need a little ego boost. ~Kerra
Lynn Kosmakos
BRDOGS wrote:
> Oh an Lynn why not get YOUR FACTS straight before you say I haven't huh.
I'm sorry if I was wrong. Was the dog in question an owner
referral or a dog in the CBRR&R rescue program? I looked at
their web site and the dog was listed there, so believed the
2 messages from members of that rescue stating he was an owner
referral, and not one of their rescues. That difference is the
crux of the matter, and the facts you seem to feel I got wrong.
Lynn K.
Lynn Kosmakos
BRDOGS wrote:
> AND if you supposedly do have such statements that CBRR&R were not
> involved well please state where you found this?
>
> Anone, go to CBRR&R page and check out "Otter"
>
> There is the dog, right there in black and white!
I did go to the web site and check him out, after reading
Christy's message stating that he was an owner referral
instead of a dog in their rescue. That is how he is listed
on the web site, which also clearly states that the rescue
group does not own, evaluate or place owner referral dogs.
Your comments were based on what you felt were failures on
the part of the group to evaluate the dog or adopter or followup
post adoption. None of those things apply to an owner referral
in any way. In fact, the rescue didn't know he had been placed.
I still don't see how my understanding of those facts is wrong
in any way. Or how your comments about this group were warranted,
based on this owner referral dog that they simply provided
advertising space for.
Lynn K.
Lynn Kosmakos
Dogman wrote:
> It simply amazes me that you're more concerned with Paulette
> criticizing a particular rescue organization (and for valid reasons)
> while having not one unkind word to say about the *manner* in which
> Nancy "The Mordant Bitch" Holmes was critizing Paulette!
You seem to accept statements as "fact" that I do not. Nothing
has been presented here that would support Paulette's statements
about CCBR&R people not owning or knowing Chessies, etc.. I don't
know these people, but am afraid that I can't simply accept those
kind of things as fact without any supporting information. And
that was my point. Paulette's comments were supported by a
particular dog that was not in the rescue and not the responsibility
of the rescue, and therefore are invalid until I am given a reason
to believe them. Given that, I feel that these statements are
destructive and non-productive, not to mention self-aggrandizing.
Nancy Holmes has always been perfectly capable of expressing her
own opinions. While I wouldn't have expressed them the same way,
she was absolutely correct in questioning the version given by the
adopter, since it turned out he had no dealings at all with CBRR&R
(nor should he have).
Lynn K.
Lynn Kosmakos
Dogman wrote:
> I simply think you became *defensive* about it because Paulette was
> criticizing a national rescue organization, like it was blasphemous or
> something to ever criticize a rescue organization!
Nonsense. I'm highly critical of quite a few rescue organizations,
some quite prominent. For very good reasons, that I can fully
support with hard data. But there's the question of how to make
that criticism constructive, and a rant in this forum doesn't
serve that purpose.
Lynn K.
Jerry Howe
"Cindy Tittle Moore" <tit...@io.com> wrote in message
news:8bb8ts$ceq$1...@fnord.io.com...
> The point is saving dogs.
> --Cindy
> I recommend that Jerry Howe be ignored as a crank and a waste
of time.
>
> ***** tit...@io.com *** DOG FAQS AT
http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ *****
> *** Southern California Lab Rescue: http://www.sclrr.org/
***
Hello cindymoron,
Do the rescue folks KNOW HOWE you twist and pinch dogs ears and toes?
Do you think they'd be PROUD to tell people they're going to have you
available to twist and pinch their dogs ears THERAPEUTICALLY to
REHABILITATE them? Do you HANG dogs to REHABILITATE them like your
pals lyinglynn and lyingdogdirty?
Does anybody know HOWE a dog sounds when he's
SQUEALING because his ears or toes are being pinched and
twisted?
Cindy moore does. Ask her.
She'll tell you she doesn't twist? She pinches.
She'll tell you she doesn't hurt? She'll tell you she doesn't use
PAIN to train.
She'll tell you that FEAR, FORCE, AND PUNISHMENT is
necessary for ALL "ADVANCED TRAINING", for RELIABILITY,
and to enhance the bond between "trainer" and dog and achieve
the higher aspects of obedience through TWISTING and
PINCHING EARS and TOES, and BEATING DOGS WITH
STICKS...
Let's hear cindy moore and pals SQUEAL for a change.
Ask her about the toe hitch.
Ask her about "table work."
Ask her why she HURTS dogs, and calls that training? Ask her
why she WON'T answer these questions like her pal
lyingfrostydahly did below, when she EARNED HER LYING
TITLE???
Ask her for her FORCED FETCH page on her web site...She won't tell
you the link. She won't repost it...She DENIES she even does what she
teaches.
Here's what our respected friend and rpdb contributor amy dahl
has to say about ear and toe pinching and twisting and
BEATING DOGS WITH STICKS.
TELL US YOU DON'T DO THE SAME THINGS, cindymoron...:
Amy Dahl LIES with a straight face and says:
>>> I don't beat dogs, twist ears, or pinch toes.
>> > http://www.oakhillkennel.com/library/force/force1.html
>> > http://www.oakhillkennel.com/library/force/force2.html???
Aren't those YOUR OWN WORDS??? But YOU don't DO THAT???
People, this is HOWE consistency works, and most particularly
well with dogs, because here, the same methods are being used
to INFLUENCE YOU, and YOU certainly are more intellectually
capable of solving problems and have greater critical thinking
skills than your dogs..., and these methods work on YOU>
>>> That article, reprinted from The Retriever Journal, is
>>> the words of my husband John and myself.
Meaning "We'll share the credit, making it more credible??? Or
we'll share the blame, to mitigate our own individual
responsibility and guilt..." YOU decide, it's not my business
where the blame falls.
>>> For the benefit of anyone who is in doubt, and who chooses
>>> not to read the article, there is NO mention in it of "twisting
>>> ears,"
From the text">>>"
">>>Now you are ready to progress to what most people think of
as force-fetching: the ear pinch.>>>
>>>"but will squeal, thrash around, and direct their efforts to
escaping the ear pinch>>>
>>>You can press the dog's ear with a shotshell instead of your
thumb;>>>
>>> even get a studded collar and pinch the ear against
that>>>
>>> Make the dog's need to stop the pinching so urgent that
resisting your will fades in importance.>>>
>>>Say "fetch" while pressing the dummy against its lips and pinching
its ear.>>>
>>> if the dog still does not open its mouth, get out the shotshell.
Try pinching the ear between the metal casing and the collar,
even the buckle on the collar. Persist! Eventually, the dog will
give in>>>"
Right... Didn't lyingfrostydahly just deny all of that? There's
more... That was just a little about ear pinching, and no there
was NO MENTION of twisting ears... cindy moore has all that
information for you...
Does it really matter? The semantics of whether we're twisting
or pinching or slapping or hitting or correcting or nicking instead
of BURNING???
