No dogs allowed cl's cs, or sites, any recommendations.

[Brian Kirby]

Mel B - 2012-07-31 6:43 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-07-31 12:41 PM

 

That is what I think the diehard dog lovers fail to recognise. It is not at the level of phobia, it is just a natural, acquired, unease, in the face of a potential threat.

 

Here we go ... yet again an 'assumption' has been made about dog lovers not being able to understand, now that IS patronising. :-|

 

IMV you don't appear to understand phobias Brian, which I'm very happy about for you as it suggests that you don't suffer/haven't suffered from anything that would cause you some of the debilitating problems that those with phobias can develop - your comment above is way too simplistic.

 

I too am cautious where strange dogs are concerned, as I am with anything else I may meet which I am not familiar with - eg horses, cats, even people - although I have dogs I certainly wouldn't pretend to know how all dogs I meet will behave but experience and owning my own dogs has probably taught me how to 'read' the situation much more accurately than non-dog owners. I have observed people who are around very well behaved dogs (who are doing nothing at all to them/not even near them) act in ways which can actually cause dogs to react to them if they feel threatened - screaming at them to go away for example, running around in a 'panic', or staring at the dogs (dogs do NOT like being stared at as it is a threat). The dogs were doing absolutely NOTHING wrong, just walking by minding their own business but guess who got the blame ... yes, the dog. It may be that the people concerned did have a real phobia about dogs but their actions actually reinforced their phobia/fears even more.

 

It is not unknown for some children to come running up to our dogs to say hello to them, our dogs don't mind that, but we ensure that the children know how to approach the dogs and stroke them (no hitting, ear pulling etc) and also educate them about not just assuming that all dogs are approachable, and to ask if it is okay to stroke them before doing so. We've even had mothers ask us to introduce our dogs to their children who weren't frightened of them, but simply had not had any interaction with dogs, to prevent them developing fear/phobia.

 

If anyone want to call this patronising, then so be it, that is how THEY see what I have written, not what I have actually written and intend it to be. :-S

Deep breath, please Mel, and then please read all of my post in its proper context - not just the last paragraph. You seem to be reading into what I wrote what you thought you saw, and not what is there. My sentence "That is what I think the diehard dog lovers fail to recognise." actually refers back to the last sentence of my preceding paragraph - that you rather naughtily failed to reproduce.

 

What that omitted paragraph sought to argue was that on encountering any dog, one cannot tell whether it will be friendly, as the two dogs I cited were, or a nutter. I went on to say: "In the case of the Bull Terrier, perhaps easily, because they don't generally indulge in foreplay! In the case of a Border Collie, generally, not until it is behind you, so not so reassuring. They are all different, they are all unknowns on first acquaintance: it impossible to judge the temperament of what is around the corner. There is always that immediate frisson of uncertainty on encountering any of them.

 

So, "That is what I think the diehard dog lovers fail to recognise" refers back to: "There is always that immediate frisson of uncertainty on encountering any of them."

 

That statement accurately reflects my initial reaction to encountering any dog that is running free - whether its owner is near or not. Why? Because so many dogs are totally undisciplined and do whatever they feel like doing, irrespective of what command their owner gives. As with the dogs themselves, one cannot judge the competence of the owner on first acquaintance. There are some remarkably stupid people alive on this planet, and unfortunately (for their dogs :-)), some of them own dogs! I'm afraid I think you have whipped your self into something of a frenzy, over something you really agree with.

[Guest peter]

Brian Kirby - 2012-08-01 5:42 PM

 

peter - 2012-07-31 11:43 PM

 

Right then who's first for the chop. :D

You, I would think, Peter. All the bitching started after your first post on the first page, designed, IMO, to provoke a spat. It was highly successful only in that respect - being otherwise completely valueless.

It wasn't posted to start a spat Brian. If the o/p was really interested in finding out where no dog sites were, they would have done the same as most of us and used google and the internet to compile a list.

The o/p has on many ocasions in the past started threads complaining about dogs in order to start a war and I saw this thread as no different. The anti's and I include yourself amongst these have been far more abusive and vociferous than the dog owners. Most of whom couldn't care less what the anti's think and are quite happy and content to have the priviledge of having a dog as a friend.

[flicka]

peter - 2012-08-01 8:51 PM

 

Most of whom couldn't care less what the anti's think and are quite happy and content to have the priviledge of having a dog as a friend.

 

Unfortunately a very apt description of many Dog owners

Maybe a bit more consideration for those who do not hold the same views would provoke LESS animosity towards ALL Dog owners.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Sorry, won't do, Peter. His query was completely mild in tone. Yours was 101 octane, based on a motive you THINK he had, but for which, up to the point of your post, there was not one jot of evidence.

