I ask the very legitimate question: Is polite disagreement tolerated on this board, or if someone disagrees with Ed, are their posts typically closed or deleted? If they disagreed on more than one issue, would they be “kicked off” the board, and labeled as “arguing for the sake of arguing” or are members actually free to express their opinions? I post this here, because there is no forum on which to post board policy questions.

My reason for asking: Prior to yesterday, I never understood what people were referring to when they mentioned rude posts or suppression on here. I have always enjoyed interacting with the people who post here. But recently, I pointed out on a post that using pepper spray on a dog that hasn’t shown any aggression beyond walking up to you and looking at you could get you convicted in most states of cruelty to animals- and if it gets on the owner or anyone else, you could be convicted of battery as well. Its not like that’s the least bit controversial- I’ve since looked at over 50 real life cases from all over the U.S. where people were convicted of cruelty to animals for doing various painful things to off-leash dogs who had not acted aggressively, beyond walking up to the defendant, looking at him, or walking onto his property. Many of them used the advice frequently advocated by some here: “I felt that I was in danger.” The prosecution wins the vast majority of these cases, and the “felt in danger” line (self-defense or necessity) is usually held unreasonable where the dog has not done anything aggressive. I’m sure most people could have guessed that before hearing it from me. You really don’t have to be a lawyer to figure that one out.

Then comes the bizarre post stating that when discussing whether an action is illegal, you should pay very little attention to posts from people who happen to be an attorney, since they live in a “parinoid” world. Interesting. Then the personal insults continue:

“If I am walking my dog and someone has a loose dog that approaches my dog I will NEVER ASSUME THAT THEIR DOG IS FRIENDLY. For Torre or anyone else to tell someone to take a "wait and see attitude" is irresponsible. It reflects a lack of experience.”
“You don't follow Torres advice and wait to see if FIDO is friendly. If my action means a kick in the head to make sure that the strange dog stays away and understands that I meant it when I screamed at it to stay away and that I am a threat to him.”

Don’t forget to mention the part about how you “won’t hesitate to gas him right in front of his owner.” All of that is fine, as long as you don’t mind going to jail.

“Torre stick to your federal law !!! Don't give advise on dog training. This post is closed.”

Obviously, noting that attacking non-aggressive dogs or their owners may get you convicted of a crime is not dog training.

I believe that I’ve always attempted to be complimentary and polite to people on here, even when I disagreed with them. However, I must admit that I feel that this post attempting to insult me was quite rude. I’m trying very hard to assume the best and not believe that these insults stem from the arrogance of wanting to suppress anyone who says anything that conflicts with your thoughts. But if people aren’t free to disagree on this board, even with you, then the board is worthless. Instead of being attacked, I should have been thanked for encouraging people to talk to an attorney from their state before doing something that could send them to jail. Be a man, don't close this post. Surely, if I can listen to the drivel of you, your followers and your alternate personalities on here, then you can listen to any dissenters who haven't already been kicked off of the board as well.

Torre, what gives you the right to tell someone how to run THEIR board. It belongs to Ed and thats it. Your little arguments won't win here as nonsense falls on deaf ears. I went back and looked at every single one of your posts and almost everyone of them has something to do with law. If you are that obsessed with being a lawyer, why don't you go post on some attorneys web site, thansome of the rhetoric you spew might get noticed by some other egotistical lawyer. Go blow law somewhere else, this is about dogs and training not "this is not legal advice". (those are Torre's stupid disclaimers he puts on all of his posts). Do you even have a dog?

Torre, your advise is dangerous and stupid. If you do not like being told that you have a lot to learn abou dog training - then go to aother board and offer legal advise because your dog training advice is DEAD wrong here.

Wow. the first drivel from a loyal follower comes in. Rott, contrary to your hateful and venomous post, I only recall having one posted topic dealing with law. And it was also about dogs.

Further, I did not tell anyone how to run their board. I asked a simple question regarding board policy on disagreement. Regarding "nonsense falling on deaf ears," you don't appear to have the intellect to detect nonsense.

The disclaimer you ignorantly made fun of was prudent for reasons you wouldn't understand, as I explained to you the first time you made fun of it.

Torre, what about the dobe article when you talk about copyright law? That might make it more than one post, what do you think genious? Hey, I have a wacky idea, why don't you go read your rants on this board and you will see that you are obsessed with talking about legal issues. I'll repeat the question counselor, do you even have a dog? If not, don't get one, it will be too screwed up to do anything right.

Oh yeah, go check the "land of giants" post Torre posted to, he talks about being in court because you have an oversized pit bull. Not only does he know nothing about dogs, he is a liar by saying he only posted once about law.

Ed, I have not given one piece of dog training advice- ever. I have very correctly stated the consequences of spraying pepper spray on an animal that has not displayed aggression. That's it. I didn't create the law. I didn't even say anyone has to obey the law. What exactly is the goal of calling people "stupid" all the time?

Not to be mean, but if you're going to be credible calling me stupid, you at least need to learn how to spell.

I really have no desire to trade insults with anyone, especially where they make their living. But these bizarre insults, just because I pointed out a cold harsh reality of the world, were quite unwarranted.

The point that I see in your posts is that even if a dog approaches you and your dog without showing outward signs of aggression that doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of dogs that don't bark, growl, or snarl as they attack. Dogs are hell'uva lot faster than you. They may approach friendly and then something in the stance of your dog sets them off, then they attack. The only way to protect your dog in this situation, or yourself, is to strike first. Any, and every, dog that pays you any notice can be a potential aggressor. You need to immediately ward them off using whatever means that you can. If they continue to approach then you will have to use physical means. If you don't a fight can break out. Your dog could be killed, much like a shepherd that I owned was. She was attacked by a Rottweiler. She barked and he just ran right over and nailed her. By the time I figuered what was going on, nothing I could do.

Why Ed nailed you is because this falls into the catagory of real life street smarts and dog behavior knowledge. There are only two ways a dog meeting another dog go, fight or no fight. When you are out walking in other dogs perceved territories then more often than not there will be a fight. Especially if your dog is a dominate animal. You have to do what you have to do. If that means later legal problems then so be it. Better that, then a dead dog. Even if you do have some problems, I doubt seriously that you will be going to jail for a crime, no way. With the anti-dog laws becoming so popular now? The news media will put you up for a good neighbor award. Besides how do you know what will happen, you're not a dog law specialist and neither are we. Let come what may. . .my own personal code of conduct.

Vancamp, that makes sense to us, but don't waste your time on this guy as he thinks he knows it all already. I mean, what the hell can you tell a guy that will argue that his stupid sharpei can trial in schutzhund? Hey Torre, what about the lies that you only posted law one time? Conveniently ignored that did ya' counselor?

um rott, if I have made passing comments with legal thoughts in them on other's posts...who cares? As if it matters, I meant the topics I created. If I was using the wrong term for posts, who cares about that either? you sound desperate and childish.