The only terminology that doesn't have any NEAT euphemisms
to take the CURSE off what our respected "trainers" actually
MEAN (see definitions of punishment thread), is HANGING to
REHABILITATE the dog, as ALL of our Koehler fans MUST
endorse. Also notice the use of "it" for dog and "the" for him or
YOUR DOG.
That's not coincidental, it's all part of the psychologically and
very cleverly designed DESENSITIZATION and
MISINFORMATION necessary to REDUCE a good person
to ACCEPT and DO HORRIBLE THINGS to dogs and TRYING
to call ABUSE training.
These are the subtle differences between being an expert dog
trainer and some morally bankrupt vicious rotten abusive cretin
that goes to jail for abusing dogs... But don't lose interest now
folks, there's more...
>>> NO mention whatsoever of dogs' toes in any context,
>>> and NO mention of "beating" dogs.
RIGHT...
Perhaps cindymoron would be good enough to teach us more
about the toe twist? We'll ask her to address the toe pinch.
lyingfrostydahly: ">>>Get a stick 30- or 40-inches long.
You can have a helper wield the stick, or do it yourself. Tougher,
less tractable dogs may require you to progress to striking them
more sharply.>>>
>>> With your hand on the collar and ear, say, "fetch."
Immediately tap the dog on the hindquarters with the
stick. Repeat "fetch" and pinch the ear all the way to the dummy.
>>>Repeat, varying how hard you hit the dog,>>>"
Wouldn't you think that was despicable enough even just writing
that, let alone risk suffering the embarrassment of not only
having that attributed to yourself, but in fact denying your best
work and PROVING YOURSELF A SHAMELESS LIAR AND
ADVOCATE OF DOG ABUSE??? But it goes on...
>>> chuck (for the uninitiated, "chuck" means strike) the dog
under the chin with your ever-ready right hand while saying
"No!">>>
>>>If the dog drops it, chuck (slap) it solidly under the chin, say
"No! Hold!" use a chuck (slap) under the chin or pinch its ear
and place the dummy in its mouth.>>>
>>> If it doesn't make rapid progress, you can increase the
pressure by requiring it to pick up the dropped dummy (stay on
the ear until it does).>>>
>>>(perhaps because the ear is getting tender, or the dog has
decided it isn't worth it).>>> pinch its ear and say, "fetch,">>>
Here we have consistency and a plea for reason, directly in
contradiction to the blackman and white facts signed and
published by our expert trainer... Accordingly, the consistency
of constant repetitions of your requests for understanding and
compliance from your dogs, dictates that YOU WILL GET IT.
So long as you are consistent and keep repeating the exact
same scenario, no matter what... Including and especially when
you calculatedly and intentionally deny the truth and make your
requests seem reasonable, THEY EXPECT YOU TO BELIEVE
that such behavior is NORMAL.
> In our training we do not do any of these things, nor do we
> advocate them to others.
See what I mean? Character, morals, ethics, integrity, human
decency? 0.000%. Not a shred. She might have scored 0.001 had she NOT
LIED ABOUT IT.
>>>"Any refusals are corrected with the ear pinch. When
performance is smooth, the stick can be added just as in the
fetch from a sitting position. If the previous steps have been
carefully done, the dog will soon be lunging eagerly for each
dummy as soon as it sees it.>>>
This is HOWE they get that happy excited working attitude that
they all talk about... That's their criteria for making their dogs
happy, willing team mates...They BEAT IT INTO THE DOG.
That's WHY Jerry's HIGH-STAKES challenge to frantik fraud die... His
dog isn't working, she's AVOIDING GETTING BURNED...I'll walk away
with HIS national champion "protection" dog and show him up for the
vicious loudmouth ignoramus he is.
And there's a jail cell waiting for cindy moore if she ever
demonstrates HER forced fetch in front of A JURY composed of
ANY DECENT human beings.
> Jerry Howe has once again demonstrated his lack of
> reading comprehension.
Right. Perhaps that's because I get a little disturbed with all of
the abuse, and I begin reading more into it than what the author
intended???...
>>>"Slip an empty shotshell into your pocket before the next
session. As always, begin with some review. Then sit the dog.
Take hold of its buckle collar and ear as follows. Slide the last
three fingers of your left hand towards the dog's head under the
collar, and curl them over the collar to grasp it firmly. With your
thumb and index finger, pull the dog's left ear back over the
collar (inside up) and hold it there gently. The "ear pinch" is
administered by pressing with your thumbnail at the boundary
between hair and bare skin (don't pinch yet). Depending on the
size and strength of your hands, you may want to press against
the collar or against your index finger.>>>
>>>You want it to get the idea that the ear-pinch means,>>> If
the dog clenches its mouth shut, you may be in for another
extended session. Keep pinching and press the dummy harder
against the dog's lips.>>>
>>>Repeat "fetch." Again, keep your voice calm. If several
minutes pass and>>> You don't want the dog to think that it is
"beating the pinch" Any time it is slow, pinch!>>> As mentioned
previously, it is important not to establish a pattern of struggling
with the dog physically. If you cannot physically restrain the dog,
increasing the pressure may do the trick.>>> Be sure you are in
position with your hold on collar and ear every time you give the
command,">>>
Here's a couple MORE quotes from the links above, from our
own respected Amy Dahl's published text:
>>>"it transfers much of the momentum-producing power of the
ear pinch to the stick, thus providing a basis for force-on-back.
you want to make the dog think that by going fast it can avoid
the stick. >>>
>>> As it catches on, try using the stick and no ear pinch.
When the dog is digging out to beat the stick and seems totally
reliable without any ear pinch, you are finished>>>
No, YOU'RE FINISHED. You AND YOUR PALS.
>>> This is continued resistance to your increasing authority,
and the job is not done until it is overcome. we do not
recommend that inexperienced trainers use this heavy-handed
approach.>>>
>>> Amy Frost Dahl Retriever Training phone: (910) 295-6710
>>> Oak Hill Kennel & Handling email: a...@oakhillkennel.com
>>> Pinehurst, NC 28370
Lets move on, and get this past us. This should be totally
ignored, and everyone can forget all about it, like it doesn't
happen... That's what these people are trying to get you to
believe, and that's what all the commotion is about... Please do
not quote my messages in their entirety, because it may be
upsetting to others with weak stomachs and human conscience...
