lying down at the top

[Jennifer Glen]

I still say you have run before you could walk. Shorten your outrun and increase it gradually, ONLY when she is lying down at the shorter distance can you make her lie down at a bigger distance. If she is lying down on a 50 yrd outrun, don't skip to 200 yrds. Go to 55 yards and increase slowly.

Jenny

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by kimkathan:

In a large open field, she's quite wide and deeper on the left flank. On the right, she is a bit tighter and not as deep, but is not straight up the field. Depending on which way we are working, a down hill draw, the sheep are moving faster to break for the barn across the road...dog dosen't want to lie down, up hill draw, sheep are slower to move, dog will lie down. I agree that probably a part of the problem is that she is too tight, but she also will get excited and at times(usually flanking) is either going so fast that she over steps in an attempt to stop, or is so fixated with what the sheep are doing, she dosen't listen.]

 

With this insight....

1. Advice on widening out ( have tried stoping and redirecting, only to have her continue on the same path, only bumped out and pulling back in. Also, calling her back. With this, she'll spin around and almost sling shot herself)

2. Lying down (When driving or penning ie, upclose to me she does great. OUr problem is when she's opposite to me)

Since no one has given you some specifics yet, I'll take a shot. Hopefully, I'm not insulting your level of knowledge with some of these basics.

 

This dog sounds like she is so keen that she is not even hearing you when she comes in on the side she is tight on. I think her outrun should be shortened back up, like Jennifer said, so you can push her off on that side. If she starts cutting in, immediately move toward her (into her face, not her tail) and give her a verbal correction (like you mean it) at the same time. When she gives, immediately release the pressure by backing off and let her go on around. When she has enough space on her sheep, she should take the down, especially since she already does on one side and at the shorter distances. Use a "Hey, what are you doing" or something like it in a gruff tone as you move into her. Later on, you can probably just use the vocal correction if she starts to cut in. The timing is critical. It must be as she starts to cut in, not after it has already happened.

 

If the sheep take off when she does this, don't let her have them until she lies down. Cut her off by not letting her get around you to the sheep. Act like you are a cutting horse working a calf to keep her from the sheep. If she then downs, and the sheep aren't too far away, release her on another short outrun from there, and be prepared to do the same thing again. When she does right, give her the sheep back.

 

It seems to be the sheep breaking and running that is causing the down problem. But what you have to decide is, are the sheep breaking because she is tight (which is what it sounds like to me), or is it some other reason. It sounds like she will stay relatively calm and take the down as long as the sheep do not take off like a shot, and most of the time, sheep take off because they are not being treated right by the dog.

 

This is hard to describe in print. If there is ever a Jack or Kathy Knox clinic in your area, do everything you can to get to it.

 

Regards

[Pipedream Farm]

Kim, your dog sounds to me like my first dog. Really hyped up to get to the sheep. My dog was not hard headed as much as she just couldn't think if she thought the sheep were getting away. I always found with her going towards her to make a correction simply made her faster and tighter at the top of her outrun. If you have this problem, you may want to try going most of the way to the sheep yourself before you send her (you're in the middle). Before you send her step opposite the side you want her to go. If you want to get her farther off the sheep coming around at the top, step way off to the side before you send her. You're basically exaggerating the balance. Go back to the middle point for her to fetch the sheep to you as she comes around. For me, that was a whole lot more effective that trying to fight with her by going towards her. Every dog is different, you just have to find what works for her and you.

Renee

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by Pipedream Farm:

Kim, your dog sounds to me like my first dog. Really hyped up to get to the sheep. My dog was not hard headed as much as she just couldn't think if she thought the sheep were getting away. I always found with her going towards her to make a correction simply made her faster and tighter at the top of her outrun.

 

This can happen, but it is usually because the angle and/or the timing were off. You have to be quick, and you have to take an angle that puts you at the dog's head, not an angle where you are, in effect, chasing the dog around. If you don't take the proper angle, toward the head, you will actually be chasing the dog around. She will beat you and will go faster and tighter. You can't let that happen. The timing and angle are critical. The dog may try to change direction as you go to the head, but you must be ready to cut her off again so she can't beat you and go in the opposite direction around you. She will be trying to get to the sheep, but you can't let her until she is shown you will not let her have her sheep until she listens to you. Timing and angle with the correction are primarily the skills that make Jack Knox so effective.

