I've put the posts back that commented on the thread.

I think it's unfair to say we are like other places with 'inter-fighting' - god if you call that fighting you should check out some of the other places!

I haven't read all of the thread but considering how it was started, and with some of the ill thought out comments posted, it's gone pretty ok.

On the whole people have actually, held back pretty well.

For a start I don't think that's a good way to start a 'discussion' (this is the discussions section after all!) - what was posted was more like a personal rant/viewpoint. And it doesn't help that it's of a highly emotive issue at a very difficult time.

When you create a discussion you're meant simply mention the topic and ask peoples thoughts on it - not post highly contentious comments! That's just asking for it.

For eg:

Didn't anyone tell the poster that dog fighting is outlawed. There should be no fighting breeds. Yes there are breeds that were once used for bull-baiting/dog fighting BUT breeders have worked hard to breed out those traits. If they haven't, or continue to breed aggressive dogs they should quite rightly be prosecuted and the dogs prevented from harming anyone or reproducing. To reiterate, there should be NO fighting breeds being bred today.

If the OP is referring to people buying these dogs from dodgy criminals breeding such dogs to fight - then why post in that manner on a Dog Lovers site? If the OP wanted to warn people that there are criminals/idiots out there selling dogs bred to 'fight' then surely you would have put a little more thought in your post and worded it as such? As it stands, it seems he is implying that certain breeds are even now considered 'fighting breeds' - if that's the case have the courage to say so, and we can discuss that topic.

So you weren't there then. No chance this 'friend' didn't dress up the story for a bigger reaction? I've heard far too many stories of "my friend say his friend said that her friend said..". So I have doubts about the whole story, from whether it actually happened to how it happened.

Even if a dog did kill another dog - HELLO, dog fights happen all over the world with many different breeds. Like I mentioned above, if these dogs were 'bred' to fight then THAT is what's wrong.

Like I said, if you're confusing people on a dog lovers site with people who buy illegal dogs (bred by criminals to 'fight') then you've come to the wrong place. And it's ridiculous to tell people not to socialize their puppies if they aren't of that sort! Or are you saying that certain breeds no matter who they are bred by are 'fighting dogs' if so please just say so, not hint at it in an ambiguous, cowardly way.

So it was a ridiculous starting point for a 'discussion' to begin with. And there's no wonder some of the replies were too. No wonder that thread is neither here nor there.

Just a note for newbies. Sometimes, some posters hold what are widely seen as ridiculous views. One such example is where someone said they wanted to retain or carry on breeding dog on dog aggression !!!

So, when some people have views like that there is going to be a certain amount of tension - we all love our dogs, and it's very hard to stand by and say nothing when such rubbish is sprouted out by some. Like I said, on the whole people participated pretty well in this thread, all things considering.

Right - there's always something we can learn from such situations. And it's become clear that we can't leave the responsibility to people to start discussions correctly - do from now on all threads posted here will be put in a moderation queue. A sticky will also be posted to spell out what the correct way is to start a discussion.

Then all submitted 'discussions' - are checked over by a mod and if nesc reworded so the starting point for the discussion is fair and unbiased.

I have a good mind to rename the section 'Logical Debate' too, because we have some members who think things through before posting and others that make posts based on zero substance - which are of course a waste of everyone's time

This is a privat message i have send to AZZ following the closure off the treath http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?t=55804 talking about risks of certain breeds (i keep it civil) I'm not criticising the decission to close the treath but the way i'm portrayed. I asked the person in question a public apology. He didn't give it.So i try it this way. what follows is the first message i send him (actualy they were 2 cause off thier sieze:

This was send to him as a reaction on the clousure off the topic in question ("you said" should be read as "azz said"):

First of all you criticise me openly without giving me the possibility to respond on your point of view.
What follows is my response on your point of vue which is at least said coloured:
You said:

I haven't read all of the thread but considering how it was started, and with some of the ill thought out comments posted, it's gone pretty ok.

Comment: this is like criticising a book on its cover

You said:


For a start I don't think that's a good way to start a 'discussion' (this is the discussions section after all!) - what was posted was more like a personal rant/viewpoint. And it doesn't help that it's of a highly emotive issue at a very difficult time.

Comment:
This wasn't a rant or a personal vue it is a description of a situation that took place at the home of a verry experienced drainer/dog handler

You said

When you create a discussion you're meant simply mention the topic and ask peoples thoughts on it - not post highly contentious comments! That's just asking for it.

For eg:


Quote:
I want to post here a word of caution for all those who have dogs from a "fighting" breed as pets.

