Hmm...methinks that this is a silly thing to point out.

Dog lovers may include trainers, but in order to love dogs you do not have to be a trainer or even to own a dog.

The point of her post was clear to me.

couldnt agree more

I am very relieved to see that the Blog section is still in existence - I was extremely worried that they might all be pulled, and I would have felt dreadful.

I think my point of view over Blogs is that within reason they should not be subject to control of content from Site Administrators - after all, what is one man's meat is another man's poison.

I for one take a very dim view of being labelled "cruel", "abuser of dogs" and considered a non-dog lover, a person not fit to own a dog, because I choose to have used an e collar to train my dog - with great success.

Whereas it is of course perfectly reasonable for anybody to state assertively their feelings about such an action, it is my legal right to have used such a collar, and my democratic right to be able to discuss this in public, private or on a website such as Dogsey. It is of course the right of Site Admin to refuse to allow the discussion of e collars, to ban anyone who tries to raise the subject etc. etc., but I personally feel this to be very undemocratic, and very difficult to police. Where do you draw the line? I personally think choke collars are far crueller than e collars, but many thousands of people who are huge dog lovers use them every day.

If I were to be totally honest, I would have say that I think Site Admin were perfectly correct to take down my Blog, it had become nasty in the extreme - on both sides, I have to admit

But to ban all discussion of e collars, absolutely not, that is not democratic at all.

[quote=Reisu;2217327]Personally, I'd get rid of blogs and move their content over to a dedicated section of the site. Then anyone who wanted a blog could just have a single thread in there, instead of having a blog out on the site's boundaries where not as many people will look at it. You'd have to be a member for X amount of time and have X number of posts before being able to access it, to prevent advertising and such. Then at least everything comes unambiguously under the same rules (and it makes it much easier for me to find pictures of puppies to drool over )

I think that an 'official stance' on e-collars could be useful too- written and editted by the members to a point where the majority is in agreement with it, to be put somewhere where it's easily accessible (in the user guidelines maybe). Then anyone starting a thread on e-collars could first be pointed in that direction and see exactly why most of us are against it, in a way that cuts out all of the ad hominem and emotion that inevitably comes in those threads. If they had a query that it didn't answer the discussion could then continue (or not, Id' have no problems with it being banned personally).[/quote]

Now that would be a great idea !

I wouldn't expect you to say anything else

err, have quoted clair's post above, highlighted the relevant bit.
obviously i wasnt referring to the rest of her post, that's why i didnt quote it.
if i got the wrong end of the stick, fair enough.
but clair hasnt mentioned that yet though, she has only replied upon the very point i have made.
which makes my point completely valid one to make under the circumstances.

and as regards your post above, i completely agree.
this is exactly why i made the point i made.
i didnt understand clair making a distinction between "dog lovers" (as in dogsey's motto "this is a site for dog lovers") and then a seperate one by saying "not dog trainers or professionals (although we do happily have many on board").
Her choice of wording does give the implicaiton that dog trainers dont fall under dogsey's banner of joining as dog lovers, and that we 'dog trainers' are kind of given a special tolerated permisison to be here?
And that the reverse is therefore true, pet owners are different to dog trainers?
Which isnt what i understand the dogsey motto and philosophy to be, and im not sure that its up to members to regard other members members as such.
We are all equal members, regardles if we are dog professionals or not.

Like i say, if im getting the wrong end of clair's stick, im happy to stand corrected.
But it still remains her wording justifies my valid point at this time.

Well it's good I didn't disappoint then isn't it!

You are obviously not a democrat then

I think what people are objecting to about ecollar discussions is that they've been done to death on Dogsey. Everyone who has strong feelings about them has expressed their views & it seems that the vast majority heartedly condemn their use for the pain they cause & many other reasons stated so many times.

Perhaps it's a bit different if a Dogsey member admits to using one. IMO that's a different scenario to the use of ecollars in general & their use in hypothetical situations. That's more to do with expressing concern for the dog that suffers, & trying to persuade that member that there are better ways. But in view of the strong condemnation of ecollars it's hardly surprising that the discussion gets so heated & personal in these situations. All sides were wrong in that particular instance, including Gnasher & her responses & the people (myself included) who attacked Gnasher personally.

I don't suppose this helps with what to do about blogs though!

Good to see the "I've used an ecollar with great personal success" line's now come over into THIS thread.

It's like having AP back again.... sigh.

But you do disappoint...big time!

I'm not getting drawn into a dispute with you, I've made my feelings clear, as have you, but I have no need to resort to name calling either.