">>>and pinch its ear if a dummy or bird is ever dropped. While
force-fetching is now complete, training has become more
varied and interesting and we are sure you will want to
continue.>>>"
I don't think that YOU people are going to WANT TO CONTINUE
before I'M done with you... Bye, bye!!! J>>>
Have2CBRs
replies noted by you are so sarcastic and off the mark, that they really don't
deserve a reply. i think the subscribers to this board are well aware that
otter was not a CBR R&R dog, but an owner placement, everybody but you. i HAD
to defend CBR R&R against your unjustified remarks, and believe i have been
successful in letting the list know that we are not the bunch of losers you
claim us to be.
you degrade me and my efforts yet you've never even met me, never even spoken
to me, and according to you, never even heard my name mentioned. i am glad to
know that you've contacted jane and i will leave it at that. (i had another
paragraph with some more references for you, but realized even more references
would not change your opinion of CBR R&R or of me.)
i tried to clear the air with my last post because if you are believed as
speaking the gospel, it will result in a large number of dead chessies. i am
sure you know that you alone cannot save them all and i hope you understand
that the more you trash CBR R&R to those who trust you, the more chessies will
die.
sincerely,
christy
p.s. i am in fact new here, so if i did not post to the 'correct' place this
time, please do not accuse me of sneaking it in. i have no reason to do so.
roodog
>my post as a board member of CBR R&R was an honest and factual one.
YOU might have believed it was honest but it was NOT!
the
>replies noted by you are so sarcastic and off the mark,
NO I AM NEVER OFF THE MARK
that they really don't
>deserve a reply.
DUH! Then why are you replying?
i think the subscribers to this board are well aware that
>otter was not a CBR R&R dog, but an owner placement, everybody but you.
NOT everyone thinks that, and it would have been such, BUT that is NOT WHAT
HAPPENED>
Now are you saying that
NOONE from CBRR&R ever talked to the man that adopted Otter?
And also are you saying that noone received any calls asking for help as the
man was going to return this dog?
I would suggest you better THINK and FIND OUT more info before you answer,
as
if you say that this true, I am ready to name names and give details,
something that will be more negative for your organization and I do believe
we
don;t want to go there,huh?
Hey it's not me keeping this going, as Otter is safe and all is well in my
world.
i HAD
>to defend CBR R&R against your unjustified remarks, and believe i have been
>successful in letting the list know that we are not the bunch of losers you
>claim us to be.
Never claimed tht YOU WERE ALL A BUNCH OF LOSERS, as I have worked with
quite
a few and things have gone well.
However there are many that need to be taught what to do.>
>you degrade me and my efforts yet you've never even met me, never even spoken
>to me,
Hmmmmmmm and you come out of the woodwork and know not of what you speak,
and
I should defend myself?
and according to you, never even heard my name mentioned.
Nope and it seems Jane only knkew you through you sending up a very ill dog
to
her,huh?
i am glad to
>know that you've contacted jane and i will leave it at that.
Yes why not call Jane and get some info? The right info.
(i had another
>paragraph with some more references for you, but realized even more
references
>would not change your opinion of CBR R&R or of me.)
You are wrong. I am reall sorry that it came to this but it has been going
this way for quite awhile and I have just about had it.
Expect MANY more calls coming your way at CBRR&R as I am telling my callers
to
please call CBRRR&R now, except of course there is not a MAIN NUMBER.
Why is that?
>
>i tried to clear the air with my last post because if you are believed as
>speaking the gospel, it will result in a large number of dead chessies.
Really? I hope not, however youknow you never answered my question about the
Chessies in Illinois?
Or the Chessie that are brought up from down South?
Why is that?
No rescuers down there either.
You know Christy, there has to be people that will take the dog and do a
hands
on adoption,huh?
Why doesn't it seem that this is happening?
Why not talk to your "friend" Jane and see what is going on, or don't you
want
to?
i am
>sure you know that you alone cannot save them all and
Like I said I wish more than anything that there were more "real rescuers"
out
there as there will always be to me dogs.
I believe though Christy maybe you have been "duped" or misinformed and
perhaps did your post in the utmost sincerity, but your facts are
wrong,okay?
i hope you understand
>that the more you trash CBR R&R to those who trust you, the more chessies
will
>die.
OH PLEEZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
A GUILT TRIP I WILL NEVER HAVE,OKAY?
Like I said, maybe it is you and the others who should know what the other
ones are doing, as now it seems all are a bit clueless.
Have you talked to the person that adopted this dog?
Have you talked to the owner that gave
away this dog?
HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANYONE THAT HAD ANY REAL INFO???
Have yo>
>sincerely,
>christy
Good Thoughts to The Brown Dogs
Paulette~>
>p.s. i am in fact new here, so if i did not post to the 'correct' place this
>time, please do not accuse me of sneaking it in. i have no reason to do so.
I accuesd you of that as you repleied to my pot on a different thread and
thus
did not see it.
And now of course you are not sneaking in, and I thank you for it.
P
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
roodog
>that I realized it was pointless.
Hmmmmmmmm that's too bad.
Obviously Paulette does not do well unless
>she's being praised, she reacts to any criticisms with sarcasm and
narcissistic
>comments.
I react to criticism pretty well if it is truthful,however if someone is
slamming me and telling me I lied about my facts, well I defintely do get
going about such.
Everyone has a way about them good or bad, I am not about to change as I
have
ben like this all my life.
I cannot prove or disprove anything about her individual rescue
>efforts and if what she says is true, she probably is doing a lot to help her
>"brown dogs.
This all stated becasue I was frustrated at having to fix other people's
mistakes.
And it wasn't the first time,with this group,okay?
" Yet the trampling of others trying their best is a huge sore
>point for me.
I understand that, as I wish it didn't come to this, but I am just like m
dogs, VERY TENACIOUS and I WILL NEVER BACK DOWN.
So, in short, it would be my recommendation that we all just drop
>it.
I will if others will, howver I will always reply if I see a post that is to
me or about me.
I'm an addictive personality. I just cannot help myself.
By the way Paulette, I post when I see something worth posting about, not
>indiscrimately when I need a little ego boost. ~Kerra
Good for you. I post whatever I want and whenever I want although most of my
posts are on the behavior board and not on rescue.
Woof
Paulette~
Dogman
>Dogman wrote:
>
>> It simply amazes me that you're more concerned with Paulette
>> criticizing a particular rescue organization (and for valid reasons)
>> while having not one unkind word to say about the *manner* in which
>> Nancy "The Mordant Bitch" Holmes was critizing Paulette!
>
>You seem to accept statements as "fact" that I do not.
Yes, I do accept what Paulette has said, but that has nothing
whatsoever to do with the manner in which Nancy Holmes replied to her.
Why don't you have any problem with that, Lynn?
And stop ignoring the question, it just makes you look more foolish.
And I accept what Paulette has said because I've never known her to
lie about anything, plus what she said just rings true of many rescue
organizations, especially *new* ones.
If you want to turn a blind eye to the foibles of certain
organizations, that's you're prerogative, but it's not necessary to
imply that Paulette is a *liar* to do so.
>Nothing has been presented here that would support Paulette's statements
>about CCBR&R people not owning or knowing Chessies, etc..
That's because you think Paulette is a liar.
I don't think she is.