 

Originally posted by Pipedream Farm:

If you have this problem, you may want to try going most of the way to the sheep yourself before you send her (you're in the middle). Before you send her step opposite the side you want her to go. If you want to get her farther off the sheep coming around at the top, step way off to the side before you send her.

 

You may want to do this anyway, but I would modify it to say, move away from your dog as you send her, whether you are mid-way up the field from your dog or with your dog at your side. One of the most impressive things you will see at a Knox clinic is the change in what the dog does if you move, for example, left, away from the dog, as you send it to the right, giving it the freedom (and release of pressure) to do what's right. You still have to be ready to give the dog a correction if it goes wrong, though, and speaking to her, or cutting her off from her sheep and/or downing her momentarily are all corrections.

 

Regards

[Pipedream Farm]

I certainly don't doubt my timing/angle could have been off. She was my first dog after all --she was also very determined. Years later I trained her daughter. I tried the same method, and she responded to my change in position as a change in balance point and went the other way. Not trying to beat me, she just saw it as a change in balance. The daughter is a much mellower dog than the mother. When I simply stepped further away from her rather than going towards her, that was all she needed.

Renee

[Denise Wall]

I certainly don't doubt my timing/angle could have been off. She was my first dog after all --she was also very determined.

Well, Renee, you must have been doing something right, since you, like several others posting in this thread, are a successful Open handler/trainer.

[juliepoudrier]

GR,

You seem to be a big fan of Jack and Kathy Knox and I can understand why, but what I don't understand is when you recommend on one hand that Kim chase her dog out to widen it at the top and then on the other recommend a Jack or Kathy clinic. I was just at one of Jack's clinics in January and he was quite specific (and adamant) about NOT putting that kind of pressure on a dog, but rather to always release pressure, perhaps give a voice correction, and let the dog figure it out. So it's a bit confusing to me that you seem to be posting conflicting training philosophies.

 

J.

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by juliepoudrier:

GR,

You seem to be a big fan of Jack and Kathy Knox and I can understand why, but what I don't understand is when you recommend on one hand that Kim chase her dog out to widen it at the top and then on the other recommend a Jack or Kathy clinic. I was just at one of Jack's clinics in January and he was quite specific (and adamant) about NOT putting that kind of pressure on a dog, but rather to always release pressure, perhaps give a voice correction, and let the dog figure it out. So it's a bit confusing to me that you seem to be posting conflicting training philosophies.

 

J.

Actually, I couldn't admire the Knox pair more. The problem is that I'm no Jack Knox. I try to use as much of his method as I can, but I sometimes have to resort to methods that might be less like his than I would prefer, methods that have worked when used by other trainers I respect. I really don't think I said to "chase her dog out". Not letting it have its sheep, which is what cutting it off is (correction), and then releasing the pressure once the dog is listening, isn't chasing it off. That being said, and having been to around 7 of his clinics, I have seen him head for a dog doing just what I mentioned to Kim on more than one occasion, my dog included. I'm a little surprised you haven't seen "the mad Scotsman" headed for a dog with his stick in the air, or flapping his jacket vigorously, while loudly "speaking" the dog's name, to get a dog's attention, and then releasing the pressure to allow it the freedom to be right the next time. You have to apply pressure to release it. Must have been dogs farther along or not as hard-headed at your clinic. I think what Jack is adamant about is giving the dog the freedom to do it right, until it goes wrong. Then he is adamant about CORRECTION at the appropriate time, which is what is going on when he heads for a dog (like he did with mine, and others), and/or "speaks" to it. Giving a dog freedom and correcting it when needed are not mutually exclusive.

 

Regards

[blackacre]

Gary,

As you may have noticed, Jack does not always do what he says to do. In fact, he does not always do what he says he's doing at that moment, as you may or may not have noticed. Not that he's not a wonderful trainer.

And I suppose this may be gratuitous, but I've seen lotso' wide running dogs ie excessively wide running dogs.

A

[kimkathan]

From the way Renee talks about her dog, she does sound very much like mine. She is a keen little dog, whose first concern is not to let the stock get away and secondarly the finess of it. I like the explinations that people are providing. The only unfortunate thing is that there isin't a Knox clinic around here in the NorthEast much. Kathy is coming to Conneticut the end of May, and if I can get things juggled around, would like to go. My problem is that this is my second dog that I've trained, and she couldn't me any more different than the other. Trainers around here are few and far between (I'd have to travel 6 hours to get to the Knox clinic) As it is, I travel 2 hours once a month to go to a different field and work some with a farmer who trains his dogs.

