Treating Anxiety/fear Aggression

[Arya]

Totally agree with you Erny! I often wonder how hard it would be to deal with a dog who does not have such a great drive and in a way, an 'easy' way to capture the dog's attention and desensitise it. Food, I suppose with some dogs, but I wonder if this would really be a strong enough drive. Pack drive too, I guess, might be better. I've just been lucky to find an answer that worked for me

[poodlesplus]

What I have learn't from this little excursion

I feel that a good number of you don't give a dam about the facts, and don't actually argue the facts but argue the person

I feel that many of you seem perplexed by complex situations and want simple answers and don't listen to people who might have something important to say if it doesn't agree with you.

That to me makes the beginning of dam poor dog training.

I don't like to spend all my time thinking about adversives, but when i do I like to get the basics right.

You didn't bother finding out about me or checking the facts out (again). There are a few people who know me on the forum. I have been an engineer for a long time, I have a pretty senior job and am regarded quite highly at it.. I deal with safety issues daily. I am also quite a capable dog trainer,( i regard myself as an apprentice) I am just a mug that helps others and does it for nothing. I guess if you don't want to accept an engineers word on basic electricity, then you wouldn't want to accept your own words on dog training then.

I have supported my claims. They were pretty basic. I can't just point you to a sentence,nothing is that simple, you need to read a fair chunk of material. So I will go over them

1) Current applied between two terminals in a material that is essentialy the same density and restistivity travels over many paths and that significant current flows over these different paths

2) The pulses of an electric fence are narrow and have lots of let go time look up the brochure or hang on to one

3) The current per unit of voltage on a fence circuit is much lower that on an e collar circuit.. There is a whole different model for this.. You can look this up

4) You need a very large open circuit voltgage to get arcing,and no collar manufacturer would do this. Again look it up. You need to consider where the breakdown path on the collar would be, but usually it is over the surface.of the collar. It is in the 10's of thousands of volts.

5) The collar voltages vary a lot. They do. To some extent what is important for percieved shock is the original level of the voltage, and the current that flows and the duration of that current. This depends on the design of the collar, and the collar's "internal impedance". I delibrately didn't state what the open circuit voltage might be as it is sometimes sensationalised, and draws away from the main arguement, Effectively, other than engineer types like me it is a parameter of little importance.

6) We looked at the two modes. I personally made no distinction about whether they were paired or not.

The rest i was careful to state as opinion.

I tried to give a moderate scientific view, and what i got in reponse was a very immoderate biased view with occassional personal insults One of the things I love about Australia is the idea of a fair go. Well shame, didn't see one here. I don't ask that they be banned, I don't suggest that you don't personally use them, my goodness how are you going to react to a more emotional less scientific approach??? Your PR skills need a bit of polishing.

That wil be my last post on this subject. There really isn't anything else for me to say.

[Lou Castle]

Lou I liked your web site. it didn't promise the earth, and was down to earth.It showed me that e collars are probably slower to teach a recall than good old R+, a recall lead,and a good deep voice. Thats the experience of my students in any case.You see I don't leave recall training in real situations to chance.

Thanks for the kind words about the website. I've never seen one on Ecollars that did, "promise the earth." In any case, I'll match my speed on teaching the recall with an Ecollar against any methods that you care to use. I've tried this and not lost but perhaps we're using the word "teaching" differently. You'll probably get the concept across faster but I'm talking about having a dog that is reliable in the face of all distractions no matter how far he is from the handler before I'll apply the word "taught" to the situation.

Poodlesplus wrote: Sorry about the quoting etc. I don't spend all my time on forums. You will just have to put up with what i wrote in any case.

Fine by me. If you're willing to let such statements stand without any crediting of the sources. We're free to not believe them, as the case should be.

Poodlesplus wrote: Again the technical data and terms you use are generally wrong. For example If you read a good basic text book like Resnick and Halliday it will explain ohms law

I'm quite familiar with Ohm's Law and the related science. But it has little to do with what you're written.

Poodlesplus wrote: I guesss thats why I went off and did an EE degree. Ohms law and these notes hold for dogs too.

Unfortunately your EE degree is not standing you in good stead here. Ohm's law holds true just about everywhere but it has nothing to do with this discussion. The electricity from an Ecollar does NOT go everywhere in a dog's body, it runs between the contact points. If what you said was true there'd be lots if scientific studies that showed it and you've failed to show one. That's because no such study exists. Ecollars have been studied for years by those opposed to their use and nothing of what you describe has ever been reported. If such things happened they'd be common knowledge.