Didn't anyone tell the poster that dog fighting is outlawed. There should be no fighting breeds. Yes there are breeds that were once used for bull-baiting/dog fighting BUT breeders have worked hard to breed out those traits. If they haven't, or continue to breed aggressive dogs they should quite rightly be prosecuted and the dogs prevented from harming anyone or reproducing. To reiterate, there should be NO fighting breeds being bred today.

Comments:

These breeds were bred for fighting and still have the body structure to inflict major damage in a short time. Add to this the "strong" character of some of these dogs and you have a dog that has the basics to be a true fighting dog. Outlawed or not, intentionally or not.

You said:

If the OP is referring to people buying these dogs from dodgy criminals breeding such dogs to fight - then why post in that manner on a Dog Lovers site? If the OP wanted to warn people that there are criminals/idiots out there selling dogs bred to 'fight' then surely you would have put a little more thought in your post and worded it as such? As it stands, it seems he is implying that certain breeds are even now considered 'fighting breeds' - if that's the case have the courage to say so, and we can discuss that topic.

Comments:

I didn't intend to reffer to dodgy people... My intend was and is to point out the inherent risk of owning a dog that was "build to kill" sorry if this is shocking but they were build to do that job. No blame on the dogs put here.


You said:

So you weren't there then. No chance this 'friend' didn't dress up the story for a bigger reaction? I've heard far too many stories of "my friend say his friend said that her friend said..". So I have doubts about the whole story, from whether it actually happened to how it happened.

Comments:

If anything he downplayed the situation he admitted he made a mistake and he doesn't blame the dog but takes the full blame. It is not as if he is putting the blame on the breed
You said:

Even if a dog did kill another dog - HELLO, dog fights happen all over the world with many different breeds. Like I mentioned above, if these dogs were 'bred' to fight then THAT is what's wrong.

Comment:

Dog fights happen and in a normal situation a dog has inherent restrictions that prevent him from killing another dog in the pack. Seen it numerous times and although it seems hefty it is most of the time showing off.

You said:

Quote:
These dogs are created to kill and should be taken serious. please don't mix these dogs with other dogs and/or children

Like I said, if you're confusing people on a dog lovers site with people who buy illegal dogs (bred by criminals to 'fight') then you've come to the wrong place. And it's ridiculous to tell people not to socialize their puppies if they aren't of that sort! Or are you saying that certain breeds no matter who they are bred by are 'fighting dogs' if so please just say so, not hint at it in an ambiguous, cowardly way.

Comments
Not hinting cowardly simply stating the origins of those breeds. Just as a york originally is a hunting dog those breeds mentioned above were created with a certain purpose. The cowardly thing is to accuse me of being a coward without giving me the chance to answer in public


You said:

So it was a ridiculous starting point for a 'discussion' to begin with. And there's no wonder some of the replies were too. No wonder that thread is neither here nor there.

Comments:

This wasn't a ridiculous starting point only a description of the experience of the handler and an event that took place.


You said:

Just a note for newbies. Sometimes, some posters hold what are widely seen as ridiculous views.


Comment:

This implies that my vues are ridiculous please indicate which and i'll be glad to prove to any logical creature that they may be put in a strict and hard way but that they hold the truth.


You said:

Right - there's always something we can learn from such situations. And it's become clear that we can't leave the responsibility to people to start discussions correctly

Comment
Read "1984" from a certain mr Orwel is nice reading.

You said:

Then all submitted 'discussions' - are checked over by a mod and if nesc reworded so the starting point for the discussion is fair and unbiased.

comment

with or without permission of the op. This sounds like censorship

You said

I have a good mind to rename the section 'Logical Debate' too, because we have some members who think things through before posting and others that make posts based on zero substance - which are of course a waste of everyone's time

comments:

Again you are implying that i have zero substance without the right of awnser. Please indicate where and when

I would greatly appreciate that you would take the time to reply on this and put my response public

Greetings

Johan
So far my post

The awnser was only about the closure and not about his attacs on my person in the closure.
I know that Moderators and the administrator have the final say on the running of the site.
I have a problem and have complained but azz doesn't even hint at rectifying his insults at my adress and acts as "big brother"
I allow him to make my private messages to him public (under the condition that his awnsers are also made public)for revue for the members. I doubt that he will because he lacks gentlemanship.

Anyone may criticise my opinions but when a person with limited knowledge of dogs ( owned 1 dog and his parents had one (see public profile of azz)) Insults my knowledge and claims that i know nothing about dogs, claims that i'm a coward etc i demand a rectification

Greetings

Johan

ps it is now 01/03/2007 14.48 gmt i wonder how long this post will stay on the forum