 

I've been going out twice a day now, working on enforcing a down at closer proximities, and driving. Making it a fun experience, and not getting too hard, but saying what I mean, and meaning what I say. I think that this is also part of the problem. When I got her as a young dog, she had a few stress problems. We had to let her have fun for a while. Not knowing at the time how different she'd be from my other dog, I know that I probably didn't enforce things as much as I should have. After about a year and a half, she suddenly became very comfortable with life, and came out of her shell. Now it's bery apparent that she's extreamly keen, and wanting to work, and I should have insisted, rather that just being happy that she was working. I have also learned that when she was still just a pup, that downing was a "bad" experience for her, and have had to get her sensitized to the fact that just because I want her down, it's not as a punishment.

 

I'll have to work on my timing and angles (I know I often will make her tighten up if I walk into her. Maybe I should take a couple of horses into an arena and run them the permiter and try to walk into the pressure at different points to get the idea drilled in of how animals react to different spots before I try it much with her) I'll also try exagerating the over balance, and walking back to the center line for a fetch.

[Howdyjabo]

I would not recommend to a "Greenie" to push the odg out- not seeing first hand what the dog and handler and stock are actually doing.

 

Have I pushed dogs out?-- Yeah...... it works FAST on the right dog at the right time. Probably why you see Jack Flap that jacket every now and again. Its more for getting into the dogs head than getting the dog to give ground.Thats just a nice bonus.

 

Most "greenies" have no idea how to get into a dogs head right. And end up fighting with the dog or turning the dog into a an evader-or worst shut the dogs "ego" down. All real bad. Most of the time they don't see the flank flattening till its too late for a harsh or interfering correction to work well.

 

And for most dogs you can eventually get what you want without pushing them out.

 

If I was going to tell a "greenie" (sight unseen) something-- it would be to stop the dog cutting in.

That mindset is less dangerous for the dogs development.

 

Get thee to a lesson-- so you can REALLY be told and hoepfully SEE what you should be doing.

 

I don't think GR is wrong about anything hes saying(except when people should start thinking about trialing)-- its just not the safest way for someone who you can't really see what they are dealing with.

 

No insult to "greenies" -- but you have to keep in the back of your mind what you think you are seeing isn't always the complete or true picture.

Heck for that matter I'm still having to reassess what I thought about dogs--You rarely get the whole picture clear till the dog is almost finished

 

Then on the other hand theres the "greenies" that are a total wimp and pushover...............

They need to be forced to cross the line-- so they can come back and be more effective. But they need to be doing it under supervision-- not from written advice.

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by blackacre:

Gary,

As you may have noticed, Jack does not always do what he says to do. In fact, he does not always do what he says he's doing at that moment, as you may or may not have noticed. Not that he's not a wonderful trainer.

 

And, blackacre, your point is? Do any of us always do as we say we do? Are you arguing with me that getting between the sheep and dog and not letting it have the sheep before re-releasing it is something Jack says not to do? How about giving me an example of something he does that he says not to do that I may or may not have noticed, rather than being so circumspect.

 

 

Originally posted by blackacre:And I suppose this may be gratuitous, but I've seen lotso' wide running dogs ie excessively wide running dogs.

 

Gratuitous? You said it, not me. Do you mean I have to have seen "lotso' excessively wide running dogs", since you have seen so many wide running dogs? One person's definition of wide running might be somewhat different from another's, and it is a discussion that currently goes on among a number of well-known handlers.

 

 

Regards

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by KillerH:

If I was going to tell a "greenie" (sight unseen) something-- it would be to stop the dog cutting in.

 

Well, agreed, but this person came here asking for help with a problem. It is easy to say "stop the dog from cutting in", but the HOW is what she needs. No one has seemed to be willing to offer suggestions about how to do that until I made some, and then it has been mostly "yes, but" in response. I think the discussion is good, but I detect a slight (but not from you) degree of "you don't know what you are talking about" from some, as if they have all the answers, or the answers are only good if they come from specific mouths.

 

 

Originally posted by KillerH:

Get thee to a lesson-- so you can REALLY be told and hoepfully SEE what you should be doing.

 

As I also recommended several posts ago.

 

Originally posted by KillerH:

I don't think GR is wrong about anything hes saying(except when people should start thinking about trialing)-- its just not the safest way for someone who you can't really see what they are dealing with.

 

Just for discussion purposes, since, once again, this is a DISCUSSION board, when do you think a person should think about trialing?

