# Closed the Thread



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Here we go again, LOOK and see the views, comments, concerns, PAY ATTENTION! Members here are what make this board what it is period. You've closed a thread people couldn't even respond on, there was less than a week of posting, yet, probably hat more hits than any thread. 

Request you open back the thread as I feel more have something to say!


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

The distinct impression I am getting is that it is not about the members at all. There is no interest in the members only the content on which is to be discussed. Maybe it would be preferred if the board simply stuck to sterile pasted articles with little to no interaction from members. After all members are people and of differing backgrounds, culture, humour, interpretation and if there is a common influence or a quality which is cohesive to the active community posting, hey....maybe just get rid of it!

This thread will be locked too you know.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> The distinct impression I am getting is that it is not about the members at all. There is no interest in the members only the content on which is to be discussed. Maybe it would be preferred if the board simply stuck to sterile pasted articles with little to no interaction from members. After all members are people and of differing backgrounds, culture, humour, interpretation and if there is a common influence or a quality which is cohesive to the active community posting, hey....maybe just get rid of it!
> 
> This thread will be locked too you know.


Im sure it will be locked, hate to see Selena go, I could understand, but never seemed like there was consistency...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Wow, talk about babies! If you don't like the way this board is run go start your own!


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Wow, talk about babies! If you don't like the way this board is run go start your own!


 
Its not being a baby of any sort, its about being having a voice and being heard as I see you do the same, but in other manners based on your posts....

Silence is agreement, if you don't take a stand or say anything, you don't have a pot to piss in!


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

There just ain't anything quite like institutionalism is there ??


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Oh bullshit Jody. This is about you and others crying and keeping a thread going to get your buddy back, nothing more. Everything that could be said, was said. Including me, who said I could take or leave Jeff but that I wasn't going to vote because A) WE DON'T GET A VOTE and B) THE MODS MADE THEIR DECISION. Personally, I think this forum will go on with or without Jeff, maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, I guess we'll see. 

A couple things I do know, Jeff being banned is not Armageddon, and Jeff sure is hell is not the second coming of christ to the working dog world. There are plenty of others to take his place, perhaps with enough confidence not to try to bully people who dare to disagree with them, give it time.

By the way, crying about it for days, and basically repeating yourselves to keep the thread going is a rather obvious tactic, that I guess the mods saw through and closed the thread.

I can only hope they will close this one as well. 

Enough. I'm done with this Jeff crap.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Enough. I'm done with this Jeff crap.[/QUOTE]

heard that before....


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

R u fuking serious?


----------



## jeremy anderson (Mar 19, 2010)

maggie fraser said:


> The distinct impression I am getting is that it is not about the members at all. There is no interest in the members only the content on which is to be discussed. Maybe it would be preferred if the board simply stuck to sterile pasted articles with little to no interaction from members. After all members are people and of differing backgrounds, culture, humour, interpretation and if there is a common influence or a quality which is cohesive to the active community posting, hey....maybe just get rid of it!
> 
> This thread will be locked too you know.


Damn MaggieMay I actually agree with you on this one =D>


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

I got suspended for reopening a closed thread. When I just replied to a question I'd been asked.
To paraphrase a well known saying
Ban em all
Let God sort em out


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Has nothing to do with Jeff. Look at how many threads one of the mods locked in the past 8 days and the "reasons" he uses for doing it. 
Maggie, now that is indiscriminate censorship to suit this one mods personal taste!


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

It was unanimous.


----------



## Derek Milliken (Apr 19, 2009)

OK, I never commented or voted on the original thread, I don't care if he's here or not, frankly it won't affect my life.
But lets all admit Jeff broke the rules here every chance he had. Lets all admit he acted like a general ass most of the time. If either of my dogs acted as childish and aggressive, for no reason, as he did, they'd both get a quick, hard lesson on manners.

As for the wealth of training/breeding/general dog information he offered here, go find his name, click on his recent posts, go read them, not one of the last 25 offered any useful information. The best thing he offered was some really cool video of a decoy with super speed, probably enough speed to blow out his own dog. And his response to that was to complain about decoys not being fast enough?? WTF???

To take a page from Jeff's own book, let's analyze his actions in the thread that rumor has it might have been his downfall, shall we?
A member asked a legitimate question about "Guarding the Decoy" in ringsport. Gets a good response from Thomas that might have expanded the discussion. Then Kadi steps in and offers an excellent response, full of useful information. Jeff jumps in and offers the video and complaint I mentioned earlier. OP asks another question, and Kadi gives another great response, followed by another meaningless comment by Jeff. Geoff hops in and offers both education and some more advice.
Then a fan of ring (but not a participant) asks a question, a legitimate one if you don't know the rules or the scoring. Kadi gives the proper answer, and Jeff goes off, starts with the name calling, calling the poster out, his usual M.O.
End result, a mod steps in and asks him to tone it back, and he attacks the mod.

And this whole fiasco cost us what? One member who almost never contributed anything useful to the forum, and one moderator whose accomplishments, knowledge, dogs and reputation speak for themselves.


----------



## Jonathan Hoffnagle (Dec 31, 2009)

Everybody, shut the fu*k up and go train.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I went out tracking early this morning - that suit ya? :smile:


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

I had a sleep in and now am waiting for a visitor from the US to talk some dogs ;-)


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

susan tuck said:


> Wow, talk about babies! If you don't like the way this board is run go start your own!


 Ummmmmm words to thought. And I get busted on for a statement of fact...you have rules and regs for many reasons and for many venues. If you're NOT adult or responsible enough to follow them, quit crying and making excuses and just pay the price!


----------