 

And no, I am not an "anti", but neither am I a dog cuddler. I do not love them with religious zeal, as some seem to, but neither do I hate them with a vengeance, as others seem to. On the whole I'm pretty neutral about dogs in general, liking some, where they have an agreeable character, or are useful, but would have no compunction at all about shooting some others, where they attack people, or sheep.

 

I do not hold the failings of the owner against the dog, but ultimately it is the dog that causes nuisance, or worse.

[Mel B]

Brian Kirby - 2012-08-01 6:19 PM

 

Mel B - 2012-07-31 6:43 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-07-31 12:41 PM

 

That is what I think the diehard dog lovers fail to recognise. It is not at the level of phobia, it is just a natural, acquired, unease, in the face of a potential threat.

 

Here we go ... yet again an 'assumption' has been made about dog lovers not being able to understand, now that IS patronising. :-|

 

IMV you don't appear to understand phobias Brian, which I'm very happy about for you as it suggests that you don't suffer/haven't suffered from anything that would cause you some of the debilitating problems that those with phobias can develop - your comment above is way too simplistic.

 

I too am cautious where strange dogs are concerned, as I am with anything else I may meet which I am not familiar with - eg horses, cats, even people - although I have dogs I certainly wouldn't pretend to know how all dogs I meet will behave but experience and owning my own dogs has probably taught me how to 'read' the situation much more accurately than non-dog owners. I have observed people who are around very well behaved dogs (who are doing nothing at all to them/not even near them) act in ways which can actually cause dogs to react to them if they feel threatened - screaming at them to go away for example, running around in a 'panic', or staring at the dogs (dogs do NOT like being stared at as it is a threat). The dogs were doing absolutely NOTHING wrong, just walking by minding their own business but guess who got the blame ... yes, the dog. It may be that the people concerned did have a real phobia about dogs but their actions actually reinforced their phobia/fears even more.

 

It is not unknown for some children to come running up to our dogs to say hello to them, our dogs don't mind that, but we ensure that the children know how to approach the dogs and stroke them (no hitting, ear pulling etc) and also educate them about not just assuming that all dogs are approachable, and to ask if it is okay to stroke them before doing so. We've even had mothers ask us to introduce our dogs to their children who weren't frightened of them, but simply had not had any interaction with dogs, to prevent them developing fear/phobia.

 

If anyone want to call this patronising, then so be it, that is how THEY see what I have written, not what I have actually written and intend it to be. :-S

Deep breath, please Mel, and then please read all of my post in its proper context - not just the last paragraph. You seem to be reading into what I wrote what you thought you saw, and not what is there. My sentence "That is what I think the diehard dog lovers fail to recognise." actually refers back to the last sentence of my preceding paragraph - that you rather naughtily failed to reproduce.

 

What that omitted paragraph sought to argue was that on encountering any dog, one cannot tell whether it will be friendly, as the two dogs I cited were, or a nutter. I went on to say: "In the case of the Bull Terrier, perhaps easily, because they don't generally indulge in foreplay! In the case of a Border Collie, generally, not until it is behind you, so not so reassuring. They are all different, they are all unknowns on first acquaintance: it impossible to judge the temperament of what is around the corner. There is always that immediate frisson of uncertainty on encountering any of them.

 

So, "That is what I think the diehard dog lovers fail to recognise" refers back to: "There is always that immediate frisson of uncertainty on encountering any of them."

 

That statement accurately reflects my initial reaction to encountering any dog that is running free - whether its owner is near or not. Why? Because so many dogs are totally undisciplined and do whatever they feel like doing, irrespective of what command their owner gives. As with the dogs themselves, one cannot judge the competence of the owner on first acquaintance. There are some remarkably stupid people alive on this planet, and unfortunately (for their dogs :-)), some of them own dogs! I'm afraid I think you have whipped your self into something of a frenzy, over something you really agree with.

 

Brian, I was actually referring to your 'comment' that die hard dog lovers FAIL TO RECOGNISE ... as if we are totally oblivious to how others feel ... *-) I didn't 'naughtily' fail to reproduce the paragraph above, I just reproduced the actual paragraph I was commenting on - I am all too aware of how others may feel when 'out and about' ... I object to you yet again making an 'assumption' of my intentions by stating that I purposely manipulated your written word which I certainly did NOT. 8-)

 

As for your comment that I've whipped myself into a frenzy, this is another very insulting assumption which you've made about me personally and I can assure you that I certainly have not ... that may be the 'wish' of some of the anti-dog brigade on here but if so it hasn't worked. B-)

 