>I don't know these people,
See what I mean? You more readily believe people you don't even know
rather than Paulette, someone who has been deeply involved in rescue
for decades, and who has never been known to tell a lie on this
newsgroup.
I think that's obscene.
>but am afraid that I can't simply accept those
>kind of things as fact without any supporting information. And
>that was my point.
I hope that Paulette doesn't give a shit what you "accept."
I know that I don't.
And the point here, in case you're still missing it, is the way that
Nancy Holmes treated Paulette.
Apparently you have no problems with that, so I'll keep that in mind
in the future.
>Paulette's comments were supported by a
>particular dog that was not in the rescue and not the responsibility
>of the rescue, and therefore are invalid until I am given a reason
>to believe them.
Yeah, right.
They're invalid because you don't want to face the obvious.
And that is that these folks don't exactly have their shit together
yet, which I think even they admit.
>Given that, I feel that these statements are
>destructive and non-productive, not to mention self-aggrandizing.
Yeah, right, it's self-aggrandizement now to point out a problem with
certain rescue organizations, eh?
But you have no problem with the manner in which Nancy Holmes
criticized Paulette?
I think you have your priorities screwed up, Lynn.
>Nancy Holmes has always been perfectly capable of expressing her
>own opinions.
Yes, she has, and always in her usually nasty condescending way, a way
with which you apparently are comfortable.
>While I wouldn't have expressed them the same way,
>she was absolutely correct in questioning the version given by the
>adopter, since it turned out he had no dealings at all with CBRR&R
>(nor should he have).
This is a quote from *their* own web page:
"As you evaluate an owner placed dog, you are encouraged to ask
Chesapeake Bay Retriever Relief & Rescue or your adoption coordinator
for advice (in...@cbrrescue.org)."
And it's my understanding that they didn't return the phone calls or
e-mails of the adopter, so, yes, this rescue organization, according
to its *own* policy, seriously dropped the ball and caused more work
for other rescue agencies, which was Paulette's point.
This has all pretty much been admitted to by CBRR&R, I think, so what
more do you want to hear, Lynn?
Yes, what more do you want to hear before you apologize to Paulette
for implying that she is a liar?
Huh?
--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
The Nicholas Regush/ABC News column for Wednesday 3/22:
Shrinking Violets - When It Comes to Medical Controversies, Some Doctors Fear Speaking Out
Dogman
>Dogman wrote:
>
>> I simply think you became *defensive* about it because Paulette was
>> criticizing a national rescue organization, like it was blasphemous or
>> something to ever criticize a rescue organization!
>
>Nonsense.
>I'm highly critical of quite a few rescue organizations,
>some quite prominent.
Then why are you so angry with Paulette for being critical of
CBRR&R??????
Talk about hypocrisy!
>For very good reasons, that I can fully
>support with hard data.
I think Paulette had done a pretty good job of documenting what
happened.
That, plus a little common sense, should lead just about anyone to the
proper conclusion here:
This group dropped the ball, according to its own policy, and is
admittedly having "organizational" problems.
It deserves to be criticized.
>But there's the question of how to make
>that criticism constructive, and a rant in this forum doesn't
>serve that purpose.
The only folks currently involved in a rant appear to be you and me,
and that nasty ol' bitch Nancy "^&%$woman" Holmes.
You, because you think Paulette is a liar, and me, because I think
you're full of shit, and Nancy Holmes, because she's a nasty ol' bitch
who's *always* full of shit.
--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
The Nicholas Regush/ABC News column for Wednesday 3/22:
Shrinking Violets - When It Comes to Medical Controversies, Some Doctors Fear Speaking Out
Richard Hurwitz
Mary Healey wrote:
> Dogman wrote:
> > >----------snippets of the Sun. 7:27 post--------------------
> > >Sad? I don't think so. I choose to work my way as the NEW rescue group
> > >doesn't know too much.
> >
> > No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact, and of her
> > preferences.
>
> That's opinion, not fact. As are all the other statements you've
> designated "fact". As you very accurately noted with the following:
>
> > For stating her opinion?
>
> Thanks for playing. Back to the killfile you and your browndog buddy
> go.
>
> *plonk*
>
> M.
You're killfiling Dogman and Paulette? My estimation of your judgement has
dropped considerably.
In the almost two years I've been here, neither one of them has ever been
wrong about dogs.
You are about to lose some of the solidest wisdom available on this group.
Your loss.
Richard
Dogman
>Mary Healey wrote:
>
>> Dogman wrote:
>> > >----------snippets of the Sun. 7:27 post--------------------
>> > >Sad? I don't think so. I choose to work my way as the NEW rescue group
>> > >doesn't know too much.
>> >
>> > No attack there. Just a simple statement of fact, and of her
>> > preferences.
>>
>> That's opinion, not fact. As are all the other statements you've
>> designated "fact". As you very accurately noted with the following:
>>
>> > For stating her opinion?
Yo! Mary, it's a "fact" that the new rescue group doesn't know much,
violates its own policies, etc., they virtually admitted it.
The "preference" is that Paulette prefers to work her own way, which
is her right.
And she also has the same right to express her opinion here that you
do, or Lynn does, and *anyone* here does.
And if you don't like it, Mary, I guess you already know where you can
stick it, eh?
>> Thanks for playing. Back to the killfile you and your browndog buddy
>> go.
>>
>> *plonk*
>>
>> M.
Mary, Mary, Mary...you've promised many times now to put me in there
and keep me there, but you always let me out, eh?
Why is that Mary?
>You're killfiling Dogman and Paulette? My estimation of your judgement has
>dropped considerably.
>
>In the almost two years I've been here, neither one of them has ever been
>wrong about dogs.
>
>You are about to lose some of the solidest wisdom available on this group.
>
>Your loss.
Thanks again for the nice words, Richard, but Mary and I go way back
(hint: we don't like each other).
Way back to when she was a charter member in S.I.A.R.N.M., or "Sisters
In Annie's Ragged and Neurotic Matriarchy."
It was an extremely rabid group of hairy-legged harpies, one that was
extremely good at ankle-biting certain posters here with whom they
disagreed, or with whom one of their "sisters" disagreed.
Think rabid pack of feral dogs here and you'd be pretty close to what
the S.I.A.R.N.M. used to be.
And I'm proud of the fact that I was once Number One on their hit
list; of course, many of them got a nice little dose of their own
medicine in return.
In fact, it led to my motto -- i.e., always respond in kind.
Always.
On the other hand, I've also managed over the years to actually become
friends with a couple of them, but most of them still hold grudges.
Yes, Mary is one of the latter.
Apparently she became offended with my defense of Paulette at the
expense of one of her "sisters," Lynn K.
There used to be a time here when the whole group would attack in
pack-like fashion (think hungry piranhas), whenever any poster here
dared to disagree with a "sister."
I consider it an honor to be placed in Mary's kill file, but if
history is any judge, I'm afraid I won't be in there long.
