Deleted as I was being a bit of a prat and having a cheap shot.

On the contrary Adam, if it doesn't hurt to some extent it won't work.
See the study I posted about above which confirms e collars cause pain.I consider it has far more validity than the words you speak which can frquently be attributed to a banned troll. Don't you have a voice of your own?
'greater reliability', who says so, the trainers like you ,the e collar salesmen ?
So you say Adam and I don't give a great deal of credence to anything you say , you seem to have lapses in memory and contradict yourself, see posts above .
http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php...72#post2155172


I have read a great deal recently about a large number of e collar trained dogs having to be put to sleep because they become unpredictable and fearful , I can understand why that would be the case, we only have to look at the video of your poor scared little dog for confirmation of this .

MichaelM, yes I do find you rude, can you not even see wny? what are you hoping to achieve? I get the feeling you don't like me for some reason - if that's not true, then all I can say is that that is how your posts come across.

Why should I bother to post replies to someone who so clearly prefers to be belligerent towards me?

Your history with me on this board is roughly:

1) We exchange a few PMs where I try to offer help. That seemed OK.

2) Then, you post something to me which is rather insulting - if you need the post I can find it, I think it was in relation to the whole silly DR/sick thing.

3) Then you post just recently, telling me that I am forcing people to accept my opinions this is out of the blue and a personal attack, really. And you demand "evidence". I guess you mean evidence for why shock collars should not be used, but you are hardly clear about what evidence you mean
And, you don't really ask or discuss, you demand. I.e. you are not friendly, you are in more of an attack mode


Come on - you don't seriously expect me to reply to someone who can't be bothered to be pleasant, or has some chip on his shoulder, or who sees things that aren't there? Such as the above post where you suddenly claim that I am being (what was it? oh yes - sarcastic etc). I was being humourous, not sarcastic.

Your response to my humour says a lot about the way you perceive my posts, and sadly it says that you jump to conclusoins that are very unhelpful.

I'm sorry MichaelM but you must see that you are in the wrong here and that you are the one who must sort out his communication attempts, or else not expect to be replied to.

As a sort of side note, I come on here to give the odd bit of opinion and don't get overly involved in shock collar threads these days. I've often let them run for a long time before I even make a post. I don't intend for long intellectual debates on here personally, and that's my choice - I prefer to come on here more for relaxation, to help and to help balance APs claims.

I mean look at this, do you call this good communication? Below:

In post 588, you introduced Lindsay into this thread, quoting selectively to suit your own ends:

and:

I'd say that actually, you're behaving rather deceptively on this thread.

You are just full of rudeness, assumptions and I am starting to think you have a big fat chip on your shoulder somehow. And that you are a big wind up merchant.

I may come back and look at the rest of your post, and I may answer - I don't know yet. Part of me cannot really be bothered, as your attitude stinks. I will have my dinner and see.

What is really nice is that I know there will be plenty of people on here who know me and have known me for ages, some of them (and some who have not) and who know that I'm good at debating and usually pleasant and friendly, even though that may not be coming across right now

Wys

Adam, you lied - pure and simple. You made no reference in your original post about section three or ninety three. You said that Danny had told DEFRA he couldn't continue with the study. No point letting this thread roll on for a few pages and then trying to mask it - it's there in black and white and can be quoted over and over again if required to jog your memory.

ETA: Just for clarity - your exact words:

Why can't you use a vibrating collar then---and why won't you be a guinea pig?

rune

I agree with the above - I've known Wys a long time now on various forums and have never known her to be anything but helpful and polite. I can't think of any occasion where she's been in any way sarcastic - it's just not the way.

Well I won't be forgetting Adam's 'little laps' Brierley or should I say 'troll quote' any time soon .

Adam you may as well admit what most of us know, you really don't give a dam about canine welfare , if you did you would not have teamed up with a sadistic banned troll and been so eager to quote his words. Let's be honest you are here to promote e collars pure and simply .

Yes.

Wys you are one of the most consistently unflappable, knowledgeable (and this includes about e collars )and genuine posters I have ever met on a forum and I have the greatest respect for your opinions.
Just keep on being yourself and ignore any 'minor distractions'....

Not at all. I was genuinely surprised by post 1035 though. I remember the PM's. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again -you were very helpful.

It genuinely struck me as being sarcastic - maybe one of the downsides of communicating this way.

I'm not demanding anything, I said you have the ability to back things up with evidence. I'm genuinely interested in the subject and have an open mind on it - though as you know I'm not pro ban. If a study is refered to/ a link given, I'll read it and make my own mind up. It was you quoting Lindsay that led me to it.

No. I was goading you after post 1035. Mature eh ?

I have to say, I found you so friendly and helpful on pm, that I was taken aback by post 1035.

As you might have noticed, I've just cut something from 1041 ( as I was quite frankly, being a bit of a prat, and despite what I wrote earlier, was having a cheap shot). I've saved it, and am willing to put it back up if you think it deserves remain.

Yes. I can be a bit of an **** at times.

Michael

Edit. In fact, I've just cut the whole thing as it really was against what I was advocating earlier.