Segregated

Wwdog, I do not think that a person stating that they dislike a trainer is actually inflammatory.  Unless you are him, then maybe, but ...that would be up to you to take it that way. 
 
Everytime someone adds to these threads it is like waiting for the other shoe to drop.  And while everyone seems interested in a topic, there is the hostility sitting superficially beneath the lines. 
 
I think we should say if we like the trainer or not.  And why.  Otherwise how are you going to get more thoughts there.  If you just need to follow a book, then there is no need to discuss.
 
I do not think that you should say to another poster that they do not know that much about dogs and that puts you on a higher pedestal (in your own mind). 
 
It is hard to leave a thing even if you have all of this conviction, but I think these threads are always going to have trouble due to the nature of them.  Too much ego mixed in here.
 
Bye!
 
 

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.

 
And that is the TRUTH.....[]

ORIGINAL: dogslife

Wwdog, I do not think that a person stating that they dislike a trainer is actually inflammatory.  Unless you are him, then maybe, but ...that would be up to you to take it that way. 

They did not say they did not like him...they said... "I consider the superficiality of his knowledge".

Everytime someone adds to these threads it is like waiting for the other shoe to drop.  And while everyone seems interested in a topic, there is the hostility sitting superficially beneath the lines.

From both sides.

I think we should say if we like the trainer or not.  And why.  Otherwise how are you going to get more thoughts there.  If you just need to follow a book, then there is no need to discuss.

Again it's not the saying weather they like a trainer or not. It's insulting them...saying they're wrong...and not backing their comments up with anything helpful...or useful.

I do not think that you should say to another poster that they do not know that much about dogs and that puts you on a higher pedestal (in your own mind).

I didn't. And even you yourself are showing *your* "hostility sitting superficially beneath the lines."

It is hard to leave a thing even if you have all of this conviction, but I think these threads are always going to have trouble due to the nature of them.  Too much ego mixed in here.
Bye!

On both sides.

ORIGINAL: snownose

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.

And that is the TRUTH.....[]

And nothing but. LOL

They did not say they did not like him...they said... "I consider the superficiality of his knowledge".

 
Well, that's saying that you don't like that trainer and also stating why you hold that opinion (percieved superficiality of knowledge). Why is there a problem with saying that?

I think the reason some members don't like CM, or his ways is that he doesn't have a  degree, didn't train with some well known trainer or didn't read book after book. So, therefor he has no credibility.

Reminds me of the Military. My Dad always said that there could be a soldier having been in the Military for 15 years, loads of experience, but no degree, and he will never be an officer. Then you have the snot nosed kid out of college going through OCS, and voila, all of a sudden you have a platoon leader......even if he has a degree in finger painting......lol.

So,who is more qualified?

Personally, I think CM has been around dogs all his life observing them.....so I wonder has he not earned something?

Well, right, I get that that's a point of disagreement, but it's still just disagreement, not an attack. If you can't say that you don't like a trainer because they have no formal education and you believe that their knowledge of the subject is superficial, you might as well just go ahead and say, "You're not allowed to disagree." Because that's all that statement is. Disagreement and a reason for it.
 
An actual attack would read, "He has no education and you fell for it, therefor you're a rube." That's an attack. And certainly that kind of thing has been said, here and in other forums, but that's different from just stating that you don't like a trainer, and why.

ORIGINAL: houndlove

They did not say they did not like him...they said... "I consider the superficiality of his knowledge".

Well, that's saying that you don't like that trainer and also stating why you hold that opinion (percieved superficiality of knowledge). Why is there a problem with saying that?

Is that a serious question? LOL Ok...then what's wrong with saying that the "trainer" who just made that comment...is the one who actually only has only a superficial knowledge of dogs, and that's why they don't...*get it* ...and make those comments to begin with? And I'm just going by your logic here.

ORIGINAL: snownose


Personally, I think CM has been around dogs all his life observing them.....so I wonder has he not earned something?

He certainly IMPO from what I've seen has "earned" more than a lot of so called "schooled trainers".

As long as you can say it without making a real value judgement ("...therefor you're a bad person") and can actually back up what you're saying with a fact, I have no problem with that. Though accusing someone who has gone to school for the topic, and has read and researched a great deal, and who has trained for 20 years as having a superficial knowledge is kind of a stretch. But if you can justify that statement truly, then go for it. But if you're just doing it as a "I know you are but what am I?" typed move, then that's a baseless attack and an ad hominem.
 
I'm concerned with facts and evidence, not feelings and not hunches. If you can make a statement and back it up with some real actual objective evidence, that is a discussion. If you're just flinging names and baseless accusations around, that's an attack and I have no time for that on either side.
 