Poodlesplus wrote: I know that the electrical facts in my note are 100% correct. I have checked, them over and had them checked. They aren't open to debate, unlike a lot of dog training they are just plain old boring scientific fact.

They may be but they don't apply to this discussion.

Poodlesplus wrote: Current flow is proportional to the resistance of the path.Not all the current flows through the path of least resistance in this case. The path between terminals does take a fair bit of the current, but an arc (part of circle NOT an electrical arc) drawn at twice the distance between the will have approximately 1/2 the current etc.It is just as well it does that as nerve involvement and hence sensation could be problematic.

Interesting theory. Please show us a study that supports it. Please show us a study that shows this penetration of flesh, muscles and nerves and show us a study that shows it to be "problematic." If such a study existed the anti's would be shouting it to the heavens but they're not.

Poodlesplus wrote: I did find the data hard to get. But at the end of the day, you have to look at what happens and the long term effects.

Yes we certainly do. So far no study has shown any negative long term effects of Ecollar use, especially with low level stim.

Poodlesplus wrote: Unfortunately the attitude of this forum sucks. I gave sound technical data. i gave sound technical replies. I used and contributed my skills and abilities.I had a "professinal" dog trainer (Erny) suggest an open cirucuit voltage so high that arcing would happen. I suggest that rather than waste my time she check out what she said.. If that is how she operates, then i am not at all impressed. i had the usual candidates jump on the usual band wagons.

I think the "attitude of this forum" (whatever that means) is just fine. When you make comments that those of us who have been using Ecollars for years know to be untrue, we ask that they be supported. You claim that you don't have the time and that's fine by me. But don't expect that your wild theories will be believed by anyone of us who have logical minds coupled with experience of actually using the tool.

Poodlesplus wrote: I did see some highly emotive arguement about e collars and clickers that personally made me laugh. Good one. Still chuckling. I am still wondering how any instructor in any dog class worth their salt would let a dog be treated so insanely that it got overweight and died!.Is this another urban legend?

It's not even that. It just served to show that ANY tool can be misused. Something that few so-called "reward based trainers" will admit.

Poodlesplus wrote: Then the detail about dog's impedance, it is still a topic of debate.

One-hundred ohms is the figure that your courts accepted as fact during a law suit between Innotek and the RSPCA.

Poodlesplus wrote: We can barely agree on what the human body model is.

Yasee here's part of the problem. We're not talking about the entire body. We're talking about a few square inches on a dog's neck. That's relatively easy to measure. Even in discussing the charged fence where much more of the dog's body is involved, no studies exist that show any problems. If there were problems they would have been shown to exist and electrified fences would have gone by the way long ago.

Poodlesplus wrote: I don't mean to denigrate the fine engineers that work for the e collar companies, but I don't think thy generally attract MIT's finest and best.

This is nothing but pure conjecture on your part. But in any case, one needn't have finished in the top of the best school to realize that you're trying to needlessly complicate this situation.

Poodlesplus wrote: The technical challenges aren't that enormous and the ones that exist don't seem to be met.

They've been met since the late 1960's when Ecollars were invented!

Poodlesplus wrote: You would think that after all these years that the size would be really reduced and some kind of better terminal would have been developed.

It's a bit like the question, "How fast do you want your car to go?" That question really is more a matter of "How much money do you want to spend?" Ecollars are fairly expensive as it is right now. Making them smaller, means a lot more money. Think of thin-screen televisions. They're coming but right now, they're expensive. They'll get thinner, Ecollars will get smaller.

I don't seem much point in your responding with, "My statements are right" unless you provide some scientific studies to show support for them. Theory is great, but here, it means little.

[MonElite]

You didn't bother finding out about me

You have a dozen posts to your name, not one in the intro section..........

No website link either.

Then the one about IEC and breeds... give me a break..Some of us are human too!

I remember now! snobbybobby was also a member of the same family, and someone else......... Oh must think harder.

That wil be my last post on this subject. There really isn't anything else for me to say.

Edited August 20, 2007 by myszka

[Lou Castle]

I have seen some methods where an aversive is used the minute the dog stacks up but no other guidance is given to the dog apart from this. It's just 'do it and you'll get a punishment so don't do it'.

