# Hey! It's a OT section!



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I missed the whole thing, whatever happened, but "if it's not related to dogs" and funny, it should go under the canine lounge heading (according to it's description). IT WASN'T EVEN A POLITICS THREAD, there were no positions made, or any attempt to sway any opinions. Just a plain 'ole observation.

Although I should point out, the "beta-male" analogy was at least semi-dog related, drawing upon the sometimes profound similarities of human and canine behavior (and amusing to boot) why shouldn't it in fact fit under a dog-related topic heading as well?

Which brings me to a new term...
*moderator-sensitive*
result of unfair corrections of moderators want to train human behaviors ;-)


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Which brings me to a new term...
> *moderator-sensitive*
> result of unfair corrections of moderators want to train human behaviors ;-)


Oh goody, I love terminology. I disagree with your assesment though. 

1. The behavior definately stopped

2. IT doesn't appear to have damaged the poster.

3. I know the Mod wasn't damaged.

4. It was a low level correction, there are more stern corrections in the ole trick bag.

I think it was a well-timed, properly titrated correction that had the anticipated results. How can that be unfair?

DFrost


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Unfair because I have no clue what happened. Deleting (instead of locking) was the less fair option. What's the term for that?! Supression? Extinction?

How about explaining why we can talk about "sheep" and "wolves" and "sheepdogs" and make analogies to human behavior, but "beta-male" is a no-no?! How is that unworthy of discussion?

Maybe we can't have opinions here; BUT it was less of an opinion, more of a matter of fact observation. If subject wasn't a political or relegious official, then what? Movie star? Hell, they're all ACTING anyway I suppose. Maybe single out a boardmember instead, go "Jeff style"? That seems more acceptable. _Exactly WHAT in the dog world is free of politics and some form of belief system anyway?_

If nobody was offended, they should, as I am, for having it "swept under the rug" (please forgive the analogy).

The Canine Lounge "general social forum" should be the proper place to discuss general social behavior!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Don't put me into it. I have no idea what the **** you are talking about, but I have been moderated, argued against it in a PM, and have never brought anyone else into the shit with me. 

Piss off with that.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Unfair because I have no clue what happened. Deleting (instead of locking) was the less fair option. What's the term for that?! Supression? Extinction?
> 
> How about explaining why we can talk about "sheep" and "wolves" and "sheepdogs" and make analogies to human behavior, but "beta-male" is a no-no?! How is that unworthy of discussion?
> 
> ...


Hi Daryl,

I think what got you, was the ban on political and religious
topics?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

This board would gravely miss you, regardless of what they're telling you. Besides the diverse and better experienced membership here compared to other boards, it's one of the only boards you're entitled _to have an opinion_ (or observation) that doesn't need conform to the moderator's way of thinking. If you're unable to think outside the box or _call it like it is_, that would be an injustice to all the members here.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Like I said, it wasn't political. A public figure was in the example, though. So what? It was relevant to the behavior presented. Are we going to discuss beta-male behavior using cartoons? Gotta have some basis in reality, and relevant to the capacity of the subject. If I used Gen. Patton or some dead leader, maybe people wouldn't be as sensitive.

On another point, "beta-males" are the "peace-keepers", so it can be a _useful behavior_ in the right context.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Like I said, it wasn't political. A public figure was in the example, though. So what? It was relevant to the behavior presented. Are we going to discuss beta-male behavior using cartoons? Gotta have some basis in reality, and relevant to the capacity of the subject. If I used Gen. Patton or some dead leader, maybe people wouldn't be as sensitive.
> 
> On another point, "beta-males" are the "peace-keepers", so it can be a _useful behavior_ in the right context.


Daryl,

You might not have thought it was political, but whenever you say Our President OR Barack Obama it is political,
and responses will go down that road.
It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think or what Jeff thinks. The moderators opinions are the only thing that counts :-0


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> ... It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think or what Jeff thinks. The moderators opinions are the only thing that counts :-0



Well, what the owner of the board thinks is kind of relevant too.  One post in the Lounge (one of many that clarify the _no politics, no religion_ rule) that came up when a thread about cars turned extremely political:



Mike Schoonbrood said:


> This is not a political forum. Nor is it a car forum, but this is the general conversation area so I will let it stand. No need to discuss global warming or gas price conspiracies here. ...


