All I Can Say is Wow

His name doesn't ring a bell. Do you remember his user name? Was it Joel???? LOL!!!!! 

denise m

His name doesn't ring a bell. Do you remember his user name? Was it Joel???? LOL!!!!! 

No, not Joel - I think his name was doglistener

Very old news, actually - that is dated 2007.  The two of them have had a beef for a while. 

spiritdogs

Wasn't this guy a member here once?

Since he is considered a trainer i guess we can talk about him here

Here is the K9 magazine editor talking about him:

http://www.ryanomeara.com/doglistener-stan-rawlinson/

Here is Stan's page, go to the left where it says K9 magazine and he tackles this issue:

http://www.doglistener.co.uk/

*removed by moderator*

miranadobe

Very old news, actually - that is dated 2007.  The two of them have had a beef for a while. 

Thanks.  Actually, I'm not surprised - he had a couple of beefs here, as I recall.  Ah, the politics of dogdom;-)

spiritdogs

miranadobe

Very old news, actually - that is dated 2007.  The two of them have had a beef for a while. 

 

Thanks.  Actually, I'm not surprised - he had a couple of beefs here, as I recall.  Ah, the politics of dogdom;-)

I am not at all surprised either. I went and looked, and read the old threads and found one very interesting read. Just go and put doglistener into the search engine, his old threads will pop up.

So, Anne, I have to ask, what was your reason or point for bringing up this issue? I would like to point out that this person has NOT been active here on the boards since 2006......that is has been almost 4 years since he did post,  if you go by some of the dates. So I failed to find the correlation between his bickering with a magazine and here.

Not everyone is going to get along, not everyone is going to agree. And frankly the fact that they both took it public smacks of hurt feelings and one upmanship. I have more respect for the trainers that are modest, lower profile and respectful of humans than the ones who toot their own horn, put down others and their methods and make a stink under the guise of "their rights to speak".

Truley

spiritdogs

miranadobe

Very old news, actually - that is dated 2007.  The two of them have had a beef for a while. 

 

Thanks.  Actually, I'm not surprised - he had a couple of beefs here, as I recall.  Ah, the politics of dogdom;-)

I am not at all surprised either. I went and looked, and read the old threads and found one very interesting read. Just go and put doglistener into the search engine, his old threads will pop up.

So, Anne, I have to ask, what was your reason or point for bringing up this issue? I would like to point out that this person has NOT been active here on the boards since 2006......that is has been almost 4 years since he did post,  if you go by some of the dates. So I failed to find the correlation between his bickering with a magazine and here.

Not everyone is going to get along, not everyone is going to agree. And frankly the fact that they both took it public smacks of hurt feelings and one upmanship. I have more respect for the trainers that are modest, lower profile and respectful of humans than the ones who toot their own horn, put down others and their methods and make a stink under the guise of "their rights to speak".

 

I just thought it was interesting that when he was here he was tooting his own horn quite a bit, despite the fact that he had both good and bad things to say - and then apparently had his credentials questioned very publicly. It's not often that a magazine will go to such lengths, because they understand, perhaps better than most, that there is a difference between free speech (disagreeing with methods) and libel (presentation of false information with the purpose of defamation).  I just found it interesting that's all.  Presumably a lesson to others not to falsify credentials, too. I'm not the arbiter of this kind of thing, but I like to know who all the players are, and what's going on in the dog world, good and bad.

spiritdogs

I just thought it was interesting that when he was here he was tooting his own horn quite a bit, despite the fact that he had both good and bad things to say - and then apparently had his credentials questioned very publicly. It's not often that a magazine will go to such lengths, because they understand, perhaps better than most, that there is a difference between free speech (disagreeing with methods) and libel (presentation of false information with the purpose of defamation).  I just found it interesting that's all.  Presumably a lesson to others not to falsify credentials, too. I'm not the arbiter of this kind of thing, but I like to know who all the players are, and what's going on in the dog world, good and bad.

Interesting, yes, but for me only in the view of why bring something to the table that is almost a year old in terms of news? or so I thought all the way up until I went and read some back articles.

I did find the post from Mr. O'Meara most enlightening though, and I have you thank for it Anne.

This quote, which Mr. O'Meara admits to saying is the finest statement I have heard in a long long time.

“Those who seek acceptance and respect from ‘the dog world’ tend to be terminally retarded to the point where they become obsessed about what people say or think about them and they end up behaving like rabid, schizophrenic daleks with a one track, monotonous drone about dog related stuff that nobody in the real world gives a toss about.”

and this.........