Notice I'm keeping my personal opinions on the value of education in dog training to myself here. I'm just talking about the art of rhetoric and having a discussion in which the participants disagree.

ORIGINAL: houndlove

As long as you can say it without making a real value judgement ("...therefor you're a bad person") and can actually back up what you're saying with a fact, I have no problem with that. Though accusing someone who has gone to school for the topic, and has read and researched a great deal, and who has trained for 20 years as having a superficial knowledge is kind of a stretch.

Have you ever researched how long Cesar's been working with dogs, as well as where all (not just some) of his knowledge comes from? And sorry but I've seen some of the so called "trainers" schools have produced...and I'm not impressed.
 

But if you can justify that statement truly, then go for it.

I just did...can you?

I'm concerned with facts and evidence, not feelings and not hunches.

And yet...that's not what I'm getting from your post.

If you can make a statement and back it up with some real actual objective evidence, that is a discussion.

I have...you have not. In fact I asked some direct questions that were simply...danced around in other threads.

If you're just flinging names and baseless accusations around, that's an attack and I have no time for that on either side.

And yet your defending IMO someone who did just that.

Notice I'm keeping my personal opinions on the value of education in dog training to myself here. I'm just talking about the art of rhetoric and having a discussion in which the participants disagree.

 It's the underlying hidden agenda of your post that say different. Notice...*I* left the other areas in this forums alone and came here where we could discuss Cesar. You people seem to want follow over here and continue argueing. Why is that?

Okay, you know what, never mind.

I was trying to describe a scenario in which an actual discussion among people who fundamentally disagree can be had, but apparently no one really wants that.

I have no secret agenda. I'm not arguing for anything pro- or con- at this point though, yes, I do have an opinion. I'm not saying that Cesar has a superficial grasp of dog behavior, someone else said that and I was trying to explain how that might not be an attack but just a reason for disagreeing with him. I'm NOT saying that statement is right or wrong. Just trying to categorize it rhetorically.

It wasn't about the actual example that I used but about a way to back up what you say with some facts and evidence as a way to NOT make it just a personal attack. I'm not defending anyone, I'm not arguing for any actual point here other than that it may in fact be possible to really and truly disagree but not hate all over everyone about it. For everyone. I'm sad to see what has happened here and I was clearly mistaken to think that I could try to change it. Never mind.
 

ORIGINAL: houndlove
It wasn't about the actual example that I used but about a way to back up what you say with some facts and evidence as a way to NOT make it just a personal attack.

But so far that's all people who have disagreed with him have done. Attack him, his methods, and then not back up one single thing they say. If that's wrong show me where.

It wasn't about the actual example that I used but about a way to back up what you say with some facts and evidence as a way to NOT make it just a personal attack. I'm not defending anyone, I'm not arguing for any actual point here other than that it may in fact be possible to really and truly disagree but not hate all over everyone about it. For everyone. I'm sad to see what has happened here and I was clearly mistaken to think that I could try to change it. Never mind.

 
WOW, understand where I'm coming from now? No matter what, there is controversy even with the pro CM people.
 
I am happy to say, I have NOT seen the show and only see brief commercial spots. I have no real opinion of the training for or against it. I'm really happy about that because it does leave me on the outside open mindedly able to attempt to defuse the issues here from not having formed an opinion either way in regards to technique or experience.
 
Anne,
 I didn't copy it and thought I should to remark about it but your last post here was the best I've seen on this topic yet. It was to the point based on your feelings and not what should or should not have done and I must give you credit it for it.
 
This is all I am asking of all of you. name calling, personal attacks and rude remarks/digs at each other has caused this area to be created...I could care less what areas we have or don't have.
Bottom line, this forum needs to run smoothly end of story...figure it out amungst yourselves and if you don't I'll be here to remind you how too, you might not be happy with the results but it's all up to YOU
 
If the traffic here ends, the area can be closed and the threads moved to other training areas. Debate is good, I agree but the conflicts MUST stop on the personal level

Now perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this section, but I thought it was for people who liked Cesar and wanted to share their thoughts on him, his show, and his techniques. And not a place to come and argue about him. That's why I jump out of the other forums and have stayed over here. So why do those of you who don't like him come here? Can you not leave it alone. If you wish to dispute him or what your reading here, why not start a thread in another section about it. That way... people who want to argue about it can go there, people who don't can stay here. Doesn't that seem...logical? I bet most people who like Cesar will stay here away from the argueing. I promiss I will. See...best of both worlds.

edited to say...just saw your post Amstaffy, am I wrong here?