Re: what's with that puppy wizard?

Marshall Dermer wrote:
> In article <384psjF5l4fnaU1@individual.net> "Nathan Otis"
<na@smeat.spam.net> writes:
> >It's a shame he puts on this show in the news group because what he
actually
> >has to say is good stuff. I've read his "Wits End" manual and it's
very
> >intelligent and well thought out... Not to mention it works!
>
> This is somewhat dated:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~tdwillis/.../concerns.html
>
> --Marshall

From: gre...@technologist.com (Gregor)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:11:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Do Not Trust JERRY HOWE! Jerry Howe is a LIAR, PHONY and
TROLL (and ninnyboy) [Daily Posting]

I Hate Jerry Too... <v...@phantomemail.com> wrote:

>Here are the OBJECTIVE reviews of the Doggy Do Right ('DDR"):

> [In the interest of saving space, please visit the following
> web sites for informaiton.]

> http://home.att.net/~petloss/ddreview.txt

This page is in ASCII text and almost unreadable. I won't bother, and
neither will many other people, unless it is converted to AT LEAST
basic HTML so that it can viewed in something other than 12 point
courier typeface.

> http://www.oakhillkennel.com/ddr/index.html

This site lists advertised claims made for the DDR and as far as I can
tell exactly ONE test, which SUBSTANTIATED the claim being tested.

> http://home.earthlink.net/~tdwillis/.../concerns.html

Starts out with arguing that the Wit's End Dog Training Manual (WEDTM)
is flawed because it doesn't contain descriptions of other methods and
their efficacy, and lacks supporting data for its own effectiveness.
This is a major nit to have picked. Since when does a training manual
NEED to address OTHER training methods? It's not ADVERTISED as a
scientific paper demonstrating the superiority of the method, it's
only been advertised as a DESCRIPTION of the method.
The second nit picked on this site is to slam the WEDTM for failing to
identify the learning centers of the dog brain. So what? It's a
training manual, not a doggie psychology text.

The third point addressed on the above referenced site is to pooh-pooh
the idea that the WEDTM method works with all dogs and all breeds.
Though the WEDTM is criticized for not PROVING the universal
effectiveness of the method therein described, the site provides no
example of a dog the method has FAILED with.

The fourth criticism is that since the heart of the WEDTM is sound
distraction, it seems unlikely to work with deaf dogs. This is the
first criticism that makes any sense to me. There is probably some
other way of distracting a deaf dog -- a loving touch, perhaps?
Dropping a rock on the ground adjacent to the dog, so he can feel the
vibrations? OK - the WEDTM won't work with deaf dogs. Well, it won't
work with dead dogs either. I guess that disproves the claim that it
will work with ALL dogs, eh?

The criticisms of the DDR are similar: the DDR site offers no
comparitive data for other methods, fails to provide contact
information for satisfied customers, or even testimonials from
satisfied customers. DDR is also criticized for being unwilling to
offer free evaluation copies of the device. As far as I am concerned,
all this amounts to is criticism of the marketing methods employed for
the device, NOT the device or the claims made for it.

In short, this site lacks credibility since almost all the points
addressed are silly nits.

> Here's a link to what someone guessed may be the 'guts' of the DDR:
> http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/kits/k112.html
> The price is no longer listed. As of a week ago, it was
USD$19.95.

What someone *guessed is the guts of the DDR. Ho hum.

>Based on these findings, I think it is ACCURATE to conclude that JERRY
HOWE
>SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED.

Based on this post, IMO Jerry would be within his rights to sue the
poster for SLANDER.

Jerry does NOT have the best human relation skills in the world -- he
insulted my intelligence in his first response to me, and he presumed
hostility where none was intended -- but he does not seem to me to be
a bad soul.

In short, my mind is open, and I'm not killfiling anyone on this group
-- yet.

A relative newbie to rpdb,
Gregor
I'm no better than anybody. But nobody is better than me.