I stand by every last word of that quote and am more proud of it now than I was when I wrote it. Stan, you see, can’t get his head round this fact – NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO BE PART OF THE ‘DOG WORLD’.

I couldn’t give a rat’s backside about ‘the dog world’. I am a DOG OWNER. First, foremost and always. The ‘dog world’ is something that people Stan care about. It’s a place full of ego maniacs who seek acceptance and public acknowledgement through……wait for it……dogs!!

So Anne, thank you very much. I did take something away from this old feud after all.

Truley

spiritdogs

I just thought it was interesting that when he was here he was tooting his own horn quite a bit, despite the fact that he had both good and bad things to say - and then apparently had his credentials questioned very publicly. It's not often that a magazine will go to such lengths, because they understand, perhaps better than most, that there is a difference between free speech (disagreeing with methods) and libel (presentation of false information with the purpose of defamation).  I just found it interesting that's all.  Presumably a lesson to others not to falsify credentials, too. I'm not the arbiter of this kind of thing, but I like to know who all the players are, and what's going on in the dog world, good and bad.

 

Interesting, yes, but for me only in the view of why bring something to the table that is almost a year old in terms of news? or so I thought all the way up until I went and read some back articles.

I did find the post from Mr. O'Meara most enlightening though, and I have you thank for it Anne.

This quote, which Mr. O'Meara admits to saying is the finest statement I have heard in a long long time.

“Those who seek acceptance and respect from ‘the dog world’ tend to be terminally retarded to the point where they become obsessed about what people say or think about them and they end up behaving like rabid, schizophrenic daleks with a one track, monotonous drone about dog related stuff that nobody in the real world gives a toss about.”

and this.........

I stand by every last word of that quote and am more proud of it now than I was when I wrote it. Stan, you see, can’t get his head round this fact – NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO BE PART OF THE ‘DOG WORLD’.

I couldn’t give a rat’s backside about ‘the dog world’. I am a DOG OWNER. First, foremost and always. The ‘dog world’ is something that people Stan care about. It’s a place full of ego maniacs who seek acceptance and public acknowledgement through……wait for it……dogs!!

So Anne, thank you very much. I did take something away from this old feud after all.

I'm not sure you meant it that way, but your response sounded a bit sarcastic.  In any case, I want to make it clear that while I am interested in things that go on in the dog world (and our definition of what that means may be the same or very different), I am most assuredly *not* seeking acceptance or respect from everyone who may call themselves part of that world, and that includes the dog owners as well as the dog world as anyone defines it.  I just find it all interesting - but, it's like anything else, you take what you need and leave the rest.  The information may be a year old, but I don't remember seeing the part about the credentials, that's all.   Sorry if you didn't like the fact that I brought it up.

spiritdogs

I'm not sure you meant it that way, but your response sounded a bit sarcastic.  In any case, I want to make it clear that while I am interested in things that go on in the dog world (and our definition of what that means may be the same or very different), I am most assuredly *not* seeking acceptance or respect from everyone who may call themselves part of that world, and that includes the dog owners as well as the dog world as anyone defines it.  I just find it all interesting - but, it's like anything else, you take what you need and leave the rest.  The information may be a year old, but I don't remember seeing the part about the credentials, that's all.   Sorry if you didn't like the fact that I brought it up.

Actually Anne, I wasn't being sarcastic. And why be sorry?

About the quote I highlighted. It is a very true statement, but unfortunately for Ryan O'Meara, he falls under that same statement. What you have here is a dog fight with 2 intact crazy males, and they are using their positions to broadcast it. Both are guilty. Both are to blame. Both are just as questionable. 

You should adore Stan. He is all about the positive. And while the man may be rude and rant and become abusive with other forum people, how is he different from anyone that has posted here? Or on any forum for that matter? The sense of entitlement that people have in regards to being able to say what they want, without any recourse, is out of control. So in that regard I would not be a Stan Fan.

This case is a he said/he said.

The credentials part, well that too is a he said statement. While I don't doubt something was misquoted, I don't doubt that it wasn't done by accident, by either party.

Every article written about how bad and devious Stan is..well they are owned by the same media group. Which Ryan O'Meara is a director of. Does not make it legitimate in any way shape or form, since it cannot be (so far) substantiated by any outside source (that I was able to find, if you can, please post it).

K9 Magazine has been around since 2001, and only 19 issues? To me that is not the stuff that clout is made of.

