Segregated

Actually there is some very good advice, directions, instructions, and insight that come out of those threads.  I am starting to get pretty good at filtering and just move on to the next post.  The filtering is getting to the point that I just bypass Posters that I recognize as engaging in this behavior.  Thats too bad because they seem to be very much on top of things in the dog world but their message is not getting to the intended OP or audience.  I do hope they realize their creditability is also effected and their intended audience is a lot smarter than being given credit.

Thats too bad because they seem to be very much on top of things in the dog world but their message is not getting to the intended OP or audience.  I do hope they realize their creditability is also effected and their intended audience is a lot smarter than being given credit.

Tha was in a nutshell what io was trying to say. It just gets exhausting filtering out the bickering from the real content

I still don't understand why it is not okay to disagree in a non-inflammatory way with the content of a post. Putting discussions about CM in a separate place with separate rules is a very basically anti-intellectual act that I must continue to voice a fundamental disrespect for.

This separate place with separate rules shields Cesar Millan's methodology from scruitiny, and it also keeps the people who decide to "side" with him from having the kind of fun, rigorous back-and-forth with lots of different kinds of people that makes this forum worthwhile, that makes all of us better trainers.

I am here to be well rounded, to talk to people that are very different from me. Having to explain that +R is not the same as treat dispensing made me much more aware of how important withholding access to what my dog desires is to my own training program. In other words, arguing with people on CM threads made me a better, more aware trainer of my dog. I am sure that other people on the other side of the fence have had their views and methodology similarly shaped and strengthened and their knowledge broadened by these same discussions, however heated they may be.

What is the fundamental difference between openly writing that "CM People" are ignorant and deciding that they should become ignorant by shielding discussions about CM from dissenting voices? Because this denial of curiosity, this manufacturing of consent, is exactly how ignorance happens.

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

I still don't understand why it is not okay to disagree in a non-inflammatory way with the content of a post. Putting discussions about CM in a separate place with separate rules is a very basically anti-intellectual act that I must continue to voice a fundamental disrespect for.

This separate place with separate rules shields Cesar Millan's methodology from scruitiny, and it also keeps the people who decide to "side" with him from having the kind of fun, rigorous back-and-forth with lots of different kinds of people that makes this forum worthwhile, that makes all of us better trainers.

I am here to be well rounded, to talk to people that are very different from me. Having to explain that +R is not the same as treat dispensing made me much more aware of how important withholding access to what my dog desires is to my own training program. In other words, arguing with people on CM threads made me a better, more aware trainer of my dog. I am sure that other people on the other side of the fence have had their views and methodology similarly shaped and strengthened and their knowledge broadened by these same discussions, however heated they may be.

What is the fundamental difference between openly writing that "CM People" are ignorant and deciding that they should become ignorant by shielding discussions about CM from dissenting voices? Because this denial of curiosity, this manufacturing of consent, is exactly how ignorance happens.

 
You can still arguing with those people in the other threads and discuss the different techniques (i know i'm still there posting) is just that it seems that the word "CM", his show and book cause problems, so this part of the forum is to be able to write about him, his show and his book, the techniques he uses are not an exclusive from him so those methods can still be discussed there

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

I am here to be well rounded, to talk to people that are very different from me.

right on!!!

I still don't understand why it is not okay to disagree in a non-inflammatory way with the content of a post. Putting discussions about CM in a separate place with separate rules is a very basically anti-intellectual act that I must continue to voice a fundamental disrespect for. This separate place with separate rules shields Cesar Millan's methodology from scruitiny, and it also keeps the people who decide to "side" with him from having the kind of fun, rigorous back-and-forth with lots of different kinds of people that makes this forum worthwhile, that makes all of us better trainers. I am here to be well rounded, to talk to people that are very different from me. Having to explain that +R is not the same as treat dispensing made me much more aware of how important withholding access to what my dog desires is to my own training program. In other words, arguing with people on CM threads made me a better, more aware trainer of my dog. I am sure that other people on the other side of the fence have had their views and methodology similarly shaped and strengthened and their knowledge broadened by these same discussions, however heated they may be. What is the fundamental difference between openly writing that "CM People" are ignorant and deciding that they should become ignorant by shielding discussions about CM from dissenting voices? Because this denial of curiosity, this manufacturing of consent, is exactly how ignorance happens.

