Dogs and Old Men!

[canaldrifter]

Well precisely, Carl.

 

If you can't take it you shouldn't dole it out. I've only been on forums and newsgroups for about ten years, but I've learned that three things are important.

 

Firstly, it isn't real life.

 

Secondly, you can't see the whites of the eyes, so be careful how you read,

 

and thirdly, if you can't laugh at yourself, then don't laugh at others.

 

Hence my sigs. It's humour, of sorts, self-directed.

No offence taken, ever, even when it is offered by Phylis. Life is too short.

 

Tone

[mayalld]

To put the history into true perspective, I walked before I was pushed by the editor who turned against me because I spoke the truth about him.

 

And you will note that after a short gap to let the heat settle, I have contributed to this thread whilst at the same time contributing to URW.

 

Dave, I see your snidy posts are exactly the same abusive rubbish they were back in the days when I challenged you to put your views directly to Nabo council by being on it, instead of criticising it from the sidelines in cowardly fashion. I was Vice Chair then. You were just a PITA.

 

In what way was my criticism "cowardly"?

 

I offered my honest view of the manner in which NABO council consistently misrepresented what they were saying as the views of the membership when it was actually the view of the then Chairman of NABO. I did so, as I always do, under my own name, if anybody wished to argue the point with me, I was very available.

 

Perhaps you have forgotten that what happened next is that YOU and the said chairman took it upon yourself to reproduce what I had written in urw in the NABO magazine without bothering to ask whether you could reproduce it.

 

Given that, so far as I can see, you have fallen out with every organisation that you have ever joined (NABO, SOW, NBW spring to mind) and proceed to slag them off, having spent much of your time lambasting others for criticising them, you really have little to say.

[canaldrifter]

I had no idea you followed my career so closely. I am flattered.

 

The problem is, folks don't like to hear the truth about themselves. They like sycophants, and in no way would I ever be a sycophant to anybody. Nor will I ignore dishonesty.

 

I also try to expose those who are publicly critical of others who actually make the effort to do something useful despite those who snipe art them from the sidelines. Something which you appear to relish and be limited to.

 

You would kick a friendly dog? You think the towpath is your space? Get a life!

 

Tone

Edited October 22, 2010 by canaldrifter

[canaldrifter]

YOU and the said chairman took it upon yourself to reproduce what I had written in urw in the NABO magazine without bothering to ask whether you could reproduce it.

 

 

 

Oh... my profuse apologies. I didn't realise that what you had written on a public newsgroup was not for public publication or that you are ashamed of it.

 

(Your serve)

 

Tone

[mayalld]

Oh... my profuse apologies. I didn't realise that what you had written on a public newsgroup was not for public publication or that you are ashamed of it.

 

(Your serve)

 

Tone

 

I shall simply add it to the long list of things that you don't have a clue about.

 

The fact that something is posted on a public newsgroup, or onto a forum such as CWDF does not make it fair game for anybody to reproduce it anywhere else.

 

Postings remain subject to the laws of copyright, and reproduction outside of the medium of original publication (and outwith the implicit licence that the poster grants to quote a post in responding to it as an essential feature of the medium) is a breach of the author's copyright.

 

My postings on urw are just as much copyright works as the feeble drivel that you have had NBW remove.

 

I also try to expose those who are publicly critical of others who actually make the effort to do something useful despite those who snipe art them from the sidelines. Something which you appear to relish and be limited to.

 

Ah, so THAT was what you were doing when you went hell for leather to destroy SOW, just because things weren't going the way that YOU wanted.

 

No, as ever, your monumental arrogance dictated that unless people did something useful in the way that you wanted, you would snipe at them as you departed to the sidelines.

 

You would kick a friendly dog? You think the towpath is your space? Get a life!

 

Most people regard the area immediately surrounding their body is their personal space, and do not welcome uninvited intrusions into it.

[canaldrifter]

You know, Dave. The difference between you and me is that you have no idea when you are having the piss taken out of you. You never did.

 

Tone

[mayalld]

You know, Dave. The difference between you and me is that you have no idea when you are having the piss taken out of you. You never did.

 

Tone

 

No, the difference is that I'm quite comfortable with having the piss taken out of me.

 

I'm particularly comfortable with the idea when the person attempting to do so has dug himself a hole so deep over the years that (like the rest of his bleating) it all rings hollow.

[canaldrifter]

Time you got your ears tested, Dave? Sounds like you are suffering from tinnitus.

 

Tone

[mayalld]

Time you got your ears tested, Dave? Sounds like you are suffering from tinnitus.

 

Tone

 

I always thought that tinnitus was a ringing in the ears, rather than the continual monotonous whine that I'm hearing in this thread.

[canaldrifter]

Maybe your computer cooling fan is about to seize up.

 

Tone

[canaldrifter]

 

 

 

Most people regard the area immediately surrounding their body is their personal space, and do not welcome uninvited intrusions into it.

 

On the towpath you are in a permitted public space which you share with others, and their animals. You have no personal rights there whatsoever. If it was your back garden I would agree with you, but it isn't.