In terms of the "I'm sorry" that Ryan wants, I think Stan is wrong. Forums do what forums do. You cannot hold them accountable for what people post, but you can for what they put out themselves. I do not think Stan was wrong for not wanting to be associated with things like overfeeding your pet and shock collars, it is against what he stands for.

I don't question your right to post information, far from it. You posted about someone else's fight, an old ongoing one, from another country. You brought up that he was once here, and was contentious. To me, and I could be wrong, you were trying to further discredit someone with out all the facts.  

I still really do admire that statement. I have more respect for the trainer, behaviorist and dog savvy people that walk the shadows of drama and lights, do instead of say, and respects the other end of the leash....the human end.

Truley

spiritdogs

I'm not sure you meant it that way, but your response sounded a bit sarcastic.  In any case, I want to make it clear that while I am interested in things that go on in the dog world (and our definition of what that means may be the same or very different), I am most assuredly *not* seeking acceptance or respect from everyone who may call themselves part of that world, and that includes the dog owners as well as the dog world as anyone defines it.  I just find it all interesting - but, it's like anything else, you take what you need and leave the rest.  The information may be a year old, but I don't remember seeing the part about the credentials, that's all.   Sorry if you didn't like the fact that I brought it up.

 

Actually Anne, I wasn't being sarcastic. And why be sorry?

About the quote I highlighted. It is a very true statement, but unfortunately for Ryan O'Meara, he falls under that same statement. What you have here is a dog fight with 2 intact crazy males, and they are using their positions to broadcast it. Both are guilty. Both are to blame. Both are just as questionable. 

You should adore Stan. He is all about the positive. And while the man may be rude and rant and become abusive with other forum people, how is he different from anyone that has posted here? Or on any forum for that matter? The sense of entitlement that people have in regards to being able to say what they want, without any recourse, is out of control. So in that regard I would not be a Stan Fan.

This case is a he said/he said.

The credentials part, well that too is a he said statement. While I don't doubt something was misquoted, I don't doubt that it wasn't done by accident, by either party.

Every article written about how bad and devious Stan is..well they are owned by the same media group. Which Ryan O'Meara is a director of. Does not make it legitimate in any way shape or form, since it cannot be (so far) substantiated by any outside source (that I was able to find, if you can, please post it).

K9 Magazine has been around since 2001, and only 19 issues? To me that is not the stuff that clout is made of.

In terms of the "I'm sorry" that Ryan wants, I think Stan is wrong. Forums do what forums do. You cannot hold them accountable for what people post, but you can for what they put out themselves. I do not think Stan was wrong for not wanting to be associated with things like overfeeding your pet and shock collars, it is against what he stands for.

I don't question your right to post information, far from it. You posted about someone else's fight, an old ongoing one, from another country. You brought up that he was once here, and was contentious. To me, and I could be wrong, you were trying to further discredit someone with out all the facts.  

I still really do admire that statement. I have more respect for the trainer, behaviorist and dog savvy people that walk the shadows of drama and lights, do instead of say, and respects the other end of the leash....the human end.

 

 

 

Actually, I neither like nor dislike Stan personally, since I really have no relationship with him, either personally or professionally.  He's not a FB friend even.  While I find his writings abrasive sometimes, as most of you here know, I'm not opposed to spirited debate.  I was merely interested in the issue of credentials, not in whether I like what the guy says about dog training.  I highly respect those who spend time studying behavior, either formally or informally.  But, I question why someone would need to falsify a credential, or how they could get so wound up in such a mess as this.  Being interested in what happened is not the same as trying to discredit someone, which I certainly was not, and don't see how you made that inference.   The fact that you posted what information you have on that magazine is more information with which I, and others, might decide that their information has no basis in fact, which is why people post to forums in the first place - to get other peoples' input on whatever they are discussing. 

Now, I did say I could be wrong, you thought my post was sarcastic, I thought yours was to discredit. So we both were wrong.

I found the information I did by putting certain words in a search engine and reading. It took, at most, 30 min for me to decide this was a personal and nitpicking and one up man ship in nature. There are 2 sides to every story, always.

Truley

Now, I did say I could be wrong, you thought my post was sarcastic, I thought yours was to discredit. So we both were wrong.

I found the information I did by putting certain words in a search engine and reading. It took, at most, 30 min for me to decide this was a personal and nitpicking and one up man ship in nature. There are 2 sides to every story, always.

 

Well, on that we certainly can agree.