;>)
--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
The Nicholas Regush/ABC News column for Wednesday 3/22:
Shrinking Violets - When It Comes to Medical Controversies, Some Doctors Fear Speaking Out
Have2CBRs
>Chesapeake Bay Retriever Relief & Rescue or your adoption coordinator
>for advice (in...@cbrrescue.org)."
>
>And it's my understanding that they didn't return the phone calls or
>e-mails of the adopter, so, yes, this rescue organization, according
>to its *own* policy, seriously dropped the ball and caused more work
>for other rescue agencies, which was Paulette's point.
>
your understanding is incorrect. the previous owner did not, nor did the
adopter request help from a CBR R&R volunteer.
the end.
christy
roodog
How come you didn't answer my questions, Christy?
Oh and by the way YOU are WRONG!!!
Now lets talk about the sick dog you shipped NORTH after having the poor dog
in FOSTER CARE??? for about a month or so?
The dog arrived very ill, and dirty, with tumours on his leg and face, and
had
to be put down.
WHAT were you thinking to send that poor sick old dog up here, to be
euthanized so you wouldn't have to do such???
What was going on with this dog when he was in FOSTER CARE??? : (
WHAT???
: (
WHAT were you thinking?
Oh I have way more "TAILS" to tell if you want to keep at this as I am
really
ready...
Paulette
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
roodog <roo...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
uh no thats the stuff you react to most poorly in fact
While I have a mild interest in wondering just how much unfounded erroneous
gossip you will spew on this topic its not enough interest to think that the
discussion should be here.
This is the rescue board - what you are doing is destructive to rescue -
thats the point - *you* personally are being deliberately destructive to
rescue and every bit of your criticism is based on untruths obvious to
anyone who actually looks at the facts. I suspect your basis for anything
else you say about this rescue group is about as accurate as this has been -
ie not accurate at all.
Nancy
roodog
<fmka...@ix.netcom.com> =====
>roodog <roo...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>> I react to criticism pretty well if it is truthful,
>
>
>uh no thats the stuff you react to most poorly in fact
Nope I don't believe so.
>
>While I have a mild interest in wondering just how much unfounded erroneous
>gossip you will spew on this topic its not enough interest to think that the
>discussion should be here.
Then don't read me,as I honestly never read anyting you have to say except
if
it is addressed to me.
>This is the rescue board - what you are doing is destructive to rescue -
No I am writing to both this and behavior...Cross posting...
>thats the point - *you* personally are being deliberately destructive to
>rescue
Yes it is all my fault for not letting people spout forth vicious lies of
what
I KNOW is true.
and every bit of your criticism is based on untruths
NO IT ISN'T
obvious to
>anyone who actually looks at the facts.
Oh dear goD give me strength!!!
I suspect your basis for anything
>else you say about this rescue group is about as accurate as this has been -
>ie not accurate at all.
>Nancy
You know do believe It will come out that what I said was the truth if
someone
has one ounce of self worth and honour...
We'll see...Maybe it is just too much to expect with this group,but then
maybe
not.
So for now, I will say good night, if of course you do not reply to me
again...>
Dogman
>Author: Have2CBRs <have...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>>"As you evaluate an owner placed dog, you are encouraged to ask
>>>Chesapeake Bay Retriever Relief & Rescue or your adoption coordinator
>>>for advice (in...@cbrrescue.org)."
>>
>>>And it's my understanding that they didn't return the phone calls or
>>>e-mails of the adopter, so, yes, this rescue organization, according
>>>to its *own* policy, seriously dropped the ball and caused more work
>>>for other rescue agencies, which was Paulette's point.
>
>>your understanding is incorrect. the previous owner did not, nor did the
>>adopter request help from a CBR R&R volunteer.
>
>>the end.
>
>As they say down in Guatemala, Christy, some things never end.
>
>I think those Mayans must have had this thread in mind when they first
>said that, eh?
>
>Okay, back to business...would you accept the word of the *adopter*
>himself, as in right from the horse's mouth?
>
>I have no reason to believe the original owner ever had any need to
>contact you again.
>
>If so, I have his telephone number (he only wants to be called at his
>office tomorrow morning), and if you'll contact me privately (I don't
>want to broadcast this poor guy's number around the world), I'll give
>it to you and then you can call him yourself tomorrow morning. He'll
>even give you *names.*
>
>How's that, Christy?
>
>Is that fair enough?
>
>Or do you just want to suck more blood out of Paulette?
>
>Which?
>
>PS: How convenient of you to leave out that paragraph (shown above)
>in your correspondence here about *encouraging* even owner-placed
>adopters to *contact* CBRR&R for advice, don't you think?
>
>It probably just got lost somewhere among all those new "SOPs," eh?
>
>PPS: Here's some unsolicited advice. Think about ditching that
>owner-placement part of your web site. I know that it's
>well-intentioned, but I don't think it's very practical.
>
>Chessies can be hard dogs to place, and it takes the know-how of an
>experienced Chessie person and rescuer to place the right CBR in the
>right home. This is just going to create a "musical chairs" kind of
>problem of moving dogs from one home to the next, then to the next,
>and so on, until a good fit is found.
>
>Hell, probably 25% of the people who currently own CBRs shouldn't, so
>allowing them to correctly and honestly "assess" their own dogs
>themselves just isn't very smart, in my opinion.
>
>But what do I know, eh? I've only been breeding and rescuing CBRs for
>close to four decades now.
Dogman
roodog
>care as i had no room for him. i had taken him to have a flea bath as he was
>full of fleas and had known nothing but itching and scratching his entire
life,
>and to be utd so i could board him. i then had to board him. i asked for
>help.... one of your (OUR?) no MY friends offered. i disclosed how little
>information was known of him and how he was older and evidently had problems
>with his hips. the one that euthanized him said he was of good breeding,
>looked good, and was super friendly with everything and everyone. he had
>terrible hips - this i knew from the few minutes i spent with him
transporting
>him from the shelter to the kennel. they had the means and opportunity to
have
>him checked more thoroughly and yes, they determined he was not placeable.
as
>far as i know, they did not find the tumors until the necropsy.... that means
>AFTER death.
>
>all i know is, i put out a request for help because i had 13 others in my
care
>and KNEW i could not care for him properly. we had an offer of
transportation
>and an offer of fostering.... he never made it to the foster home. i was in
>lengthy conversation with the potential foster home, who was in lengthy
>conversation with the middle man (where he was euthanized).
>
> it was also share with me that he went out of this world being loved. isn't
>that why we're here as well? to show them that someone cares?
>
>first you criticize me for not rescuing them. then you criticize me for
trying
>to rescue them. make up your mind.
>
>christy
All I want is the truth Christy, and for you to do the honorable thing and
tell the people here that Otter's adopter did call for help, and noone
helped
him, at your organization.
