Mind if I join in? With a bit of honest of my own!
In a lot of ways, I agree with you!
I myself am surrrrrrrrly about the "positive" label. I think it is bad in a lot of ways. It gives the connotation of "negative" as the only other alternative, and because I think a lot in behaviouristic terms, it doesn't really cover the "positive" in P+ very well. I understand what people mean when they say "positive trainer", but much like I dislike the newfangled term 'balanced' trainer, I don't much like positive as a label either. That is, you'll likely learn that I'm not that fond of labels! Which is usually when I describe something, I try to describe my philosophy and what I do rather than what "type" of teaching I do.
At the same time, I myself have noticed some of what you have noticed on the boards, about how clickers are portrayed. Now, anyone who knows me knows that I am indeed a diehard fan of the clicker. No hands down. That little piece of plastic (rather, the philosophy around it), has literally changed my dogs' lives, and my life. But the thing is, I know that it works. I see it with my own eyes every single day of my life, and I see the extreme success I have had with it, and how the philosophy behind it has helped to make my life better. ;-) Of course I think it is extremely effective, otherwise I wouldn't be using it! I don't need to forcefeed it down everyone's throats though, or continually say "Well, this way is better" or "That way is less effective". All I need to do is discuss what I do, what the results were, and let it all stand on its own two feet, without pushing, and pushing, and pushing. The only line I draw of course, is when incorrect information is presented around the concept/philosophy of clicker teaching/operant conditioning, for the good of the board and potential listeners I do feel compelled to address that type of information lest somebody learn incorrect facts. But to get it out there, I too have run into the "holier than thou" attitude regarding clickers, and I don't much like it, as is evidenced it results in a regression for the goals of those posting, rather than a procession. You get a heck of a lot farther by building on the positive things and assisting others, then by constantly degrading and criticizing another's methods.
Secondly, if I may add, I too was surly about the clicker when I first heard about it. I probably thought about it much in the same way all of you did. Even when I first began using it, it felt wrong, and awkward, and I was embarrassed to be using this.....thing....in public. But it only took the teaching of one behaviour, to get me hooked on it. The rest was history. But in general, I started out much like anyone else would (although I didn't start with the bad publicity), questioning it and giving it random odd glances *kidding*
Thirdly, when I first got into the clicker big-time, I went out and joined a whole host of new clicker groups. And I'll tell you about them. They are filled with kind people, they are filled with very knowledgeable people, and I can always feel welcome to go there to discuss the science, or get help if I need it. However, those groups are also what drew me to look for groups such as this one. I started to get bored by the fact that everyone always agreed with what I had to say....lol. There was some helping others learn, but often discussions weren't awe-inspiring. I found I wasn't learning much new at that point, and being a natural learner, I was starting to literally crave something new. So there I found Idog, with a whole new group of people and a whole new set of discussions! Don't get me wrong, I love my clicker groups, and I read all the messages everyday and post when I have something to share. But even having everyone agree with you and observing the way some people (don't worry, not all people on those groups are like that!) talk about "the others" was disconcerting to me. Even when I agreed with their reasoning, sometimes you wonder where they lost the "positive" in dealing with people that they believed in with their dogs. I have learned a lot more about people from this group, and how to interact with people, than with any of my other groups because in those other groups there was always agreement, so I didn't have to worry about offending somebody.
The earliest pictures I have of myself with dogs include me with dogs almost as tall as I, and I holding/handling them with a leash, with a....wait for it...choke chain on the other end. Granted, I don't know if I ever actually used it much, or when I did I was pretty young so not the same force as if I did it today, but I did know how to use it, and I know how to properly put it on, where it should sit on the neck, and how to give well-timed collar pops. So it's not like I came out of the womb with this clicker in my hand *G* I've been where a lot of folks are, and may have used what folks do, so who am I to judge somebody else, whether they choose to keep doing as they do forever or if perhaps they too are on the path to changing how they interact with their dogs? Any of us who use a clicker, have travelled on an evolving path to get where we are. Technically speaking, the clicker is one of the "newest" teaching technologies available, so most of us have come from somewhere, and that somewhere usually involved the use of some of the tools some people are condemning (Hey, I've got a Koehler book on my bookshelf, and it's sitting right beside my clicker books...so nyah). I think some people need to take a step back to that time, to remember what it felt like, and how it didn't feel "wrong" to them (although for some it did, but it's all they knew) at that time, and try to remember learning about what they know now.
If you promise not to make fun of my little self, I can show you in pictures. *G*
So, I guess that's the long way of saying while I openly discuss what tools I won't use, why I don't use certain tools, and my philosophies, I do my best to treat everybody with the same respect and not paint everyone with the same paintbrush. And I have a little bit of surliness of my own, and just to get it out there that I'm not blind to what some of you "surly" folks are seeing, honestly, and for you to try to realize, too, that not all clickerers are the same either. :-)