[nagdu] Regarding Recent Messages

[Sheila Leigland]

hello Nicole that is a well written post and I understand your reasons 
for posting it. I for one didn't think anything of the sort about your 
being judgmental or anything even approaching it. I'm glad you are still 
on the list and you deserve respect and fair treatment.
On 1/7/2015 9:45 PM, Nicole Torcolini via nagdu wrote:
> This email is in regards to some recent messages, particularly certain ones
> that were aimed at me. First, I usually don't write emails like this, or, if
> I do, they get deleted and not sent. But I am tired of this, and I won't
> tolerate it any more.
> Some of you accused me of being harsh and judgmental in my message to John.
> I don't write that way. Any of you who have been on this list for any
> extended amount of time with me and read some or most of my messages should
> know that. If it came across as harsh or judgmental, then I am sorry.
> Everyone has a right to express his/her opinions. And agreeing to disagree
> does not mean that you don't express your opinion. I don't expect people to
> change based on my opinions, but I expect them to at listen and consider
> them instead of just saying "mine is better because..." without including
> why other alternatives don't work. No, this is not a list for debates, but
> any of you who ever took any type of writing class will probably remember
> that, when writing a persuasive essay, it was a requirement to not only say
> why you choose a certain side but also to say why you did not choose the
> other side, which means actually researching the other side.
> And, even though there are opinions, there also certain things that are
> facts. It is a fact that it is not very nice to punish a creature that has
> the mental capacity to learn not to do something, be it human, canine, or
> other, without first teaching that creature the rules. Yes, some dogs do not
> follow the rules because they forget or they like to challenge authority or
> because what have you, but it is still not nice to not at least give them a
> chance. Even if a dog does know better, it does not mean that a dog will
> follow the rules. Dogs may be trained, but they still often go off of
> instincts instead of reasoning. Sometimes, they just need a gentle reminder,
> not a harsh correction. I do not know what type of corrections Pilot
> teaches, but I know that, sometimes, schools teach people to yank *REALLY*
> hard. As some people have already said, that is probably not what you want
> to do when you are trying to get your dog to relieve. There are other
> methods, such as giving the command again or very lightly tugging on the
> leash. If nothing else, just take the dog back inside if the dog does not
> go. Just like dogs will eat if they are hungry, they will relieve when they
> need to.
> Going back to my message, okay, maybe I assumed some things, but I would
> like to point out that people who supported the corrections also made
> assumptions. No, none of us know Mollie. I don't know what Mollie was doing,
> and neither do any of you. Given that it was snow, and most dogs absolutely
> love snow, I doubt that Mollie was eating snow instead of relieving to test
> John.
> Different dogs need different things, that is a fact.
> John asked about one thing: Dogs eating *FRESH* snow. If it had been dirty
> snow or snow of which he did not know the status, I may have given a
> different answer.
> I think that that is all that I have to say for now. If you would like to
> discuss this, then please feel free to email me either on or off list, but
> please don't accuse me of being/doing something that I am not.
>   
> Nicole
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/sheila.leigland%40gmail.com