And what I said was the truth.
Paulette~
Have2CBRs
Have2CBRs
>tell the people here that Otter's adopter did call for help, and noone
>helped
>him, at your organization.
i'm sorry, i cannot say what you ask, because it is not the truth as i know it,
and i am an honest person.
i suspect what he relayed to you as 'calling those involved' was actually
calling the previous owner. i regret that they did not take our advice and
seek our advice, but they did not. now, can we please end this discussion - i
have tons of dogs to try to rescue and this debate is taking up way too much of
my time.
sincerely,
christy
Lynn Kosmakos
Dogman wrote:
> Yes, I do accept what Paulette has said, but that has nothing
> whatsoever to do with the manner in which Nancy Holmes replied to her.
> Why don't you have any problem with that, Lynn?
> And stop ignoring the question, it just makes you look more foolish.
I didn't ignore the question. In fact you quoted my comments on
it in this post. No, I would not have expressed myself as Nancy
did. No, I have no intention of defending Nancy's opinions or
actions. We all know she's perfectly capable of doing so herself.
I simply stated that she asked a valid question about why the
adopter's story was accepted without investigation. A story that
I think we all agree has been shown to be false in that the dog
was not rescued from CBRR&R. None of that has a damned thing to
do with how I feel about Nancy Holmes expresses herself - which I've
never liked, but doesn't make the question any less valid.
> "As you evaluate an owner placed dog, you are encouraged to ask
> Chesapeake Bay Retriever Relief & Rescue or your adoption coordinator
> for advice (in...@cbrrescue.org)."
Was CBRR&R asked to help evaluate this dog? In fact, did the
adopter enter their system and get assigned to an adoption
coordinator? Or did he directly contact the owner of the dog,
as is the normal practice? I have no way of knowing these things.
Do you?
Lynn K.
Lynn Kosmakos
Dogman wrote:
> Then why are you so angry with Paulette for being critical of
> CBRR&R??????
1. because she reported an owner referral as a rescue, laying
blame for something out of the group's control
2. because she made statements about a group's competency
without substantiating them
3. because it is harmful to dogs that need their help
4. because it does only harm and no good
5. because it was ugly and distasteful behavior
Now - tell me what good you think was done by this piece of
nastiness and why you think it was acceptable.
Lynn K.
Lynn Kosmakos
Dogman wrote:
> >PPS: Here's some unsolicited advice. Think about ditching that
> >owner-placement part of your web site. I know that it's
> >well-intentioned, but I don't think it's very practical.
I don't know of any breed rescue that isn't forced to do owner
referrals. It isn't just a matter of not having the space and
means to take every dog into their rescue program. It also
supports owners who must rehome their dogs, but wish to control
the placement themselves. The breed traits have nothing to do
with it. I assure you that GSDs, Akitas, Rotties, Fox Terriers,
etc., have just as many, if not more, of the same kinds of needs
for experienced owners. It's very practical because it enables
dogs to be placed without using the resources of either a rescue
group or a shelter, directly from owner to adopter.
Lynn K.
Sally Hennessey
<rhur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You're killfiling Dogman and Paulette? My estimation of your judgement has
>dropped considerably.
>
>In the almost two years I've been here, neither one of them has ever been
>wrong about dogs.
Again, in your estimation.
>You are about to lose some of the solidest wisdom available on this group.
Have to disagree with you there. On the rescue group, there would
still be a great deal of wisdom and advice readily available without
Dogman and Paulette. And without Paulette, there would be more
bandwidth available for actual discussion of rescue. The reader would
be spared her posts flaming other rescue people/groups and constantly
reminding us that she is the one, the only, the best, the only rescuer
in the history of rescue who has never made a mistake. There's enough
of that egomania out there without having to read it here.
Sally Hennessey
>
>Your loss.
>
>Richard
>
Jerry Howe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dogman"
> Having to deal with bitches like Holmes should be reason enough to
> avoid many rescue "organizations" like the plague, in my opinion.
> Dogman
Nice talk, lyingdogdirty.
What's your gripe? Could it be, that Nancy Holmes doesn't APPROVE of
HANGING dogs to REHABILITATE THEM?
Paulette does. She even said she would have NO PROBLEM
for letting YOU choke and jerk and torment and THEN HANG a dog FOR
HER, to REHABILITATE him. BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOWE TO HANG A DOG
CORRECTLY...
"Thus we should beware of clinging to vulgar opinions, and
judge things by reason's way, not by popular say." Montaigne
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Salvor Hardin
"If you cannot convince them, confuse them." H.S. Truman.
;~) DRAINING THE SWAMP, AND RELOCATING THE GATORS... J>>>
"CUSTOM WILL RECONCILE PEOPLE TO ANY ATROCITY." G.B. Shaw.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems
of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the
simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to
admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
explaining to colleagues, proudly taught to others, and which
they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their
lives."
Leo Tolstoy
Is it any wonder that the following sig file has generated more
complaints to my personal email than any other controversial
post I have made to date, bar none?:
caveat
If you have to do things to your dog to train him, that you would
rather not have to do, then you shouldn't be doing them. If you
have a dog trainer that tells you to jerk your dog around, choke
him, pinch his ears, or twist his toes, shock, shake, slap, scold,
hit, or punish him in any manner, that corrections are
appropriate, that the dog won't think of you as the punisher,
or that corrections are not harmful, or if they can't train your
dog to do what you want, look for a trainer that knows Howe.
Sincerely,
Jerry Howe,
Wits' End Dog Training
Witse...@aol.com
http://www.doggydoright.com
Nature, to be mastered, must be obeyed.
-Francis Bacon-
There are terrible people who, instead of solving a problem,
bungle it and make it more difficult for all who come after. Who
ever can't hit the nail on the head should, please, not hit at all.
-Nietzsche-
The abilities to think, rationalize and solve problems are learned
qualities.
The Wits' End Dog Training Method challenges the learning
centers in the dogs brain. These centers, once challenged,
develop and continue to grow exponentially, to make him smarter.
The Wits' End Dog Training method capitalizes on praising split
seconds of canine thought, strategy, and timing, not mindless
hours of forced repetition, constant corrections, and scolding.
-Jerry Howe-
Dogman
>Dogman wrote:
>
>> Yes, I do accept what Paulette has said, but that has nothing
>> whatsoever to do with the manner in which Nancy Holmes replied to her.
>> Why don't you have any problem with that, Lynn?
>> And stop ignoring the question, it just makes you look more foolish.
>
>I didn't ignore the question.
Let's put in a way you might more easily understand:
You didn't directly respond to it.
How's that?
>In fact you quoted my comments on
>it in this post. No, I would not have expressed myself as Nancy
>did.
But you have no real problem with the way she did, I presume.
Otherwise, why not take Nancy to the woodshed then, instead of
Paulette?