Right on, I think you and I are basically on the same boat, we want to learn, not caring about being labeled either way. Which is what I would believe the mayority of people around here are trying to do. The thing is that in these particular cases common sense has been replaced with fanatism. What has not yet become clear to me is WHY are the two so called "sides" mutually exclusive, yes, they have fundamental differences, but ultimately they have the same en result in mind. The sole purpose of these forums is to SHARE knowledge, so, share it. Dealing in absolutes is a very dangerous thing to do, it allows no room for error, and if history serves as proof of anything, most of the time there is an exception to the norm. So saying that an idea is 100% wrong based on the line of thinking it is comming from, eliminates whatever GOOD knowledge could come from it.

As Fisher said, I am here to become well rounded, that means to listen to ideas different from the ones I have, if they make sense to me I take them, if not, well at least I've heard them. At the end of the day COMMON SENSE should be our primary tool, the fact that something is written in a book, happened on TV or we saw it before our very own eyes doesn't mean it will ALWAYS apply the same. The knowledge shared here is basically a set of tools, we may not need to use every single one of them, but at the same time, trying something different every now and then may bring a pleasant and unexpected surprise.

As Fisher said, I am here to become well rounded, that means to listen to ideas different from the ones I have, if they make sense to me I take them, if not, well at least I've heard them. At the end of the day COMMON SENSE should be our primary tool, the fact that something is written in a book, happened on TV or we saw it before our very own eyes doesn't mean it will ALWAYS apply the same. The knowledge shared here is basically a set of tools, we may not need to use every single one of them, but at the same time, trying something different every now and then may bring a pleasant and unexpected surprise.

Exactly!  I use a combination of methods for different problems or for different training I am trying to teach. Becasue I haven't chosen one method over an other I fall into both catagories. 

Explaining how these methods might effect my dog negatively or how they may impact my training in either direction is the important information I am looking for.   But nothing bothers me more than for someone to imply that my choice's are degrating to my dog is insulting.  Just as impling I am a treat dispenser is insulting.  If those comments could be kept to themselves than the hackles wounldn't go up for most.
 
I also agree that we should be able to include Cesar Millian and his methods openly in all sections of this forum but now the mention of his name is going to have people sending us here.  An honeslty I love to critique his show and see other views on his methods.  It would be great to hear from people who can offer another solution that would have worked given each episode.  That is what teaches us and gives us the information so we can make an informed decision.

I for one applaud the staff here for creating this forum. Why would anyone think it's wrong? For those who like Cesar...you can come here and discuss his methods, and for those that don't...you don't have to bother with it. It's a win win situation. 

ORIGINAL: luvmyswissy
 An honeslty I love to critique his show and see other views on his methods.  It would be great to hear from people who can offer another solution that would have worked given each episode.  That is what teaches us and gives us the information so we can make an informed decision.

But there lies the problem. I have yet to see anyone who criticizes his methods...say how they would have...done it. I for one would LOVE to here that...once.

No offense intended to you, but for quite a while on this forum, the tone of the posts suggested otherwise.  What people wanted was for some of us to change our minds about his methods, and come around to their view of the world, and they got pretty sarcastic in the descriptions of other folks' methods to do so (if you notice, at least one of those people doesn't seem to be posting at all lately).  I have never objected to an honest question posed on any of the training or behavior threads, and have always answered as to what I would do.  Frankly, I have offered links and book suggestions - usually because there is a lengthy protocol that someone has put on paper much more articulately than I could paraphrase it on a message board.  But, always, I have tried to match the protocol or suggested books, links, etc. to the actual problem being described to me.  I'm still willing to do that, or to tell people what I would have done, but not in a place where the object of the game is to admire someone, the bulk of whose work I do not admire.  Sure, there are things CM does that I do, and that I find OK, but on the whole, I find there are better profesionals to emulate, and I'm happy to discuss them as well (not just Ian Dunbar...), on appropriate threads in other sections of the forum.  It's really not that I want to avoid telling anyone what I would do.  It's just that what I would do is seldom what CM would do, or did.  So, I have not wanted to continue the negativity that seems to ensue when I say that on the forum. People have been PM'ing me for advice, and there have been discussions in other areas, but segregation dependent upon the fact that people here enjoy discussing CM, means it is not an appropriate area for me to hang out in.  I don't frankly enjoy him, the show, or what I consider the superficiality of his knowledge base, so it isn't a good idea for me to be here, ruining the party for his fans who do enjoy.  The fact that we are now segregated has led, I think, to a deterioration in the quality of debating the actual training and behavior issues, which is what we all should have stuck to in the first place.  Then, we might still be integrated.