 

Tone

[mayalld]

On the towpath you are in a permitted public space which you share with others, and their animals. You have no personal rights there whatsoever. If it was your back garden I would agree with you, but it isn't.

 

Tone

 

We are all fortunate indeed that your opinion isn't the actual state of play, and remains just your usual ill-informed twaddle.

 

I think that you will find that even in public spaces (absolute or permissive) we retain certain personal rights.

 

If you think otherwise, then perhaps we should test the theory. From now on, anybody who sees you on the towpath is to hold your hand, even if you don't want them to. After all, you are in a public place and have no personal rights.

 

There are certain things, such as allowing your dog to "be friendly" that the police are rightly reluctant to get involved in, for they have more important matters to deal with. However, there comes a point where somebody wrongly believes that they can do as they wish, and deliberately does so in the face of others telling them that it is unacceptable. When we get to that point, it is time for the authorities to take action.

[canaldrifter]

Yawn

 

Tone

[Sunset Rising]

Since this thread has reached such a silly level.... How about all those who dont like untethered strange dogs approaching them to closely( the majority ? ) cart around a wheelie bin to pop it in ( on camera of course )

[Natalie Graham]

 

There are certain things, such as allowing your dog to "be friendly" that the police are rightly reluctant to get involved in

 

Having a friendly dog doesn't really seem that high on a scale of serious criminal activities, does it? I can't see it getting passed into any legislation any time soon. Maybe the Friendly Dogs Act would replace the Dangerous Dogs Act.

 

If you meet a dog coming the other way on a narrow path like a towpath you are going to have to pass close to it at some point so what on earth is the big deal? I was out for a walk yesterday on a forestry path and two loose dogs came up to me. I said hello to them, passed the time of day with their owner and carried on with an enjoyable walk. I imaging the dogs and their owner did likewise. So far I have experienced no ill effects from this encounter, although, admittedly, it is less than 24 hours. I think that is a far more sensible response than if I had kicked the dogs, started a row with their owner, spoilt the afternoon for everyone concerned and possibly caused the dogs to become fearful of strangers with the resultant risk that they would snap at someone they met in a confined area in future.

 

 

[mayalld]

Having a friendly dog doesn't really seem that high on a scale of serious criminal activities, does it? I can't see it getting passed into any legislation any time soon. Maybe the Friendly Dogs Act would replace the Dangerous Dogs Act.

 

If you meet a dog coming the other way on a narrow path like a towpath you are going to have to pass close to it at some point so what on earth is the big deal? I was out for a walk yesterday on a forestry path and two loose dogs came up to me. I said hello to them, passed the time of day with their owner and carried on with an enjoyable walk. I imaging the dogs and their owner did likewise. So far I have experienced no ill effects from this encounter, although, admittedly, it is less than 24 hours. I think that is a far more sensible response than if I had kicked the dogs, started a row with their owner, spoilt the afternoon for everyone concerned and possibly caused the dogs to become fearful of strangers with the resultant risk that they would snap at someone they met in a confined area in future.

 

 

 

I believe that I already acknowledged that being a PITA isn't high on the scale.

 

The trouble is that some people just don't "get it".

 

There are people out there that do not want your dog to be friendly to them. They may have a fear or dislike of dogs. They may have a dog themselves that is upset by the unrestrained dog being in close proximity, or they may simply not wish to suffer the inconvenience (mud, hair on clothes etc) that results from your dog being "friendly". Now, you may regard all their reasons for not wanting your dog's attentions as silly, you may disagree with them, but the simple fact is that they are allowed to hold that view, and it is not for you to impose your view of what is acceptable upon them

[Trix]

Too many people make one experience the norm if I tell my dog not to approach someone whilst off the lead she will not and I only let her approach if the person tells me or her for that matter that is what they want. Oh by the way she is one of those dogs that have a bad rep because of her breed that the idiots on the news have decided they are all bad. If one human murders we must all be murderers, right?

 

Take a quick look at these untrained dogs the end is superb.

[carlt]

Too many people make one experience the norm if I tell my dog not to approach someone whilst off the lead she will not and I only let her approach if the person tells me or her for that matter that is what they want.

If your dog does not leave your side, in the presence of other dogs or people, then there is no problem and I would probably not even notice that it isn't on a lead.

 

The argument is, though, should a dog be allowed to invade a stranger's personal space and scare, harass, sniff or just annoy someone?

 

If you cannot prevent your dog from doing this then it should be on a lead.

 

I don't want a human standing an inch away from me, invading my personal space.

 

Why should I have to accept a dog doing the same?

[RLWP]

<snip>

 

I don't want a human standing an inch away from me, invading my personal space.

 

<snip>

 

Especially if he is sniffing your testicles

 

Richard

 

Perhaps I'm assuming too much there

Edited October 25, 2010 by RLWP

[Natalie Graham]

I believe that I already acknowledged that being a PITA isn't high on the scale.

 

The trouble is that some people just don't "get it".