>No, I have no intention of defending Nancy's opinions or
>actions.
I'm not asking you to defend her, Lynn, I'm asking you to save up some
of the venom you've been spitting at Paulette and spit it instead in
the direction of Nancy "The ^&^%woman" Holmes, where it belongs.
I'm asking you to be FAIR, and to wait for the FACTS to reveal
themselves BEFORE you start attacking Paulette.
>I simply stated that she asked a valid question about why the
>adopter's story was accepted without investigation.
And what, pray tell, makes you take Nancy Holmes' (of all people!)
word over Paulette's?
What made you think it wasn't investigated?
>A story that I think we all agree has been shown to be false in that the dog
>was not rescued from CBRR&R.
It was an owner-placement, and it was arranged via *CBRR&R's* web
site, and on their web site they claim the following:
"As you evaluate an owner placed dog, you are encouraged to ask
Chesapeake Bay Retriever Relief & Rescue or your adoption coordinator
for advice (in...@cbrrescue.org)."
So what in the hell was it if it wasn't rescued from CBRR&R?????
>None of that has a damned thing to
>do with how I feel about Nancy Holmes expresses herself - which I've
>never liked, but doesn't make the question any less valid.
But why were you chomping on Paulette's ass?
That's what I want to know, Lynn.
That's the kind of petty shit that we've come to expect from Nancy
"The Bitch" Holmes, but it was way out of character for you.
Especially calling Paulette dense, when it was you who were dense, in
that you didn't seem to know anything about CBRR&R's publicly stated
offer to give "advice," even on owner placements.
Which is apparently where they dropped the ball.
You, however, said that they had *no* responsibility for owner
placements, and if that's what you really think, you should be asking
them to remove that statement from their web site -- because it
appears to be a LIE.
>> "As you evaluate an owner placed dog, you are encouraged to ask
>> Chesapeake Bay Retriever Relief & Rescue or your adoption coordinator
>> for advice (in...@cbrrescue.org)."
>
>Was CBRR&R asked to help evaluate this dog?
They never responded, that's why this guy went into panic mode.
I've asked Christy to contact me privately, and that I would give her
his business phone number, so that she could hear it right from the
horse's mouth.
So far she has chosen not to do that.
>In fact, did the
>adopter enter their system and get assigned to an adoption
>coordinator?
He was given a contact in Wisconsin, I believe.
I don't know what they call it.
>Or did he directly contact the owner of the dog,
>as is the normal practice? I have no way of knowing these things.
>Do you?
But that's just the point, isn't it, Lynn?
You didn't know SHIT about the facts of this case, yet you joined in
the feeding frenzy anyway, didn't you?
You followed Nancy Holmes right over the cliff.
Yes, *I* knew some of the "facts" of the case, that's why I felt so
strongly that Paulette was being treated unfairly.
You really need to get over this idea that rescue orgs. should never
be criticized, Lynn.
Because the only way they'll ever get any better *is* to CRITICIZE
them, not blindly defend them.
A rescue org. is not a religious deity, and it shouldn't be considered
blasphemy to criticize one -- even a well-intentioned one suffering
obvious and admitted growing pains.
Nancy Holmes or Nelson Ruffin
LOT LESS STRESSFUL FOR THE DOGS - you know the creatures we are supposed to
be helping?
Nancy
Lynn Kosmakos <lkos...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38DB029F...@home.com...
snip drunkman stupidity
BRDOGS
Lynn K writes
I sincerely wish I had never opened this Pandora's Box and would have
much preferred to pass the particulars on to Paulette privately.
Really? I don't believe so...AS you would not have mentioned it at all.
What did you believe that I would COWER or be afraid of what you might
have to say?
NO WAY EVER, as I do know that I am ABOVE REPROACH .
>I don't know Paulette and have absolutely no way
>to know whether the comments made are in any >way accurate.
WOW! This is just too much!
Of course you took the word as gospel of someone named Christy that came
out of the woodwork,huh?
Funny isn't it that she could have spoken to the person I helped and get
the truth, but she chooses not to : (
Oh BTW even though Otter was a referral on the web page the man
contacted TWO CBRR&R coordinators,about this dog and for HELP.
Even a PHONE NUMBER to call someone in the know,that would or could help
him.
He never got one.
I have the names and the man is willing to talk to a person in charge to
tell them what happened...
Of course NOONE wants to make the call as they KNOW that I told the
TRUTH and I'M RIGHT and they are NOT.
> Moreover, I think it's fair to assume that much is >based on
differences in personality/ >style/whatever.
Yes I have wonderful style and personality and charm and they do not...
Yes, I'm truthful...and they or you are not.
Or you want to have blinders on.
> On top of that, one of the following comments is
>2nd hand, and I have no way of knowing that any of
>these people who claim to know Paulette actually >do
Isn't that "precious"
>The specifics, but only because I can't think of any
>way to avoid this, and with the caveat that I
>can't/wouldn't rebut any
>responses/clarifications/corrections Paulette cares >to make:
I just got back after being on the road since early am but I HAD TO
CLARIFY and even though I would like to respond to the many other posts
I just don't have the time...
And heck what's the use.
I KNOW what is right and I KNOW that I am a good person and an honorable
one.
Something there doesn't seem to be too much of around here... : (
>- dogs have been handed over to people on the 1st >meeting
YES this is TRUE! Of course that "first meeting" is the culmination of
about a month of work. Not all of my adoptions are this way,most are
they come for an in person interview, but I have done many like this.Of
course this first meeting is after numerous mailings and phone calls,
and many check ups.
Probably about a months work of work and time.
I have said many times maybe only one out of 20 people get as far as an
in dept interview with me
I conduct my interviewing on the phone and have many questions for the
person to answer without having them to think" Now what would be the
thing she would want me to say, so I will get a dog from her"
That is why I NEVER send out applications or questionaires.
I want them to answer my GESTAPO questions without them having to think
of what they think I want to hear
NEVER however would anyone be able to adopt a dog from me without lots
of BEFORE HAND WORK, and people have to WORK to get a dog from me.
I do believe I am quite capable of adopting out MY dog anyway I deem
appropriate, and so far I have never made a mistake with a Brown Dog or
the person adopting.
That's becasue I am ALWAYS there AFTER the adoption, be it midnight or
5AM and they do call in panic mode.
From the time a person calls me or writes me to the time I have the
right dog for them and the right person for the dog, it is about a month
or so.
>- home visits are not always done
No, that is not so, I admit I do not always do them. I do however have
friends do the home visits for me.
But you see I am not looking for a fenced in yard...
By the time someone gets a dog from me...I have checked them out way
more than just their home.
I
> dogs leave her care with the same level of training
>they came in with and behavioral problems >unresolved
NEVER
If a dog is aggressive the dog goes no where until I deem the dog okay.
-> placements where she doesn't take physical >custody of the dog
-
NEVER and I do mean NEVER have I ever done this.