This can create a very dangerous situation. The dog may come to think that the discomfort comes from the other dog and "learn" that the other dog can hurt him from a distance. He'll learn to stop the display of aggression but you haven't stopped the aggression from happening, only the display of it.

One other comment I have is that I have found that constant exposure and work is necessary to keep the dog exhibiting good behaviour around other dogs. It is never fixed imho. If you stop the work there is a regression to previous behaviour. Good old genetics.

Not always. It depends on how it's done. Take a look at this video

and tell me which dog used to be aggressive. One had my Ecollar protocol on crittering http://loucastle.com/critter.htm used on him. That was a couple of years back. Roma has not reverted and last I heard of Simon, he was still leading the good life with his adopted family and has never shown any aggression towards anyone.

[poodlesplus]

I have adressed the intro element. I do not have my own website. I am employed in a satisfactory situation, and have no need to pubicise my self.

.

Since I am here

Lou, you have gone like a dam politicain, and again haven't adressed the technical issues. Torrents of words don't make up for your lack of correct content.

Here it is again just basic application of ohms theory

"Current flow is proportional to the resistance of the path.Not all the current flows through the path of least resistance in this case. The path between terminals does take a fair bit of the current, but an arc (part of circle NOT an electrical arc) drawn at twice the distance between the will have approximately 1/2 the current etc.It is just as well it does that as nerve involvement and hence sensation could be problematic. "

So if this is not true , show me how the tissue between the terminals is some how lower resistance than the tissue around it???

"Ohms law " does describe how current flows regardless of whether the item is a donkey or a dog. When correctly used, it makes nonsense of your statement about "taking the path of least resistance"

You obviously just don't understand some simple basic science. You are just plain stinking wrong. I invite you to study the text book (Resnick and Halliday Fundamentals of Physics) followed by some good old math (Advanced Engineering Maths by Kryseig) followed by some basic stuff on fields. I find it laughable that you keep to this entrenched positon and tell me again that the current just goes between the points it doesn't. I work with these things calculate these every day. I am at least as much an expert on fields as you claim to be on dog training.

Thanks for the insult about my degree Lou. That is so gracious and open minded of you.

The old statement about cars and collars and technology doesn't always hold. I can think of 3 or 4 smart moves that would be cost neutral that would vastly improve e collars. But i will keep these ideas to myself thank you very much I guess you are a dog trainer, not an engineer. Never mind.

I will have to leave the rest of the DOL fratenity to sort it out. You have managed to cross the line from presenting some misguided ideas, to going through with the completely stupid. Good one

[Lou Castle]

I feel that a good number of you don't give a dam about the facts, and don't actually argue the facts but argue the person

No one has committed any personal attacks against you. But you continue to spout theory and have steadfastly refused to provide anything to support it.

Poodlesplus wrote: I feel that many of you seem perplexed by complex situations and want simple answers and don't listen to people who might have something important to say if it doesn't agree with you.

I agree. Many of us have used Ecollars for quite some time and our experience doesn't mirror your theories.

Poodlesplus wrote: That to me makes the beginning of dam poor dog training.

And yet somehow many of us get quite good results.

Poodlesplus wrote: You didn't bother finding out about me or checking the facts out (again).

I'd love to "check out the facts" but you haven't provided any for us to examine. As far as finding out about you, I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. You say that you're an EE and I accept that. What more do we need to know?

Poodlesplus wrote: I have supported my claims.

You've done nothing of the kind. You've been asked repeatedly for scientific studies to support your wild claims. You've not supplied one.

Poodlesplus wrote: 1) Current applied between two terminals in a material that is essentialy the same density and restistivity travels over many paths and that significant current flows over these different paths

But a dog's body is NOT "essentially the same density and restivity" throughout! There are many structures besides the skin; muscles, blood vessels, nerves, bones and we KNOW that they don't have the same density and resistivity.

Poodlesplus wrote: 2) The pulses of an electric fence are narrow and have lots of let go time look up the brochure or hang on to one

This has nothing to do with a discussion of Ecollars.

Poodlesplus wrote: 3) The current per unit of voltage on a fence circuit is much lower that on an e collar circuit.. There is a whole different model for this.. You can look this up

Ditto. But; as I've said, an Ecollar used, as I advocate, emits 0.000005 Joules. An electric fence charger emits 3.2 Joules, 640,000 times more powerful.