This C.M. section, while practical and almost necessary for the way threads have been developing, is basically saying one of two things, Either there is not a single shred of knowledge worth sharing in ANYTHING C.M. does or the exact opossite. This secion is basically the result of **Content removed**not being able to disagree and move one, but having a need to proove themselves right, often by ridiculing opinions opossing thier own; taking things personally and getting irritated for not being able to turn everyone else into their own way of thinking. The ones who end up paying the price are those of us who want to hear an argument that shows pros and cons of several methods or techniques.

Eley, what you say is true.  And I find it amazing that this is on other boards as well.  For some reason, this name conjures up trouble.  I did a little investigating on the web and also was not pleased with what I read. 
 
For some reason it flies in the face of many.  And defensiveness in general, to me, usually means that there is an important underlying facet missing - something integral to maintaining a conversation and it regards honest understanding and ability to express the truth of a thing. 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs  I don't frankly enjoy him, the show, or what I consider the superficiality of his knowledge base, so it isn't a good idea for me to be here, ruining the party for his fans who do enjoy.

Spirit...can't you see how people will read that remark as a inflammatory one. Is it any different than me saying *IMO it is your lack of understanding the true nature of dogs that make you see things the way you do*? I don't know what all types of training you've done, but I'll tell you from *my* experience...any *trainer* who has worked in the field of not only OBT...but also with hunting dogs, herding dogs, and especially attack dogs, has a whole different perspective of dogs than *most*...*pet trainers*. And then there's those of us who deal with aggressive dogs *many*...*trainers* won't even touch. They label them...unfixable...and just say the dog should be put down (sometimes without even seeing the dog). And yet!...I've helped these dogs year after year to have a long happy life. I know some pet trainers that aren't even sure how to get close to a human aggressive rottie...so they can work on it. Then they blame their lack of skills...on the dog. I'm not saying you do this, I'm just saying what I've seen time and time again through out my career.

The fact that we are now segregated has led, I think, to a deterioration in the quality of debating the actual training and behavior issues, which is what we all should have stuck to in the first place.  Then, we might still be integrated.

Sorry I can't agree with you here...because a debate should be...IMO...While Cesar did it this way which I disagree with...I would have done it this way. THEN! people can go...oh that's interesting, or...I see what your saying, or...I don't agrre with that...because. A good debate IMO is...not!...he did it wrong...period.

I hope I was able to make my point without being insulting.

ORIGINAL: eley
This secion is basically the result of **Content removed** not being able to disagree and move one,

I think this section was created because of people like you. Just look at the first thing you do when you come here is dish out insults by calling people **Content removed**.  And didn't the Admin say (several times) DON'T DO THAT HERE!!! So perhaps it's not the people that enjoy coming here who are the **Content removed**ones.

ORIGINAL: dogslife

Eley, what you say is true.  And I find it amazing that this is on other boards as well.  For some reason, this name conjures up trouble.  I did a little investigating on the web and also was not pleased with what I read. 

For some reason it flies in the face of many.  And defensiveness in general, to me, usually means that there is an important underlying facet missing - something integral to maintaining a conversation and it regards honest understanding and ability to express the truth of a thing. 

And what is "the truth"? Your truth? My truth? Who can claim 100% that they know whats right and wrong when it comes to dogs? IMO there's not a single person on this planet who doesn't see things...their way, but that doesn't make it...true.