This is a placeholder text
Group text
by zdog on 02 November 2010 - 21:11
How someone can say one org upholds a standard better than the other, I'd really like to know how you come up with that. I've trialed in both WDA and USA trials, everytime i've trialed, I've noticed no difference in the judging or the results. I've trained in both WDA and USA clubs and have been a member of both. I like people in both clubs, those are "like" minded like me. They love their dogs and training them and they expect and demand good working abilities.
For the most part my experiences with both have been very positive and enjoyable. Till it comes to those that are in control or have a bigger stake than all us small guys that just like to train and compete with our dogs. Then it becomes apparent they exist to serve nobody else other than themselves. USA may have more working trials, but don't kid yourself and think they are all about the working shepherd. Their sieger shows are what they are, anyone care to defend them? There was a trial not long ago, where some national qualifying scores were given for less than average work. I was embarassed actually. I've seen tougher juding for BH's at other USA and WDA trials than for these previously titled dogs.
To say one upholds a higher standard, is a farce to say the least. Maybe it's written that way on paper, but in reality, it all comes down to what WE do in our small clubs. What do we demand from our dogs, what do we do to train them and how do we conduct ourselves. These organizations don't give two shits about us, why fool yourself into thinking they do.
by raymond on 02 November 2010 - 21:11
by Einstein on 03 November 2010 - 11:11
Since you support Dr. Raiser's SV 2000, that is in direct conflict with your views on the current situation here.
You are what is called a "flip flopper"; agreeing with what the current in power states or your friends.
It is very intriguing and concerning that people like you, jurdon55 and CMass react like bullies when you can not provide specific examples. I would expect that adult men would have a civil discussion, not the shrill name calling by all three that has been exemplified here.
You all three have not read the Missouri law, but state what the USCA officers did what correct. Because they said so and you do not want to be in conflict. That, Bob McKown, is politics.
You approve of the illegal actions of the officers of USCA.
by Bob McKown on 03 November 2010 - 12:11
Since you claim to not be a dog person you would have no idea what or who Helmut Raiser or his work to point.
Since you claim to not be a dog person(which i don,t believe) I,ll call you a liar and ask that you reveal your identity to assure your neutrality. That is the biggest problem with this web site any hacker can come on here and spill drivel as you are doing in anonymity.
UScA works for me is that what you want to hear? It works for the largest percentage of members, Until this last year other then minor ego bruising it worked to the best of it,s ability. The membership will deal with the needs and wants of the organization.
I could care less of it,s Missouri law implications, if Missouri doesn,t like it i,m sure they will deal with it in due time.
Einstein I,m sure you have your own agenda for stirring the shit here and thats okay but after this rounds of elections guess what it won,t change no matter who is elected.
You work with what you have and make it work to the best of it,s current condition while attempting change from within.
by Einstein on 04 November 2010 - 11:11
No. I do not know Dr. Raiser. His name and organization came up in the research. It is very interesting to note that Johannes Grewe, who authored the "bylaw" was a proponent of two opposing organizations and rescinded his membership in both. It is a classic political move to clean house before you move. You support an opposing organization to the one in Europe, condone those who do the same, but do not apply the same rules here?
A phase comes to mind. "Ad captandum vulgus" Since you have exemplified that you do not read or research well and following the prevailing wind, here is the translation.
To appeal to the crowd -- often used of politicians who make false or insincere promises appealing to popular interest
No, I am not a "dog" person. I will not provide details of my name so you can attempt to bully an aged professor and his students. That is what trapped animals do. Attack.
I am not asking about the organization. We are looking at the structure, responsibility and actions of various non-profits. This is the thesis of the paper.
http://nonprofit.about.com/od/nonprofitmanagement/a/ethics.htm
Why would an election matter? As identified, the illegal actions and ethics issue occurred. Do you, judron55 and CMassGSD think that time will erase the illegal actions?
I sincerely hope that none of you are involved with the profession of police. That would be disconcerting.
by judron55 on 04 November 2010 - 11:11
by Bob McKown on 04 November 2010 - 12:11
He,s a boob playing a shell game...and thats okay it,s the Internet. Intellect with out common sense or application is a terrible waste of gray matter. I,m sure the "aged professor" will continue with his rambling,s. I know way to many collage edumacatted graduates who could not pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the bottom.
Today is the big day if i,m not mistaken when the meeting will take place... and guess what, no matter what happens at this meeting I,m still going tracking to nite the same as I always have...
Good luck to all the club reps... I hope they get this whole shit sandwich taken care of...
by bgstout on 04 November 2010 - 12:11
How was your trip to Reno?
by judron55 on 04 November 2010 - 14:11
same here buddy...hope tracking conditions are good!
by Bob McKown on 04 November 2010 - 15:11
Judron:
Dry as a bone and brown and crunchy... But she is doing it...
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top