 

 

Originally posted by KillerH:

Then on the other hand theres the "greenies" that are a total wimp and pushover...............

They need to be forced to cross the line-- so they can come back and be more effective. But they need to be doing it under supervision-- not from written advice.

 

Then, I have to ask, what is the purpose of this board, if not to present written advice when a person asks for it?

 

Regards

[Denise Wall]

I think the discussion is good, but I detect a slight (but not from you) degree of "you don't know what you are talking about" from some, as if they have all the answers, or the answers are only good if they come from specific mouths.

Not true. Tony Luper for example does not yet run in Open and offered some useful advice and nobody is having any problems with him because he's not posting with the attitude that he is the highest authority here.

 

Originally posted by KillerH:

Then on the other hand theres the "greenies" that are a total wimp and pushover...............

They need to be forced to cross the line-- so they can come back and be more effective. But they need to be doing it under supervision-- not from written advice.

 

GR then writes:

 

Then, I have to ask, what is the purpose of this board, if not to present written advice when a person asks for it?

People can offer advice and the OP should consider what is being said and decide on the validity of it herself. But I think they should also be cautioned that it may not be the best advice for their specific situation. One can only get that kind of advice from direct observation of the problem and sometimes not even then.

[juliepoudrier]

Originally posted by GR:

... If she starts cutting in, immediately move toward her (into her face, not her tail) and give her a verbal correction (like you mean it) at the same time. When she gives, immediately release the pressure by backing off and let her go on around. ... If the sheep take off when she does this, don't let her have them until she lies down. Cut her off by not letting her get around you to the sheep. Act like you are a cutting horse working a calf to keep her from the sheep.

GR,

The above is what you wrote and what I interpreted as you telling Kim to "chase the dog out." If you are moving toward the dog and using a verbal correction so that the dog gives ground then you are chasing it out. And although you do tell Kim to then release the pressure and back off once the dog gives ground, the fact is that the correction you have proposed is telling the handler to move toward the dog to force it to move out. The problem with this is that a novice handler might not know when s/he has applied enough pressure and not too much and when is a proper time to release it.

 

Granted, I haven't been to as many Jack Knox clinics as you, but the fact that he was quite adamant about not moving into the dog to widen it out sticks with me very clearly because at one point he was actually chasing one particular handler who persisted in moving toward her dog to try to widen it out, even seconds after he had just told her not to do that. Jack will freely admit that he changes his techniqes as he finds something that works better, and this clinic was very recent, so perhaps this is one thing he has changed since you last worked with him.

 

And as far as level of dog at this clinic, most were novice dogs, some on sheep for the first time. I was certainly the only person there with an open dog.

 

With respect to having a discussion and giving advice to another handler, yes, Kim did ask, but I think it's quite fair for someone to point out that none of us can actually see what's happening and therefore her best chance of getting advice that works for her specific situation is to get a professional to watch what's happening and then give advice on how to fix it.

 

J.

[blackacre]

Hello again Gary,

I've pushed out a lot of dogs. It's not something I would say should never be done. However, I think the point was that recommending to a novice that she push out a novice dog might backfire, either because of the dog or because the novice handler could not read the signs of a dog getting too wide on her--or would do it ineffectively and actually cause the dog to tighten up.

As to Jack, I've said I think he's a great dog trainer. I admire him greatly for that, after having observed him in action. However, he communicates a lot of things to a dog that may not be obvious to an up and coming handler such as yourself and that does not necessarily make it into his training "mantra". For that, you need Kathy.

A

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by Denise Wall:

quote:

---

I think the discussion is good, but I detect a slight (but not from you) degree of "you don't know what you are talking about" from some, as if they have all the answers, or the answers are only good if they come from specific mouths.

Not true. Tony Luper for example does not yet run in Open and offered some useful advice and nobody is having any problems with him because he's not posting with the attitude that he is the highest authority here.

 

Originally posted by KillerH:

Then on the other hand theres the "greenies" that are a total wimp and pushover...............

They need to be forced to cross the line-- so they can come back and be more effective. But they need to be doing it under supervision-- not from written advice.

 

GR then writes:

 

Then, I have to ask, what is the purpose of this board, if not to present written advice when a person asks for it?

People can offer advice and the OP should consider what is being said and decide on the validity of it herself. But I think they should also be cautioned that it may not be the best advice for their specific situation. One can only get that kind of advice from direct observation of the problem and sometimes not even then.