 

There are people out there that do not want your dog to be friendly to them. They may have a fear or dislike of dogs. They may have a dog themselves that is upset by the unrestrained dog being in close proximity, or they may simply not wish to suffer the inconvenience (mud, hair on clothes etc) that results from your dog being "friendly". Now, you may regard all their reasons for not wanting your dog's attentions as silly, you may disagree with them, but the simple fact is that they are allowed to hold that view, and it is not for you to impose your view of what is acceptable upon them

 

 

But you seem to regard it as all right for you to impose your view of what is acceptable on others:

there comes a point where somebody wrongly believes that they can do as they wish, and deliberately does so in the face of others telling them that it is unacceptable. When we get to that point, it is time for the authorities to take action.

What I do regard as silly is the over-reaction that says the authorities should be involved when someone does something you regard as unacceptable. What sets your view of what is acceptable above what others regard as acceptable? People are allowed to let their dogs off a lead on a canal towpath. They have every right to do so. The great majority of other people using that path will not object if a dog comes close to them. It is not for you impose your view of what is acceptable on others either. In all the time I had a dog I never once had anyone complain about my dog being loose, with the exception of one woman who mistook him for a different dog that had a bit of a bad reputation locally. Why should "the authorities" take action because of the intolerance of a few individuals?

 

The argument is, though, should a dog be allowed to invade a stranger's personal space and scare, harass, sniff or just annoy someone?

 

 

But there is also the argument that if the dog is not doing anything which would reasonably scare, harass or annoy someone, (I would put a dog coming up to you on a canal towpath where you might reasonably expect to encounter people walking dogs into that category) is it right to impose restrictions because of the (over-) reactions of a minority?

 

If the dog approaches someone growling, baring its teeth and showing every sign of attacking them then that would be likely to scare, harass or annoy people but if it simply comes up to you wagging its tail, which is the more likely possibility I don't see how that would be seen as anything unacceptable by most people.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Natalie Graham

[carlt]

if it simply comes up to you wagging its tail, which is the more likely possibility I don't see how that would be seen as anything unacceptable by most people.

The dog that bit my dog's leg off came running up, tail wagging, jumped up at me, at which it received a pat on the head, then turned and attacked Tommy.

 

I will never make the mistake of welcoming a strange dog into my personal space again.

[Matthew Knowles]

The dog that bit my dog's leg off came running up, tail wagging, jumped up at me, at which it received a pat on the head, then turned and attacked Tommy.

 

I will never make the mistake of welcoming a strange dog into my personal space again.

A few years ago a friend of mine was walking down the street when someone who was walking the other way attacked and mugged him. So by the same token as above he should smack everyone who approaches him in the street just in case? I wonder this because in my experience people are far crueller, far less predictable and far more calculating than dogs.

[soldthehouse]

But you seem to regard it as all right for you to impose your view of what is acceptable on others:

What I do regard as silly is the over-reaction that says the authorities should be involved when someone does something you regard as unacceptable. What sets your view of what is acceptable above what others regard as acceptable? People are allowed to let their dogs off a lead on a canal towpath. They have every right to do so. The great majority of other people using that path will not object if a dog comes close to them. It is not for you impose your view of what is acceptable on others either. In all the time I had a dog I never once had anyone complain about my dog being loose, with the exception of one woman who mistook him for a different dog that had a bit of a bad reputation locally. Why should "the authorities" take action because of the intolerance of a few individuals?

 

 

 

But there is also the argument that if the dog is not doing anything which would reasonably scare, harass or annoy someone, (I would put a dog coming up to you on a canal towpath where you might reasonably expect to encounter people walking dogs into that category) is it right to impose restrictions because of the (over-) reactions of a minority?

 

If the dog approaches someone growling, baring its teeth and showing every sign of attacking them then that would be likely to scare, harass or annoy people but if it simply comes up to you wagging its tail, which is the more likely possibility I don't see how that would be seen as anything unacceptable by most people.

As an animal lover I tend towards an empathetic view towards any animal put into a potentially compromising situation. It is us that expects too much of both animals, in this case dogs, and of people by being too assuming. the dog is a pack animal and will instinctively protect the pack space above all else. We flaunt this everytime we freely mix ourselves in public. As we are slightly more sophisticated we have more developed social skills [on the whole]. However expecting a dog to perform reliably in varying situations when confronted with the random beings of this world who will display conflicting body language etc etc, we shouldnt be suprised when it all goes pearshaped. I would suggest caution by owners is the best polcy and anything less irresponsible. Having said that kick mine or any other dog within eyesight of me and the dog will be the least of your worries.

[carlt]

Having said that kick mine or any other dog within eyesight of me and the dog will be the least of your worries.

If I kick a dog it is because it is snarling, baring its teeth and resisting being fended off.

 

My first course of action is to tell the owner to get their dog under control, whilst fending it off, keeping at a safe distance from my dog or kids.

 

The only dog I have ever kicked ran straight up to my kids snarling and Tommy, my lurcher, quite rightly, attached himself to it's throat, defending his pack.

 

Not only was the dog not on a lead, it didn't even have a collar on.

 

Johnny Wilkinson would have been proud.

 

The owner had a similar reaction to the one you allude to, until he realised that I was quite capable of defending my pack against human, as well as canine, attacks and they both ran off with their tail between their legs.

[casper ghost]

The trouble with dogs and owners is that everyone says their dog is well behaved and trained, that's until something happens..

Casp'