I don't think there's really much question about whether a thread that is called "Did We Elect a Beta Male As President?" and includes _"It's the height of folly to think that other nations won't be doing everything they can to make President Obama their bitch"_ is political.

It's been asked many times to keep the topics non-political and non-religious.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> ... Which brings me to a new term...
> *moderator-sensitive* ... result of unfair corrections of moderators want to train human behaviors ;-)



Are you having attacks of this ailment? :-k


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Not me. I'm just defending my subject matter. What about SV politics? LEO politics? We all deal with politics or beliefs one way or another. Even forum politics. But I really hate politics of all kinds, and don't care to discuss any of it. Now, if you want to discuss human nature, or canine behavior, I'm all for it.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Better delete all the BSL legislation threads too.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2009)

Staff,

Little known fact. The U.S. Constitution has a foot note. Yes, at the end of the 1st Amendment, there used to be an asterik until sunlight and oxidation made it fade away. There is supposed to be one, though. Believe me. It takes you to a footnote which is way back on the last page (which nobody pays attention to).

But anyway it says: "Because we have the right to say stuff, a common authority SHALL make available to that person an audience to fulfill his RIGHT TO BE HEARD at any given time in any given venue."

Meaning, some unlucky ****er, at all times, must stop and listen to the other guy who has the right to say something. If it didn't work that way, the guy saying stuff might have his feelings hurt.

That's how it works now.

Just so we understand each other.

This bought-and-paid-for bandwidth by some guy in Canada is no different than a public easement on U.S. Soil. Communists. The lot of you.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

A private entity can publish and censure what they want. Restrictions such as you mentioned are only applicable to a government entity. Same reason a newspaper can print letters to the editor or not at their chosing. I'm surprised you didn't know that. At any rate, I'm positive you would be permitted to start a forum, at your expense, and allow political and/or social discussion. Then you can appoint moderators that will allow what you want to appear. I understand it's pretty simple. You just have to be willing to invest the time and money. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Besides the diverse and better experienced membership here compared to other boards, it's one of the only boards you're entitled _to have an opinion_ (or observation) that doesn't need conform to the moderator's way of thinking. If you're unable to think outside the box or _call it like it is_, that would be an injustice to all the members here.


I would agree. From my experience the other moderators feel that way as well. We (moderators) have been involved in many of the discussions simply as a participant. I can't recall one discussion that was corrected, censored, locked etc because the moderator disagreed. 

DFrost


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Oh please! Google the stupid thing, you will find political boards galore where it's being discussed non-stop ad nauseum. Frankly I am really happy the mods insist on this being a "no politics/religion" zone. When I want to talk about politics I go to political boards when I want to talk working/sport dogs I go to working/sport dog boards, etc..


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Technically this thread is discussing the "politics" of WorkingDogForum.com, but if I lock it then I might make someone cry. Wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings now would I?


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

I think there is deff a role for politics in our discussions about working dogs. On one of our local dog forums the issue of drug dogs being used randomly without prob cause became political as it was "politicians" that brought the law in and other "politicians" who argued against it. 
I think the mods here are smart enough to differenciate between some political party stooge attacking another party and real political debate which reaches to our hobby. If Obama ( or what ever President it maybe ) signed an executive order banning working dog sports then I would certainly hope this forum and its dear mods would allow the "Obama Sucks" rants lol


----------



## chris haynie (Sep 15, 2009)

i missed whatever thread this thread is covering. or maybe i didn't miss it but just didn't care enough to remember.

i think this place is very informative and helpfull because the moderators do a decent job at keeping everything relatively on point and not letting the board devolve into a bunch of useless BS/personal attacks/random semi coherent "debate". 

form a working dog newbie trying to gather information and expand my knoweldge on working dog subjects the mods do a pretty good job of keeping it organized and easy to navigate. 