Well, Denise, I received your somewhat, no, your very condescending private message. If you like, I can post it to the board and let folks decide for themselves what the tone of it is. But only with your permission. I am FULLY aware of some of those with whom I have been discussing (not arguing about) training on the TRAINING DISCUSSION part of the forum. Perhaps you have never discussed anything with someone who may have more experience than you, or perhaps you are afraid to do so. Perhaps you have trouble with differentiating between discussion and arguing. Perhaps anytime someone says something you disagree with, or doesn't agree with what those you favor say, you find it necessary to attack. I, on the other hand, am at a loss to understand how you can read into anything I have posted any degree of the arrogance you displayed in the private message. If only the anointed few are permitted to discuss, or offer an opinion, then make it clear in the welcome to the board, if you are the one in charge of doing so.

 

And please, give me a specific example of where I have indicated I am the highest authority here. Actually, I have received that impression from one or two of those who have participated, but I did not stoop to ad hominem attacks. One thing I am not afraid to do is to give my opinion on something I might have some small degree of experience at, on a DISCUSSION board, even if it is given to the Queen of Sheba.

 

As always,

 

Regards

[Denise Wall]

I don't know what to say to you GR. You're not getting the same take on what you're writing and what others are writing back to you as I am.

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by juliepoudrier:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GR:

... If she starts cutting in, immediately move toward her (into her face, not her tail) and give her a verbal correction (like you mean it) at the same time. When she gives, immediately release the pressure by backing off and let her go on around. ... If the sheep take off when she does this, don't let her have them until she lies down. Cut her off by not letting her get around you to the sheep. Act like you are a cutting horse working a calf to keep her from the sheep.

GR,

The above is what you wrote and what I interpreted as you telling Kim to "chase the dog out." If you are moving toward the dog and using a verbal correction so that the dog gives ground then you are chasing it out. And although you do tell Kim to then release the pressure and back off once the dog gives ground, the fact is that the correction you have proposed is telling the handler to move toward the dog to force it to move out. The problem with this is that a novice handler might not know when s/he has applied enough pressure and not too much and when is a proper time to release it.

 

Granted, I haven't been to as many Jack Knox clinics as you, but the fact that he was quite adamant about not moving into the dog to widen it out sticks with me very clearly because at one point he was actually chasing one particular handler who persisted in moving toward her dog to try to widen it out, even seconds after he had just told her not to do that. Jack will freely admit that he changes his techniqes as he finds something that works better, and this clinic was very recent, so perhaps this is one thing he has changed since you last worked with him.

 

And as far as level of dog at this clinic, most were novice dogs, some on sheep for the first time. I was certainly the only person there with an open dog.

 

With respect to having a discussion and giving advice to another handler, yes, Kim did ask, but I think it's quite fair for someone to point out that none of us can actually see what's happening and therefore her best chance of getting advice that works for her specific situation is to get a professional to watch what's happening and then give advice on how to fix it.

 

J.

Julie,

 

My experience at my last clinic was very recent. No one can argue with what you say. In fact, I think I have said some of the same things in this thread. But if all we say to someone who comes here for help or suggestions is to go to a clinic or lesson so an expert can see your dog and how it is being handled, then of what possible use can this part of the board be? If a person had immediate access to a respected trainer, why on earth would he or she even be participating in a training discussion on this board?

 

Concerning the "into her face" phrase: As usual, it is sometimes difficult to put into print precisely what is meant to prevent no possible misinterpretation. That was to make a distinction between trying to block a dog when the person is moving toward the tail of the dog, as opposed to moving toward the head. Moving toward the tail will, in my OPINION for God's sake , just accelerate the dog, not block it.

 

By the way, Julie, thanks for participating in the DISCUSSION.

 

Regards

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by Denise Wall:

I don't know what to say to you GR. You're not getting the same take on what you're writing and what others are writing back to you as I am.

Apparently.

 

Regards

[juliepoudrier]

GR,

At the risk of also being attacked by you I have to say that although I see nothing wrong with discussion, it seems you feel compelled to dismiss anything anyone else has posted when those comments haven't agreed with yours. I know a number of the people who have posted and I think most of them were trying to be rather subtle in their disagreement with you, but you have refused to acknowledge that these other people who didn't agree with you might actually have a reasonable take on the situation, instead repeatedly poo-pooing anything else that has been posted. How is it that people shouldn't see that as setting yourself up as the expert? Maybe it's one of those Venus/Mars interpretation things.