Poodlesplus wrote: 4) You need a very large open circuit voltgage to get arcing,and no collar manufacturer would do this. Again look it up. You need to consider where the breakdown path on the collar would be, but usually it is over the surface.of the collar. It is in the 10's of thousands of volts.

Not sure what "arcing" has to do with a discussion of Ecollars. As you say, it takes "10's of thousand of volts" and no Ecollar puts out anywhere near enough current for it to happen.

Poodlesplus wrote: 5) The collar voltages vary a lot. They do.

Yes, we know. They all have dials, switches, and/or LCD screens so that we can select the stim level that is needed for the individual dog and the given situation.

Poodlesplus wrote: I tried to give a moderate scientific view

You gave your opinion disguised as science. We don't buy it and have asked for studies to back up what you've said. You've told us that you aren't going to supply them. Don't expect to be believed if you're not willing to do so when our personal experience contradicts your theory.

Poodlesplus wrote: my goodness how are you going to react to a more emotional less scientific approach???

We're still waiting for the scientific studies to support your claims.

Poodlesplus wrote: That wil be my last post on this subject. There really isn't anything else for me to say.

OK. We'll reasonably believe that you don't have any scientific studies to support what you say. I don't believe that they exist, or you'd have supplied them.

[Erny]

I ... have no need to pubicise my self.

Although you've made a big effort to do so in almost each of your posts.

Thanks for the insult about my degree Lou. That is so gracious and open minded of you.

You can dish it out though?

Poodlesplus .... from your opening post to now your closing (?) post, you've spoken with degenerative tone. Although you've fought hard to thrust how good you are, I certainly would turn to Lou for sensible and communicative interaction. Seems to me that when anyone wants to discuss/challenge/debate your POV, rather than being able to support your claims you richochet off with comments pertaining to politicians or political agendas. Lou doesn't need to insult your "degree", you're managing to do that on your own. It might be worth something to you, but unless you can make it worthwhile to others it isn't very useful.

I can think of 3 or 4 smart moves that would be cost neutral that would vastly improve e collars. But i will keep these ideas to myself thank you very much.

That's a very safe comment to make. That would be like me saying "I have some great ideas that would help people with problematic dogs, but I ain't telling." Certainly would add zip to my credibility so don't be surprised if the similar makes no difference to whatever credibility you think you might have achieved here. Just because you say you're good, doesn't make you good.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Erny

[MonElite]

I don't mean to denigrate the fine engineers that work for the e collar companies, but I don't think thy generally attract MIT's finest and best. The technical challenges aren't that enormous and the ones that exist don't seem to be met. You would think that after all these years that the size would be really reduced and some kind of better terminal would have been developed.

I can think of 3 or 4 smart moves that would be cost neutral that would vastly improve e collars. But i will keep these ideas to myself thank you very much.

No more from me, I normally charge for more advice!!

Perhaps you can emial some companies and offer your services at a right price. All those using ecollars would benefit from further improvements of the gear.

[Lou Castle]

Since I am here

Your last post contained this statement, "That wil (sic) be my last post on this subject. There really isn't anything else for me to say" And yet here you are again. I'm pretty sure that you've made similar statements before, only to go back on them. Are you not a man of your word?

Poodlesplus wrote: Lou, you have gone like a dam politicain, and again haven't adressed the technical issues. Torrents of words don't make up for your lack of correct content.

"Torrents of words don't make up for you lack of "scientific studies to support your claims.

Poodlesplus wrote: Here it is again just basic application of ohms theory

"Current flow is proportional to the resistance of the path.Not all the current flows through the path of least resistance in this case. The path between terminals does take a fair bit of the current, but an arc (part of circle NOT an electrical arc) drawn at twice the distance between the will have approximately 1/2 the current etc.

This assumes that the material (the dog's body) beneath the contact points is homogeneous as would be the case with a solid block of a conductor, such as a metal. We know that it's not homogeneous as is the block of steel. As has been pointed out, there's skin, muscle, blood vessels, nerves, all with various levels of conductivity and resistivity.

But EVEN IF IT WAS, so what? Show us a study that shows a problem. This isn't new stuff. Ecollars have been around for about four decades. If it WAS a problem it would have shown up loooooong ago.

Poodlesplus wrote: It is just as well it does that as nerve involvement and hence sensation could be problematic. "

Yes it "could be problematic." If it was there'd be a scientific study that shows it. This sort of thing is exactly what the antis would love to find. But it doesn't exist. Your theory that it "could be problematic" is interesting but means nothing without something to back it up.