What DOES get on my nerves is the people who post comments to TRY to upset people for the sake of it, to get a reaction that they can then perpetuate and intensify with further postings. IMV they are very sad individuals indeed and I feel sorry that this appears to be the only way they can get enjoyment ... :-|

 

I don't know what's got into some people on this forum but it is extremely damaging to it - I've been on it a long time now and I have never seen it so low. :-( I hope they are proud of themselves ... if I was new to this forum I wouldn't bother coming back again ... perhaps I should think about that myself anyway ... I certainly don't ENJOY it like I used to - we used to have some fun banter, even if we didn't agree on things, it never got to the extent it does now and I wonder just how long it is going to stay 'live' as, without contributors it won't exist. *-)

 

Time for bed now ... I may return, I may not. :-|

[pkc]

All venerable Korean ancestors dog aters.

Am long time preferring your lubbrly western sausage and chips, but Blitish weather is clap!

 

Wegards, Dim Sun Lo'ng. :-)

[malc d]

pkc - 2012-08-02 7:56 AM

 

All venerable Korean ancestors dog aters.

Am long time preferring your lubbrly western sausage and chips, but Blitish weather is clap!

 

Wegards, Dim Sun Lo'ng. :-)

 

 

That's enough of that PKC.

 

You are lowering the tone of this discussion.

 

 

:-|

[pkc]

So solly.

[derek pringle]

Hi All,

If it is considered reasonable to enquire and search for sites that do not have entertainment on or children

on and so forth then why would it be unreasonable for people, for their own reasons,to search or seek out sites that do not allow dogs.

We prefer no dogs, although not to the extreme simply because my wife is allergic to them and for the life of me I cannot understand why dog owners think that when their dog comes close to you or you are having a conversation with the owners they think it is acceptable for their pet to nuzzle in to your hand with their wet noses seeking a stroke or whatever, if this happens to my wife then she suffers a rather nasty rash afterwards accompanied by breathing difficulties. Dog owners should just accept that not everybody feels the same and not be so defensive because if they fall in to the category of completely responsible owners then they have nothing to defend.

There is enough room for us all

cheers

derek

[Tracker]

derek pringle - 2012-08-02 11:51 AM

 

Hi All,

If it is considered reasonable to enquire and search for sites that do not have entertainment on or children

on and so forth then why would it be unreasonable for people, for their own reasons,to search or seek out sites that do not allow dogs.

derek

 

It's not unreasonable Derek - it's just that some people are unreasonable and unable to see beyond their own likes and dislikes and it is typical of a 'one size fits all' approach that seems to pervade our way of life.

[Brian Kirby]

Mel B - 2012-08-01 11:55 PM..................Brian, I was actually referring to your 'comment' that die hard dog lovers FAIL TO RECOGNISE ... as if we are totally oblivious to how others feel ... *-)

Not going to argue the point further, save to say that your "snip" denied it its context, so distorting the sense of my post.

 

As for your comment that I've whipped myself into a frenzy, this is another very insulting assumption which you've made about me personally and I can assure you that I certainly have not ... that may be the 'wish' of some of the anti-dog brigade on here but if so it hasn't worked. B-)

Then I apologise, but that was the impression I gained from the increasingly agitated tenor of your posts. What the so called "anti-dog brigade" (is there one?) may or may not intend by their posts, only they can know. Imputed motive seems to lie at the heart of this whole spat. I think such speculation rather valueless.

 

What DOES get on my nerves is the people who post comments to TRY to upset people for the sake of it, to get a reaction that they can then perpetuate and intensify with further postings. IMV they are very sad individuals indeed and I feel sorry that this appears to be the only way they can get enjoyment ... :-|

...............

 

Some folk do SEEM to try to provoke dissent, which is a shame. However, a number of them are, IMO, merely very inept in expressing their sentiments in writing, and create dissent by accident. It is tempting to categorise posters in that way, but somehow rather discriminatory.

 

On the other hand, some seem to see any post expressing sentiments with which they disagree as deliberately designed to provoke them personally, while others seem merely able to accept that there is a difference of opinion.

 

This all started with a reasonable request for information, that was initially responded to in a constructive manner. I think, to understand the barrage, you need to look back to see where the first stone was cast. From that point on, no "side" emerges with credit. Both lost all sense of proportion, became increasingly shrill and frenzied, and resorted to insulting those with opposing views with apparent relish. What irritates me, is that but for that first inflammatory post, the whole issue could have passed in peace with useful information gained by those who wanted it. Truly, there is nowt so queer as folk! Barking!

[Robinhood]

Jeez! I'm losing the will to live.

 

Does anbody know of a motorhome forum that doesn't allow dog-related posts?

[pepe63xnotuse]

Robinhood - 2012-08-02 1:03 PM

 

Jeez! I'm losing the will to live.

