Can someone explain me what this master trainer and master decoy are doing ?? - Page 5

Gina yep Pete is no undercover assassin the other 2don't know enough about . :-[ so I won't take your bet

This is too funny in its predictability. Pay attention those of you who are new and/or still have an open mind about the subject of dog training. You will note that I have made posts regarding the training of a particular poster. This is nothing new on this forum. People critique and comment; it's one of the raisons d'être of this forum. But the last few posts have been speculation about my identity, why? Does it matter? Does it change the substance of my posts or challenge the veracity contained in them? This circling of the wagons is what you will see with dog people who have become emotionally attached and invested in another dog person who they see as a superior. They elevate him and view him as above reproach and beyond criticism. It's cultish behavior.

My response to you who are fixated on who I am is that first off, whether you believe it or not, I am no one you know. Second, if my posts that question your idol offend your belief system then there is a simple way to shut me up and shut me down: provide verifiable proof that what Prager believes to be true about dogs and dog training is true. New people take note of this. There are posters here who would have no trouble with verifying what they believe or what they have achieved. Not only that, they wouldn't even be offended by being asked to do it. Ask yourselves why would people behave as though they are offended by someone asking for proof? Why are they attacking someone who questions their leader? This what those who have a vested interest in selling you something do. They deflect away from the real questions and try to change the discussion. That is what they are trying to do here by moving away from a discussion on training and into a discussion about my identity. Does it matter that much? If something is true, it's true. If it isn't then these people can always do something that no one has done yet: prove it isn't. A final note to the new people out there. You will notice that none of them have said I'm wrong. That tells you something about what I posted. It also explains their fear.

You might want to use the extra large bottle of Kaopectate your diarrhea of the mouth seems to be acute and violent. The only thing I'm circling the wagon on is the brand new user with with the comical name and agenda.

@Gigante: The brand new user with a comical name has requested for some proof of your Superior's superiority.

We are still waiting.....

@Swarnendu: if you are meaning "no its you" when you say the new user with the comical name, what is "comical" about it ?
Sounds to me like a username chosen by someone who runs dog training, which is a common refrain when someone blames their dog for doing or not doing something, and where it is the owner / handler who has failed to convey what they want, to the dog.

Hundmutter, I didn't start using the word "comical", nor do I endorse it. Read the last post from Gigante.

@Swarnendu

I don't know Hans never even had a beer with him, you also might need a swig from that bottle. If you guys girls children what ever you are have such a fatal attraction why not go down visit your fixation have a beer (if your old enough) bring a dog bite a decoy and show him how to properly train. Unhidden and as a real person. Bring a camera share it with us.

Hundmutter

What ever it is already stated it does not run a business does not train dogs does not sell finished products has nothing to share, as in a product. Who knows though that's the beauty of an alias you can type and say whatever you want true or false, who would know?

@Western Thanks for checking ;) 


 

@ gigante, doesnt that go for 99 % of posters on a forum posting under alias, that is both the strength and weakness of an internet forum at the same time

Gigante, how come you deduced from my posts that I have the intentions or even the abilities to show Hans the CORRECT method of training?

Can I not be a novice GSD enthusiast who wants to learn from the right person, but is confused who the right person is, because he is reading too many posts which are of no value to the topic?

Gigante said, "You might want to use the extra large bottle of Kaopectate your diarrhea of the mouth seems to be acute and violent. The only thing I'm circling the wagon on is the brand new user with with the comical name and agenda."

All of you people who are new to this type of dog and training take note of this. Remember I said they would attack me and here we have an example of that. Even after I said they would they still did. That says something about the mentality of these people. They are so stuck in their almost religious like belief that they cannot use reason to control themselves.

Let's look at this enlightened and educated post. Is there any substance in it or facts? No, none. It is an opinion and cheap shot in response to what? A simple request for proof. Like I said on a previous post, you will note that the one thing missing from Gigante's post is him saying I am wrong.

So what is really going on here? It's an attempt to get me angry and defensive. They want me to get distracted with defending myself. It won't work as I do not have to defend myself, only my argument. When they attack that, if they attack that, then you will really see how much misinformation has been thrown at you.

Thank you Gigante for proving what I have been saying about your cultish attachment to your leader. You are doing my work for me. The funny thing is that you will continue to do it because you just can't help yourself.

Gigante has brought up proving myself and not remaining anonymous. Why? I have not made any claims about what I have achieved, the onus is on those who do make claims to prove it. The onus is on them to provide arguments that they claim are logical to actually stand up to scrutiny. This isn't about who is the better trainer or what is the better method, no, this is about the truth.

Their leader has made unsubstantiated claims. Someone just has to substantiate them. He has made illogical arguments disguised as logical. Someone just has to show that they are logical after all. It's that simple. The question is, if it's that simple why hasn't anyone done it?