Poodlesplus wrote: "Ohms law " does describe how current flows regardless of whether the item is a donkey or a dog. When correctly used, it makes nonsense of your statement about "taking the path of least resistance"

Talk about nonsense. Please show us something that shows that Ohm's law has been applied to donkeys or dogs. And while you're at it, show us a study that shows a problem.

Poodlesplus wrote: You obviously just don't understand some simple basic science. You are just plain stinking wrong. I invite you to study the text book

I invite you to study the reality and get out of the text book. If you maintain this then show us a scientific study that supports it.

Poodlesplus wrote: I find it laughable that you keep to this entrenched positon and tell me again that the current just goes between the points it doesn't. I work with these things calculate these every day.

I find it laughable that you think that your theories trump reality.

Poodlesplus wrote: I am at least as much an expert on fields as you claim to be on dog training.

Where have I ever said that I'm an "expert on dog training?" I just know a few things.

Poodlesplus wrote: Thanks for the insult about my degree Lou. That is so gracious and open minded of you.

I insulted your EE degree? I did? I don't think so. When did I do that? But since you think so, I apologize. I meant no insult.

Poodlesplus wrote: The old statement about cars and collars and technology doesn't always hold. I can think of 3 or 4 smart moves that would be cost neutral that would vastly improve e collars. But i will keep these ideas to myself thank you very much

Pardon me if I don't believe this one bit. If you had this knowledge AND cared about dogs as you claim to, you'd sell this information to the Ecollar manufacturers. You could make yourself a pretty penny AND help the dogs at the same time. I'm quite sure that you're MUCH smarter than all the EE's that the Ecollar companies employ. LOL.

Poodlesplus wrote: I guess you are a dog trainer, not an engineer. Never mind.

Yes, don't we already know that. Ever been told that you have a flair for the obvious?

Poodlesplus wrote: I will have to leave the rest of the DOL fratenity to sort it out. You have managed to cross the line from presenting some misguided ideas, to going through with the completely stupid. Good one

And you talk about me insulting you? ROFLMAO. I never stooped so low as to call you names. I too leave it to the forum members to sort this out.

I'll point out that you're not a man of your word (several times you said that you were done writing on this topic and then you continued to do so) and you've been asked repeatedly for scientific studies to back up your comments, you've failed every time to supply them.

[MonElite]

Going OT.

Why is it that there are people there that seem to be so against the ecollars, the prong collars, the clickers, the pure positive etc?

Is it the bad experiences, is it lack of knowledge, close minds?

From personal perspective - I want to learn about any methods that is out there and people find sucessfull, than apply what I choose myslef for my own dogs without harming them. And if that is a pure positive method or an ecollar I shall choose what is suitable for ME and MY dogs.

Edited August 20, 2007 by myszka

[Sarah L]

You know it does not matter what anyone posts in this thread. For all of you who use e collars if it is not what you want to hear then you will disagree with it and continue to attack someone with a different opinion. I did post a scientific report on e collars which the address of the web site I gave in the post, and it was still not good enough. So IMO a rational and reasonable discussion on this subject cannot be had.

Lou castle you said you could not find a success story in this thread on treating fear and anxiety, can I suggest you take another look at the post that vickie done, you will find she did have success without a e collar being used. Quite frankly for those of you who feel the need to try and discredit someone through a barrage of useless words or leaving half of there quotes out or twisting words to suit yourselves then you are only discrediting yourself. Trust me...... since it happened to me my business has been very busy so I suppose I should thank you all

[Kavik]

I'm with you myszka

I want to learn about all methods and equipment and then decide on what to use depending on what I think will work for me and my dogs. So far I do not feel confident in my use of an ecollar and have not used one on my dogs apart from at the workshop with K9 Force. But I am more than happy to learn more about them and their use.

I've really enjoyed learning about clickers and other markers and love using them in my training.

Like lots of people, I find the more I learn, the more there is to learn especially when it comes to competition, precision, motivation and drives, but also behavioural work.

[Arya]

I have seen some methods where an aversive is used the minute the dog stacks up but no other guidance is given to the dog apart from this. It's just 'do it and you'll get a punishment so don't do it'.

This can create a very dangerous situation. The dog may come to think that the discomfort comes from the other dog and "learn" that the other dog can hurt him from a distance. He'll learn to stop the display of aggression but you haven't stopped the aggression from happening, only the display of it.