 

Does anbody know of a motorhome forum that doesn't allow dog-related posts?

 

Go on.....I dare ya!..Start a " Does anyone know of a dog-free thread forum" thread..

 

(lol) (lol)

[malc d]

pepe63 - 2012-08-02 1:06 PM

 

Robinhood - 2012-08-02 1:03 PM

 

Jeez! I'm losing the will to live.

 

Does anbody know of a motorhome forum that doesn't allow dog-related posts?

 

Go on.....I dare ya!..Start a " Does anyone know of a dog-free thread forum" thread..

 

(lol) (lol)

 

 

If you really want to find one I'd suggest you Google " Cat Lovers "

 

They may well have a dog-free forum.

 

 

:-|

[Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2012-08-02 12:57 PM

On the other hand, some seem to see any post expressing sentiments with which they disagree as deliberately designed to provoke them personally, while others seem merely able to accept that there is a difference of opinion.

You need to look back to see where the first stone was cast. What irritates me, is that but for that first inflammatory post, the whole issue could have passed in peace with useful information gained by those who wanted it.

 

T'was ever thus Brian, and I don't see anything changing anytime soon - do you?

 

As I have discovered on here, one man's banter is another man's bait.

[Colin Leake]

derek pringle - 2012-08-02 11:51 AM

 

Hi All,

If it is considered reasonable to enquire and search for sites that do not have entertainment on or children

on and so forth then why would it be unreasonable for people, for their own reasons,to search or seek out sites that do not allow dogs.

We prefer no dogs, although not to the extreme simply because my wife is allergic to them and for the life of me I cannot understand why dog owners think that when their dog comes close to you or you are having a conversation with the owners they think it is acceptable for their pet to nuzzle in to your hand with their wet noses seeking a stroke or whatever, if this happens to my wife then she suffers a rather nasty rash afterwards accompanied by breathing difficulties. Dog owners should just accept that not everybody feels the same and not be so defensive because if they fall in to the category of completely responsible owners then they have nothing to defend.

There is enough room for us all

cheers

derek

 

One of my daughter in laws is allergic to dogs and cats but not to the extreme extent your wife is. Whenever we meet someone with our dog she always wants to make contact with them and say hello. However we never allow her to make contact unless it is clear that person wants to pet the dog and makes the first move. I would suggest that your wife simply smiles when she encounters that situation where a dog wants to approach her and explain that she has an extreme allergy.

 

My daughter in law also has an extreme allergy to nuts. When ever I find a food on sale containing them with out a warning I make my feelings very plainly known to the manager of whatever outlet is selling it.

[pkc]

Colin Leake - 2012-08-02 3:

 

My daughter in law also has an extreme allergy to nuts

 

Best keep her well away from these forums Colin. :-D

[Guest peter]

Bugger me! is this thread still rumbling on. Brian is having a field day, as he's probably posted more column inches than anybody, especially as he professes to not be that fussed one way or 'tother regarding dogs.

I must admit to not reading any of them at length as they seem to go on and on ad nauseum.

Then every so often dear old tracker chirps up, admiring brians observations on the matter.

One thing's for sure, brian's certainly managed to upset Mel, and this is the guy that accused me of starting a spat.

[T8LEY]

Think I'll video the Olympics

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Well I did ask originally "no knee jerk reactions from dog lovers please" and after being away for 4 days ( yes on a dog free site that was both very quiet and clean ) I find the thread is rumbling on.

 

I've noticed another rather odd thing, that is the great majority who obviously enjoy their dogs feel the need to include their dogs picture.

 

I wonder if I had asked for sites that did not allow the use of generators for example,

a, would it have caused such controversy, and

b, would the posters had a picture of a generator by their ID.

 

Look we all know what a dog looks like, and know you want us to share your joy.

 

In conclusion there MUST be things that others try to avoid, or dislike, some seek out adult only sites for example, is it really such a big deal to dog lovers that we simply don't all sing from the same sheet.

 

At the end of the day perhaps it's time to give up on this, it really is beginning to look like trying to get the equivalent of the Israelis and the Palestinians to become best mates.

 

About 250,000 dog bites occur each year in the UK. Cat bites are less common. About 7 in 10 bites are caused by the owner's own pet or an animal known to them. Boys get bitten more than girls and the under-5s are mostly involved.

 

So no big deal is it really.................................................

 

A picture say's a thousand words, but it got pulled.........................................

 

http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Dog-and-Cat-Bites.htm

 

[bob b]

You must be feeling quite pleased with yourself. Satisfactory result?

[Guest peter]

You got him sussed as well I see Bob. ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Until you've woken up with a Labradors a*rse in your face 8-)...............you haven't lived :D