Radio fence for dog

eilo1

ISDW wrote: »

So you didn't actually bother reading DBB's post then.:rolleyes:

I read to the point his household were laughing at my spelling mistake that was it.

Cherry Blossom

eilo1 wrote: »

So now people who let their dogs out are cruel because they are "dumping" them?

And why are people getting so angry and abusive?

I wasn't talking about people who 'let their dogs out', as can be seen clearly from my post I said people who dump them outside and electrocute them out of laziness. I have nothing at all against outdoor dogs whatsoever as long as their needs are still met and they are treated properly - irrelevant to this thread all the same. What people are getting angry and abusive? Who has abused you?

You've quoted my whole post and not refuted any of it or answered the question in it, so what is the point of your post other than making wild accusations?

DBB

eilo1 wrote: »

I read to the point his household were laughing at my spelling mistake that was it.

No. Whoa horsey. Re-read my post.

This particular comment caused some mirth in this house, not because of your typo, but because...

However, the fact that you were so quick to post that I said something I didn't, it doesn't beg much confidence in a lot of what else you've said. Kinda makes it souind like you're stomping away with your football.
And I'm a she, not a he.
And you started the "aggression" as far as I can see. You're the only person I've seen posting snippy comments, so stop transferring your own traits onto other posters. We can all debate with manners.

There is no point in engaging with you as you ignore logic and sound reasoning.

*snort* More mirth!
Again eilo, cast about with all of these statements, just because you say these things doesn't make them true: opinions are not much good unless they're based on something verifiable. For you to say that I ignore logic and sound reasoning, just like saying I'm naive (in relation to animal welfare), is so far off the mark you'd cringe if I told you. So I'll save your blushes.

So. Anyone going to tell me how to justify using electric collars over a completely non-punitive method of containment? Maybe if I put it up twice, my question won't be ignored this time!

eilo1

DBB wrote: »

No. Whoa horsey. Re-read my post.


However, the fact that you were so quick to post that I said something I didn't, it doesn't beg much confidence in a lot of what else you've said. Kinda makes it souind like you're stomping away with your football.
And I'm a she, not a he.
And you started the "aggression" as far as I can see. You're the only person I've seen posting snippy comments, so stop transferring your own traits onto other posters. We can all debate with manners.

The entire tone of your post is derogatory, rude and snide. Im no key board warrior but I do enjoy good informed and objective debate.

You open your post with "Sigh. Eilo, I have little time to be arguing against your flailing posts" so you will forgive me if I don't believe you where not trying to belittle me.

The words/terms - "disgusting", "cruel", "lazy", "dumping and electrocuting" are all being thrown around by multiple posters in relation to people who do not think shock collars are a bad thing. Its all there is black and white just read it. I am not an aggressive poster in any way shape or form.

Cherry Blossom

eilo1 wrote: »

The words/terms - "disgusting", "cruel", "lazy", "dumping and electrocuting" are all being thrown around by multiple posters in relation to people who do not think shock collars are a bad thing. Its all there is black and white just read it. I am not an aggressive poster in any way shape or form.

I believe these terms are being used in relation to the topic being discussed, you seem to be misreading a lot of posts here and picking out things out of context that just aren't there. Electric shock collars work by electrocuting the dog - that's a fact. My personal opinion of them is that they are in fact cruel (ie they inflict unnecessary suffering on the animal), I do find their use disgusting and I do think that they are just a lazy solution to pet confinement largely used by people who dump their dogs outside and can't be bothered to put up a proper fence. That's my opinion of shock collars.

Are opinions only allowed if they agree with yours?

I suggest you stick to discussing the topic in the form of the logical, reasoned, debate you are looking for instead of posting nit-picking one-liners designed to provoke a reaction from other posters which add nothing to the thread.

DBB

eilo1 wrote: »

The entire tone of your post is derogatory, rude and snide. Im no key board warrior but I do enjoy good informed and objective debate.

You open your post with "Sigh. Eilo, I have little time to be arguing against your flailing posts" so you will forgive me if I don't believe you where not trying to belittle me.

Eilo,
Perhaps, just perhaps, I seemed a little jaded in that post to you, because you had said that I was naive. So maybe, just maybe, you need to accept that you have initiated any snideyness.
My posts are not derogatory, rude, or snide (you've already completely and utterly misinterpreted something I said and not acknowledged that you picked me up wrong), my posts simply counter the misleading information you were posting. As AJ says, just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean I am attempting to belittle you, or any of the other adjectives you've cast around like gold dust there, none of which are true. You've already posted a number of un-truisms about me, which I have corrected for you, so, like I say, with all the inaccuracies and with the attitude you're taking, it is difficult to have much heed in your arguments.

Cherry Blossom

Eilo1 - I've removed your post (twice!), if you wish to express your opinion on the topic of the thread continue to do so. The personal attacks stop now though!

Perhaps it's best if everyone takes a time out from this thread to avoid it having to be locked.

Do not reply to this post, if you have an issue with it take it up by PM.