A.....gain ...sigh....it was nothing to do with me asking, it was to do with C & D stating she doesnt see why she should do it
Yet at the same time saying why adam should!
And also a....gain, what n'the hell have someone elses posst, which i have never even seen, got to do with what I have been saying?????????????
I have ONLY ever said im talking about what and how C & D wrote.
Should i just say why are you asking me all your questions, go and read someone elses posts, im sure they have talked about something similar in their time.
I mean, come on, seriously....
Look back at your own posts KW and you will see fine what its got to do with it. Your analogy, according to you, has a major flaw;
You could show me a photo of your broken leg, even show me x-rays if you want. Then you can show me a photo of a pot hole. Then, since open to scrutiny, they may not hold up - I might say but how does that prove the broken leg was caused by the pot hole. It just means there was a pot hole and you had a broken leg, not that the pot hole was the cause.
At last!!! Exactly. Just what Michael said to clare when she posted random pics of dogs with burns!
so whats the big deal then, if they are useless why pester to see them in the first place.......
Same way michael wanted the references and then didnt think they were good enough or whatever.
No, he never said that. He commented upon clair commenting that referances werent necessary and were for pedants!
That is the bit im commenting upon!!!
No, he commented that it was bad practice to supply a blog as a reference to a scientific claim (which I dont believe she made? certainly not the first person to claim an e-collar can cause physical damage..), even though it was a vet and that is where they came from.....really besides the point. Point is you are so hung up on the fact that I didnt agree with your manner, not the request; and that I havent changed my mind even though you just keep posting the same nonsense over and over You keep trying to convince me that I do not get 'the point' when I get it fine. Dosnt mean I need to worship you. I have my own opinions and I am happy about that I do not need you to validate them for me based on whether or not you think 'its right'
SO you couldnt win could you. Making references (according to you) pointless anyway, if the person requesting them deems them so.
Blimey....this really aint that hard!
It was C & D that said they werent necessary!
and then she posted them!!
Im not making that position myself, im complaining about that position!
IS IT TOO HARD FOR YOU TO REALISE THAT, THAT WHOLE SCENARIO IS DONE AND DUSTED - GET UP TO DATE WOULD YOU!!
The referances THEN being provided afterward is a further separate supplementary issue, as, yes, they did pose questions of their own. But this is NOT what i have been discussing all ths time!
because you are in your own world when it comes to someone not agreeing with your manner
how on earth can the same issue be a seperate one thats a joke. Could you try any harder to twist this round to your own benefit...
Oh, and about avoiding questions.....I will ask again, for a third time. Why do you call me a 'purist'? On what grounds etc?
I answer that several posts back!
The bit about its not good enough you are anti adam or anti ecollar, you have to be both in a certain correct way.
first of all the words 'pot' 'kettle' and 'black' come to mind!!! ever heard that song, Man In The Mirror...
Please explain why someone who acts in a certain and correct manner is labelled a 'purist' I may need to tell my lecturer that she is a purist as she only passes assements that are of a certain and correct way.....perhaps since my uncle dosnt like the smell of smoke he is a purist, perhaps my employer is only hiring people who dress a certain and correct way for the interview he is a purist
btw - if I am against e-collar use and both AP and Michael are advocting this then it is very obvious I will be in disagreement with both, in fact I would say it makes perfect sense, so given that, how exactly does that make me a purist?
For a more recent referance, see the post i just replied to C & D.
Or the post made by Brierley which picked up on this aspect.
black and white, purist, dogmatic, whatever term, its not important.
If you call someone a purist, I think if they feel the need to ask you why, it is important - perhaps you can provide a reference for that?
its a fair question to ask me, but a side one to my main issue
So I am only supposed to ask you certain questions based on what issue you feel like discussing at the time? Not about why you called me a purist
Last edited by Krusewalker : Yesterday at 10:15 PM.