This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Gigante on 21 July 2014 - 20:07
Thoughts on the appropriateness of hiding behind an alias while disparaging real people and things. Many of the most popular threads on this board are conversations by a few cloaked individuals back and forth who can say and behave almost with impunity. I like you may agree or disagree with their position. Is there any good reason to consider? For me much of what is said must be cautiously weighed just because they hide, even when I may agree. Annoying. It would be great to get some feedback from the ghost's themselves, but I wont hold breath.. :)
Thats my thoughts what are yours?
by Gigante on 21 July 2014 - 20:07
Can this be moved to the appropiate catagory. My apoligies I thought I was posting in main.
by bzcz on 21 July 2014 - 21:07
Screen names are just that. They aren't aliases. Who hasn't responded when asked who they are?
The real problem I have is that info isn't good unless it has a name behind it.
Witness the thread with Czech Breeders. It can't be bad training because of who the people are.
Information should be judged on it's merits, not it's presenter.
by Gigante on 22 July 2014 - 00:07
Screen name, aliases, aka.... tomato, tomato. Its not the use of them. Im not impugning those that wish to, nor grouping them with those who's specifc purpose for use, was/is the license that it can offer.
"The real problem I have is that info isn't good unless it has a name behind it."
Nice twist
"Information should be judged on it's merits, not it's presenter"
Concur.
But I bet a hundred you and your likes understand my post:
"Thoughts on the appropriateness of hiding behind an alias while disparaging real people and things"
If im wrong please post you name and address, I'll the get the check out. 
by Blitzen on 22 July 2014 - 02:07
Why don't you just badger those who you want to qualify their experiences in the dog world as you did me? I finally caved and told you, maybe they will too. Afraid they might ask to see yours?
by Gigante on 22 July 2014 - 05:07
Blitzen blitzen Blitzen, I asked for clarification on one post.
OnE
Uno
eins
Not two.
Badger?
Hugs for Blitzen.
by rtdmmcintyre on 22 July 2014 - 10:07
My life isn't interesting enough for anyone to want to know anything about me. But if you want I will give you directions to my house and will buy some steaks and grill out for anyone who is passing through.
Reggie
by bzcz on 22 July 2014 - 11:07
Nice twist? I even gave an example. The training can't be bad because of whose doing it. I commented on the bad training. It's not disparaging real people or things. (things?) It's pointing out the very specific errors. i.e. the dog got jammed. Don't care who has the sleeve on and whose on the end of the least. Dog got jammed. If I jam a dog ( a very rare event) I beat myself up for it for a long time. It won't happen again with that dog. But it sure as hell isn't a "so what" deal.
Where's your example at?
by beetree on 22 July 2014 - 12:07
What is this thread really about?
Someone internationally known is seen on a publicly published video, who is then commented on by a known by- screen-name-only personality as doing a piss poor job?
Who then is more credible? Who presents with the least bias? People often do much ass kissing to ingratiate themselves with known breeders in hopes of being drawn into the inner sanctums of DNA access. That is a bias.
Also, lots of mentions of law-suit-itis seems to create its own filter, even when a bad review is merited.
by Blitzen on 22 July 2014 - 13:07
No need to be patronizling, Gigante. If you want to know other's breed/training experience, then you should first offer your own as an example of what you consider acceptable. So far you keep calling others to the carpet, but I don't recall your ever mentioning your own training or breeding accomplishments.
Yes, I agree with Bee - what is this thread really about?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top