> much phone, little face to face
Mucho phone conversations as there is always someone calling me.
However noone gets a dog from me unless they come to me.
>- questionable health advice
-
Now this is a real FUNNY one. When have I given bad health advice on
this ng?
So why would I be doing so with my Chessies.
> uninvited phone calls about dogs being handled by
>others, muddying the waters and confusing >situations
-
Nope,that is one thing I hate,as I said too many cooks, spoil the broth.
And like I have said before I don't want to be involved with other
rescuers.
> claiming credit for placements made by others
NOW that is a funny, as it is the other way around.
Oh gee where do you get your facts from?
-> "Everytime Paulette picks up the phone she adds
>another dog saved to her tally. She picks up the >phone a lot."
Sad so sad... Anyway I only add a dog to my "tally" as you call it if I
do my hands on adoptions.
As I only do my hands on adoptions and the dog is LEGALLY mine well I do
believe that it would be appropriate to call that a rescue that I
did,huh?
>Again - I don't know that a single one of these is >accurate.
NO and nothing was accurate.
> The subject was reputation, and this is what I've
>heard from the totally opposite side of the country, >about someone I
don't know at all. It may all well >be unwarranted, malicious, personal,
or based on >other things I can't guess.
: (
I had assumed that Paulette was aware that these
>opinions were held by some persons because of
>battles on the Chessie list (also heard of 2nd hand)
>and my original suggestion that her attitude about
>working with others might be a contributing factor >was based on that
assumption.
: (
Your facts are wrong.
> Wish I hadn't brought it up.
>Lynn K.
Glad you did and I have learned a bit about many things here..
I have decided that what I thought of YOU and others here is NOT what is
real,and being a Greek and holding a grudge and being a Swede and being
stubborn, well that is me.
So anyway I don't think it matters what I say about this or that, as I
and others that KNOW me know the truth.
Anyway Lynn,you once asked a favour of me and I obliged.
I shall ask one of you.
Leave me alone, as I have had it...
Paulette~
Gary & lois Edwards
Gary & lois Edwards
life of it's own) or yelling at me?
Lois E
Carol Phillips <phil...@NOSPAM.hit.net> wrote in message doubledouble
snip
Carol Phillips
talking to each other face to face, instead of reporting about each
other to a newsgroup. I would almost rather read JH's crap than this
ranting and destructive posts about people that I want to admire. I
admire none of you now. And I don't believe any of you about your
so-called rescues. I am very disappointed in the unforgiving and
accusatory tone of some of these posts. Like the important thing is who
gets credit for a rescue. Bah!!! Don't bother to reply. You have
destroyed your reputation with me.
Carol
Gary & lois Edwards wrote in message ...
Dave YOUNGMAN
Carol Phillips
directed at the parties who are arguing in such a nasty and egotistical
fashion. It is one thing to stand up for yourself and state your
opinion. But after a post or two, flaunting your "wonderfulness" is
nauseating.
Forgive me for not being clear. I enjoy your posts very much.
(although I did join this NG when you were especially angry about some
post of JH's, which was my first introduction to THAT particular
nastiness in this NG. I have since learned that the killfile is a
lovely thing.) But I don't want to killfile Paulette. I love her
browndogs. I just feel that this should be dropped. Now. Thanks for
helping me clarify.
Carol
Gary & lois Edwards wrote in message ...
AussieResc
OK Paulette.......enough already.
Lois E >>
I agree, this obviously is a problem between Chessie people and the rest of us
have no need to see it. Please take it to private e-mails.
Pat
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/aussieresc">Aussies in Shelters</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/paltm81324">Dakota's Rescue Page</A>
dogsnus
Kudos..
Terri
Dogman
>OK Paulette.......enough already.
>Lois E
>BRDOGS <BRD...@webtv.net> wrote in
Why not address that post to the dozen or so other petty and
mean-spirited harpies who are trying to hound Paulette to death, eh?
Huh?
Oh, I forgot...you're one of the "sisters," too!
That explains it.
You bunch of hypocrites make me sick.
buglady
healing crisis huh!
buglady
take out the dog before replying
Dogman wrote in message ...
Have2CBRs
>out of the woodwork,huh?
>
>Funny isn't it that she could have spoken to the person I helped and get
>the truth, but she chooses not to : (
>
>Oh BTW even though Otter was a referral on the web page the man
>contacted TWO CBRR&R coordinators,about this dog and for HELP.
>
>Even a PHONE NUMBER to call someone in the know,that would or could help
>him.
>
>He never got one.
>
i've not requested the guys number because it is not necessary. i've asked our
volunteers and noone is familiar with him or otter. you said yourself that he
had the dog for 2 whole days before calling you in a panic. we are an all
volunteer organization and do not have someone manning an 800 number 24 hours a
day. so if he in fact called someone, well he should have thought of that
before adopting the dog and he should definitely understand that there are many
other rescues that we are working on. i'm glad you were there for him. too
bad he didn't seek anyone's help before adopting the owner placment.
christy
Mary Healey
> You're killfiling Dogman and Paulette? My estimation of your judgement has
> dropped considerably.
You estimated my judgement? Thanks!
> In the almost two years I've been here, neither one of them has ever been
> wrong about dogs.
In the ten years I've been here (or hereabouts), the dog content of
their posts has dropped below my tolerance. And the dog content part
I've pretty much heard before. So, faced with off-topic nonsense and
reruns, I'm bailing. <shrug> If you're still getting new information
from them, good on ya.
> You are about to lose some of the solidest wisdom available on this group.
If self-involvement and pissing contests are considered wisdom, I'll
pass.
> Your loss.
Not really. Your post came across my monitor on March 31. I see that
you sent it March 23. If you look over Joe and Paulette's posts to this
thread over the past week, can you honestly say I've missed much
dog-related information? From the snippets quoted by Terri and others,
it seems that Paulette's gone missing and Joe's being his usual charming
self. Nothing dog-related is being replied to - but that may be a
function of the replies rather than their posts. So, I ask you, what
have Joe and Paulette posted about dogs recently?
ObDog: Sam's new bestest friend is a Lab mix that looks and acts like an
American Bulldog. Great dog, but easily distracted by other dogs. The
owner's getting the hang of this attention/obedience thing, though, and
Kenny (yes, the dog's name is Kenny - I fear for his little South Park
life!) is settling into class a little better each week.
The biggest problem dogs have are at the other end of the leash...
lawrence
wrote:
>In the ten years I've been here (or hereabouts), the dog content of
>their posts has dropped below my tolerance. And the dog content part
>I've pretty much heard before. So, faced with off-topic nonsense and
>reruns, I'm bailing. <shrug> If you're still getting new information
>from them, good on ya.
I wouldn't think Richard will be getting much of anything at all from
the flirtatious duo of Pup and Gracie. He left.
Larry