	#1
theworldscruelesttrainer@fastmail.fm	Re: what's with that puppy wizard? Marshall Dermer wrote: > In article <384psjF5l4fnaU1@individual.net> "Nathan Otis" <na@smeat.spam.net> writes: > >It's a shame he puts on this show in the news group because what he actually > >has to say is good stuff. I've read his "Wits End" manual and it's very > >intelligent and well thought out... Not to mention it works! > > This is somewhat dated: > > http://home.earthlink.net/~tdwillis/.../concerns.html > > --Marshall From: gre...@technologist.com (Gregor) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:11:22 GMT Subject: Re: Do Not Trust JERRY HOWE! Jerry Howe is a LIAR, PHONY and TROLL (and ninnyboy) [Daily Posting] I Hate Jerry Too... <v...@phantomemail.com> wrote: >Here are the OBJECTIVE reviews of the Doggy Do Right ('DDR"): > [In the interest of saving space, please visit the following > web sites for informaiton.] > http://home.att.net/~petloss/ddreview.txt This page is in ASCII text and almost unreadable. I won't bother, and neither will many other people, unless it is converted to AT LEAST basic HTML so that it can viewed in something other than 12 point courier typeface. > http://www.oakhillkennel.com/ddr/index.html This site lists advertised claims made for the DDR and as far as I can tell exactly ONE test, which SUBSTANTIATED the claim being tested. > http://home.earthlink.net/~tdwillis/.../concerns.html Starts out with arguing that the Wit's End Dog Training Manual (WEDTM) is flawed because it doesn't contain descriptions of other methods and their efficacy, and lacks supporting data for its own effectiveness. This is a major nit to have picked. Since when does a training manual NEED to address OTHER training methods? It's not ADVERTISED as a scientific paper demonstrating the superiority of the method, it's only been advertised as a DESCRIPTION of the method. The second nit picked on this site is to slam the WEDTM for failing to identify the learning centers of the dog brain. So what? It's a training manual, not a doggie psychology text. The third point addressed on the above referenced site is to pooh-pooh the idea that the WEDTM method works with all dogs and all breeds. Though the WEDTM is criticized for not PROVING the universal effectiveness of the method therein described, the site provides no example of a dog the method has FAILED with. The fourth criticism is that since the heart of the WEDTM is sound distraction, it seems unlikely to work with deaf dogs. This is the first criticism that makes any sense to me. There is probably some other way of distracting a deaf dog -- a loving touch, perhaps? Dropping a rock on the ground adjacent to the dog, so he can feel the vibrations? OK - the WEDTM won't work with deaf dogs. Well, it won't work with dead dogs either. I guess that disproves the claim that it will work with ALL dogs, eh? The criticisms of the DDR are similar: the DDR site offers no comparitive data for other methods, fails to provide contact information for satisfied customers, or even testimonials from satisfied customers. DDR is also criticized for being unwilling to offer free evaluation copies of the device. As far as I am concerned, all this amounts to is criticism of the marketing methods employed for the device, NOT the device or the claims made for it. In short, this site lacks credibility since almost all the points addressed are silly nits. > Here's a link to what someone guessed may be the 'guts' of the DDR: > http://www.oatleyelectronics.com/kits/k112.html > The price is no longer listed. As of a week ago, it was USD$19.95. What someone *guessed is the guts of the DDR. Ho hum. >Based on these findings, I think it is ACCURATE to conclude that JERRY HOWE >SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED. Based on this post, IMO Jerry would be within his rights to sue the poster for SLANDER. Jerry does NOT have the best human relation skills in the world -- he insulted my intelligence in his first response to me, and he presumed hostility where none was intended -- but he does not seem to me to be a bad soul. In short, my mind is open, and I'm not killfiling anyone on this group -- yet. A relative newbie to rpdb, Gregor I'm no better than anybody. But nobody is better than me.