One other comment I have is that I have found that constant exposure and work is necessary to keep the dog exhibiting good behaviour around other dogs. It is never fixed imho. If you stop the work there is a regression to previous behaviour. Good old genetics.

Not always. It depends on how it's done. Take a look at this video

and tell me which dog used to be aggressive. One had my Ecollar protocol on crittering http://loucastle.com/critter.htm used on him. That was a couple of years back. Roma has not reverted and last I heard of Simon, he was still leading the good life with his adopted family and has never shown any aggression towards anyone.

Thank you Lou, I will check these linsk out. I am always looking for ways to prevent regression. I must say that my girl is a different dog to twelve months ago and this is an ongoing experiment. I've worked with lots of other dogs but never owned one quite like this myself so am learning, learning, learning

[Lou Castle]

You know it does not matter what anyone posts in this thread. For all of you who use e collars if it is not what you want to hear then you will disagree with it and continue to attack someone with a different opinion.

Nonsense. If someone can post a study that stands up to scrutiny, I'll be happy to stop using Ecollars.

I did post a scientific report on e collars which the address of the web site I gave in the post, and it was still not good enough.

I missed it. Post it again or provide a link to it and I'll be happy to take a look. But the chances are that I've already seen it many times and will be able to show where it's flawed.

So IMO a rational and reasonable discussion on this subject cannot be had.

More nonsense. I've had them many times. But it takes someone who does not get emotionally involved and is capable of responding to requests for information.

Lou castle you said you could not find a success story in this thread on treating fear and anxiety, can I suggest you take another look at the post that vickie done, you will find she did have success without a e collar being used.

I reread that post and found this comment that Vickie wrote,

I will be forever grateful to Pinnacle dts, she has saved his life on 2 occasions … (Emphasis added)

Why was it necessary to "save his life on 2 occasions? What happened?

Quite frankly for those of you who feel the need to try and discredit someone through a barrage of useless words

Which words are the "useless" ones?

or leaving half of there quotes out or twisting words to suit yourselves then you are only discrediting yourself.

Anytime you think that your words (or those of another) have been twisted or quoted out of context you are free to bring them to your next post and show everyone what's been done. I deny that this has happened. It's quite simple for you to prove if you disagree.

Trust me...... since it happened to me my business has been very busy so I suppose I should thank you all

Yaknow for someone who accused me of posting for the sole reason of "promoting myself" (your post # 88) this is VERY lame. It's obvious that you want us to know how busy your business has become since this thread started. Talk about self promotion! Talk about hypocrisy! ROFL.

And I noticed that you failed to answer my question about this. I asked, "Exactly what benefit do you think might come to me?"

And in a recent post you wrote this

I would just like to say that this is why a lot of trainers will not recommend tools that can be misused in the first place.

I responded with a question that you haven't answered. "Can you please name a tool that can't be "misused?"

[MonElite]

I did post a scientific report on e collars which the address of the web site I gave in the post, and it was still not good enough.

I missed it. Post it again or provide a link to it and I'll be happy to take a look. But the chances are that I've already seen it many times and will be able to show where it's flawed.

I think it was a study that had used maximum stim and showed it was cruel to use e collars.

Edited August 20, 2007 by myszka

[Lou Castle]

I think it was a study that had used maximum stim and showed it was cruel to use e collars.

Was that the "Schilder study?"

[MonElite]

Cant remember Lou, but I think it was about page 5 in this threat.

[Erny]

Was that the "Schilder study?"

Hi Lou. Yes - it was the Schilder one. And in that same thread (was it this one? Yes .... think it might have been) the Schalke study was also referred to. The problems in relation to the report were also discussed. I don't recollect that Pinnacle made any attempt to refute the issues raised about the basis of experiment as described in the report, so I'm not sure of her opinion in this regard.

Why is it that when some people post they take it as a personal attack when the content of that post is questioned? Why is it that the common retort by those same people is that those who don't agree (even if they can make statements and provide links to information to support their reasons for not agreeing) "don't want to hear?"

With any of your posts Pinnacle, any statements you've made that people have not agreed with have been supported by logical, sound reasoning if not also by recognised studies. How do you figure it is the others who do not want to hear?

If people want to debate or counter another person's point of view, be prepared to have done likewise. That's what makes the world go 'round and moreover, improve for the further education it provides.

ETA: Pinnacle - 'tis good that you are busy. I think we're all finding it that way.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Erny

[Jeff Jones]