 

P.S. For example, I own a wide-running dog. It seems to be typical in at least one line of dogs here on the east coast. I never bothered to post to that part of the discussion because it seemed that no matter hom many folks said that there are indeed wide running dogs out there, you came back to basically say that none of them knew what they were talking about. What is that, if not the very same arrogance of which you accuse Denise? (And no, I am not Denise's best buddy, but I do happen to dislike it when someone takes a private correspondence and replies publicly to try to make another person look bad--that really only reflects on you).

 

Okay have at it.

 

edited to add Looks like we were posting at the same time. You may no longer be thanking me after reading this. Sorry about that, but I think what I said in this post needed to be said.

 

J.

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by blackacre:

Hello again Gary,

I've pushed out a lot of dogs. It's not something I would say should never be done. However, I think the point was that recommending to a novice that she push out a novice dog might backfire, either because of the dog or because the novice handler could not read the signs of a dog getting too wide on her--or would do it ineffectively and actually cause the dog to tighten up.

 

I don't really know if Kim would be considered a true novice or not. Apparently, she would trial at the Novice level, however. She seems pretty savvy to me, based on some of her comments about her dog, and she seems to have some experience training horses. Yes, it could backfire, but she sure wants to try SOMETHING besides just saying "stop the dog from cutting in" (no offense to KillerH).

 

Originally posted by blackacre:

As to Jack, I've said I think he's a great dog trainer. I admire him greatly for that, after having observed him in action. However, he communicates a lot of things to a dog that may not be obvious to an up and coming handler such as yourself and that does not necessarily make it into his training "mantra". For that, you need Kathy.

A

 

Hell, a lot of what he does is not obvious. If it was, I wouldn't need to go to 7 clinics, and counting. Kathy? She learned everything she knows from him. At least that is what he says at the clinics.

 

Regards

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by juliepoudrier:

GR,

At the risk of also being attacked by you I have to say that although I see nothing wrong with discussion, it seems you feel compelled to dismiss anything anyone else has posted when those comments haven't agreed with yours. I know a number of the people who have posted and I think most of them were trying to be rather subtle in their disagreement with you, but you have refused to acknowledge that these other people who didn't agree with you might actually have a reasonable take on the situation, instead repeatedly poo-pooing anything else that has been posted. How is it that people shouldn't see that as setting yourself up as the expert? Maybe it's one of those Venus/Mars interpretation things.

 

 

Oh, puleeze, Julie. Am I the only one who has ever had an opinion, and been willing to try to defend it, and been unwilling to just knuckle-under without good reason? I would prefer people make fewer attempts at being subtle, and just RESPECTFULLY argue (in the debating sense) and discuss.

 

 

Originally posted by juliepoudrier:

P.S. For example, I own a wide-running dog. It seems to be typical in at least one line of dogs here on the east coast. I never bothered to post to that part of the discussion because it seemed that no matter hom many folks said that there are indeed wide running dogs out there, you came back to basically say that none of them knew what they were talking about. What is that, if not the very same arrogance of which you accuse Denise? (And no, I am not Denise's best buddy, but I do happen to dislike it when someone takes a private correspondence and replies publicly to try to make another person look bad--that really only reflects on you).

 

Okay have at it.

 

edited to add Looks like we were posting at the same time. You may no longer be thanking me after reading this. Sorry about that, but I think what I said in this post needed to be said.

 

J.

 

Ok. Here goes. I never said they didn't know what they were talking about!! I said I just didn't see it that often (but it does occur), and that just the opposite was the most common observation, especially in the lower classes. By the way, if I had wanted to really make her look bad, I would have posted the private correspondence. Remember, I did ask for her permission, but it has not been forthcoming.

 

Regards

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by juliepoudrier:

GR,

At the risk of also being attacked by you I have to say that although I see nothing wrong with discussion,.....

No risk to you. I only attack, in retaliation, when attacked, especially if the attack against me is unwarranted.

 

Regards

[Denise Wall]

By the way, if I had wanted to really make her look bad, I would have posted the private correspondence. Remember, I did ask for her permission, but it has not been forthcoming.

Geez, I didn't think it was that bad. Considering your style, I didn't think you would either. Sure glad now that I held back

 

The main reason I didn't want it posted is I mentioned someone else's name and don't feel it would be fair to that person. Plus, this isn't the place for such things. Write me back privately if you want to go at it.