I do think that because they are all most likely volunteers we should respect the time they have donated to keep this place running by giving them a little leway to moderate as they see fit.

the fact they are letting a thread that questions their judgement continue is a testament to thier open mindedness. 

I aint been here long but I haven't seen them bust out the clownish chickenshit moves mods on other forums do so at the least they deserve credit for not abusing their powers for amusment/personal satisfaction.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> I think there is deff a role for politics in our discussions about working dogs. On one of our local dog forums the issue of drug dogs being used randomly without prob cause became political as it was "politicians" that brought the law in and other "politicians" who argued against it.



That would be an interesting discussion and not necessarily political. One reason, in many circumstances, probable cause is NOT need to use a drug dog. 

DFrost


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Christopher Jones said:


> I think there is deff a role for politics in our discussions about working dogs. On one of our local dog forums the issue of drug dogs being used randomly without prob cause became political as it was "politicians" that brought the law in and other "politicians" who argued against it.
> I think the mods here are smart enough to differenciate between some political party stooge attacking another party and real political debate which reaches to our hobby. If Obama ( or what ever President it maybe ) signed an executive order banning working dog sports then I would certainly hope this forum and its dear mods would allow the "Obama Sucks" rants lol


That's canine politics Christopher (Obama or whoever) and, I assume, will always have a place on this forum. 
I, like you, have no doubts in placing my trust in Mike Schoonbrood's or the moderators' intelligence and ability to filter.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Like I've said multiple times already: there was nothing political in the thread. It was a social behavior thread, and how human behavior compares to the alpha/beta behavior we see in canines. If you google "beta male behavior", half the links provided turn up with Obama as the subject example, _and I'm sorry I can't help that!!_ No politcal statements, no agenda, no politics were intended to be discussed. Being an analysis of social behavior (most sources just happen to refer to the current US present, as an example), it WASN'T a political thread, it should not have been censored!

Humans have a very advanced social structure, that gets even more complex on a superficial level (i.e., politics!). But when humans communicate, we simultaneously convey messages on a more "primal" level (i.e., body language, meek/dominant behavior). I think it's fascinating, and totally relevant for discussion on this forum.

No one censored the behavior analysis thread involving personality types, so I don't think this one should be considered unworthy or discussion. We discuss 2nd ammendment rights, and all related matter revolving around that subject, so what's wrong with a topic relating to a "universal animal language".


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Darryl, if you didn't want the mods to construe your thread as political maybe you shouldn't have based it on, and titled it after, a political article. The article was not a generic article about human social behaviour, in fact was specifically about the President and his administration. The mods rarely interject and close threads on this board, except when they become abusive, or are political or religious in nature, and there is no doubt the article was political in nature. 

I understand your intention may have been to hold a discussion about human behaviour, but consider what happens on this board EVERY time someone even mentions President Obama. Maybe for once people would have been able to control themselves and not turn it into yet another pissing and moaning session about the President and American politics, but based on past behaviour, I truly, truly doubt it.

Perhaps if you find a link to a generic article that doesn't mention President Obama in every single paragraph, and also doesn't end with calling the President a bitch, the mods would feel differently and people would be able to abstain from expressing their political opinions?


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

And don't bring Angela Merkel into it as a substitute :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Darryl, rename it and leave out any reference to our illustious leader and give it another go. Sounds like a great topic because I believe all dogs can be accurately categorized by watching people. Since some people, not all, can more easily understand behaviors in people it makes understanding dogs much easier.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Susan Tuck said
"Perhaps if you find a link to a generic article that doesn't mention President Obama in every single paragraph, and also doesn't end with calling the President a bitch, the mods would feel differently and people would be able to abstain from expressing their political opinions?"

The article actually called him a bitch! Priceless!


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

http://www.howtostartaforum.com/


Personally, I think this is a good one. A good _dog_ forum.

But hey, there's a big internet out there, and plenty of room for all kinds of boards! :-D


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> And don't bring Angela Merkel into it as a substitute :lol::lol::lol:


hahhahha! On snap!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> http://www.howtostartaforum.com/
> 
> 
> Personally, I think this is a good one. A good _dog_ forum.
> ...


