Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.

IMO training & behavior go hand-in-hand with alot of training being discussed here. From that aspect I think a *training ng would be redundant.

However, specific training methodology can be separate from behavior. For example, you won't see people coming here, or thinking to go to a behavior group, to ask how to begin their young Lab on field training. People wouldn't think to come to behavior to ask questions on SAR, mushing, etc training. I think the same generally applies to agility as well and that the only real agility threads here are those posted by regulars but not by newcomers.
So from that standpoint I think a *training ng would be beneficial. Where things may overlap (as they occasionally do already between *behavior, *breeds & *health) I don't see why it would be too much of a hassle for someone to direct the poster to the more appropriate ng or to simply crosspost between two relevant ngs. I think my strongest sense of dislike for the proposal of *training came/comes from the fact that the proponent is unknown, or is unknown here by that usenet handle.

So as it stands right now I'm on the fence. I can certainly see a benefit to having a *training group as people looking to housetrain or do any other kind of canine training will be able to spot an obvious ng for their question vs going to *misc since *behavior doesn't automatically imply training discussion to JQP. OTOH I can see a large potential for overlap/redundancy but I'm no longer convinced that such a thing is inherently bad.

Tara
IMO training & behavior go hand-in-hand with alot of training being discussed here. From that aspect I think a *training ng would be redundant.

A training ng would be reinventing the wheel. Almost everything we discuss involves training.
So as it stands right now I'm on the fence. I can certainly see a benefit to having a *training ... spot an obvious ng for their question vs going to *misc since *behavior doesn't automatically imply training discussion to JQP.

It's how I got here. I was looking for a training ng, and "behavior" seemed appropriate.
Canine Action Dog Trainer
http://www.canineaction.com
My Kids, My Students, My Life:
http://hometown.aol.com/dfrntdrums/myhomepage/index.html
berlin.de:
Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.

Why didn't you post this during the official discussion period? It is bad netiquette to post opinion, or "campaign" one way or another during the CFV phase.

Bill
berlin.de:

Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to ... it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.

Why didn't you post this during the official discussion period?

Which was from when to when? I don't recall being told I could only discuss this issue during a certain timeframe. The CFV brought the issue back to my attention hence the post today.
It is bad netiquette to post opinion, or "campaign" one way or another during the CFV phase.

1. I'm not campaigning. If a new group does or does not join the ranks ofrec.pets.dogs then I promise I won't be losing any sleep over it nor do I think many other regulars in *behavior would.
2. Since the original proposal I've had some time to mull it over and findthat I'm not entirely certain how, or even if, I'll vote.
3. Regardless of which way I vote I find talking about the proposed group ina related ng like this, with regulars I know, to be beneficial. Some will have points I didn't consider or counter points I already have considered. Unfortunately its outside the specified timeframe but I wasn't aware there was one in the first place.

Tara
Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the proposal was posted to. I ... agility as well and that the only real agility threads here are those posted by regulars but not by newcomers.

That is what rec.pets.dogs.activities is for, and it says so in the description and the charter for that group.

Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com /
http://dogplay.com/Shop /
That is what rec.pets.dogs.activities is for, and it says so in the description and the charter for that group.

Thanks. I don't sub to that ng and have never had reason to read its description or charter.

Tara
1. I'm not campaigning. If a new group does or does not join the ranks of rec.pets.dogs then I promise I won't be losing any sleep over it nor do I think many other regulars in *behavior would.

You are such a liar. EVERYONE knows that saying you are not sure whether something would be a good idea or not is campaigning. QED!

Paula
"The smell of burning rubber chickens and
singed roller-skating chimps will teach a man to hate." swt