What I do on my forum that works quite well is I do allow political stuff in the BS section ,BUT, I make it very clear there is to be no pro liberal posts to be made and they will all be taken down. It has to be kept very onesided to avoid the bickering. I have to watch that stuff on every TV station and I run a dictatorship on the political stuff. Works very well. Besides, gives em an idea what control can be like. Freedom of speechn is the first thing to go.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I run a dictatorship on the political stuff. Works very well.


Now there's a thought. And here we went this silly "no politics at all" route! ](*,)

Now I wanna be political-leanings dictator too. 




... and "Freedom of speech is the first thing to go."

:lol: :lol:


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Well, I think ***************************************** mod edit, and I also think *****************************************************************************************************, but hey that's just me.

DFrost


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I don't know who Angela is, but to discuss an example, it only seems natural to use someone people can identify with. That way, we can all relate, and disect an actual social interaction to highlite its points, to analyze what's occuring in a sub-level of communication.

It's true what I said about googleing it, 50% of the results come up with Obama in multiple articles, and the rest are stupid advertising dating tips for beta-males in waiting. Forget it, if you can't use a leader as an example, the context for discussion is pointless.

You should check the definition of politics, if you think just because it had a political figure in it makes it a political topic. Just like CA isn't a make believe world, for having a movie celebrity running it. It didn't pertain to any policy at all (even though it was a clearly unflattering attack on character).

I don't care to talk policy on this anymore. Just bullshit. Susan seems obviously one of the offended persons, and I obviously have no personal interest to protect the image of our president. I'm insensitive that way.

I served in the army's presidential honor guard during Bush Sr.'s term, security clearance, been to the Whitehouse, seen the president in the flesh, proud of my country then, and now, and could give a F**K less which party's currently running office, if they're protecting my way of life. And that's my limit for political discussion.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

"I obviously have no personal interest to protect the image of our president. I'm insensitive that way."

According to Napolitano, you must be a ter###ist then. That is political. LOL


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl, your point is clear and of course has merit. So does ours: that the provocative title and the text interjected would almost certainly lead, not to a rational apolitical discussion, but to an us-versus-them, right-versus-left, Democrat-versus-Republican flame war. As always.

And in fact, we can say it "certainly" as opposed to "almost certainly" would, because _it did_, before it was deleted, devolve exactly as described.


But yes, interesting topic for another venue.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

No, _I mean that for anyone._ If someone makes themselves look bad, as long as it doesn't directly affect me or my interests, I don't care really. I'm basically a live-n-let-live kind of guy. We all for the most part, get what we deserve. _(am I talking religion now?)_ But I'll be there for the fight, when it really counts. Tango down.

The only time I can recently recall caring about the image one was projecting of themselves, was a "breeder" who was being a total idiot, that happens to employ a lot of progeny of my stud dog, Faro Policia. Anyway, that's no longer an issue, as I gave up on the pet-peddler, and no longer care how his actions reflect on me, since there's really nothing I can do about it, and Faro's breeding history didn't begin with me.

People just need to quit being so sensitive. Whenever we get the chance to put our emotions aside, then we _actually start learning!_ Cowboy up.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> ... Whenever we get the chance to put our emotions aside, then we _actually start learning!_ Cowboy up.



That didn't happen, unfortunately. Nothing unusual about this board ... it's almost universal when politics can be made to fit into the topic.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I'm basically a live-n-let-live kind of guy. We all for the most part, get what we deserve. _(am I talking religion now?)_



:lol:


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Quote: I don't know who Angela is unquote

Angela Merkel is Germany's Bundeskanzlerin:

http://www.merkur-online.de/bilder/2009/06/26/372800/803709578-angela-merkel-barack-obama.9.jpg

Am I forgiven for posting their piccies??


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Quote: I don't know who Angela is unquote
> 
> Angela Merkel is Germany's Bundeskanzlerin:
> 
> ...


This time.

DFrost


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> hahhahha! On snap!


How come your smiley face has legs?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Nicole Stark said:


> How come your smiley face has legs?


It's magic.


----------

