# How not to train a dog



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

You have to see it. It is so realistic

How not to train a dog - Alpha Roll by K9-1.com - YouTube


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

That's really quite scary  Glad they laughed at the end but obviously a dog can't get up and do that.


----------



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

It is but unfortunately many of dogs have similar experience like that.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

That's so funny - I must practice that on hmmm the arse who let their dog pin my pup to the floor last week


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

That scared me so God knows what it must be like for a poor dog:crying:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Andromeda said:


> You have to see it. It is so realistic
> How not to train a dog - Alpha Roll by K9-1.com - YouTube


the bummer is that these guys, IMO, are not at all reward-based trainers.

this particular video gives that impression - that they avoid coercion, ridicule dominance, 
that pack-theory is not their explanation for undesired behavior in our dogs. 
sadly, it's a very inaccurate impression. :nonod:

here they are 'teaching' a dog that *humans near food* is not threatening: 
Aggressive dog training and aggression rehab tips (www.k9-1.com) - YouTube

_'Let's see how bad U are, Rocky...'_  what's the dog really learning? 
*that growling does not work - this @$$! is deaf, or has a death-wish.* :mad5:


----------



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

I didn't check their website. I saw that video and it's hit me! That how look training form many of dogs!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Andromeda said:


> How not to train a dog - Alpha Roll by K9-1.com - YouTube


BTW - these are the guys that were on _'It's Me or The Dog'_ when everybody 
was upset with Victoria for having their business-name & these trainers associated in the minds 
of J. Q. Public with positive-reinforcement, reward-based, coercion-free training... 
*which IMO, as shown in their videos, is very inaccurate.*

somebody[ies?] on Vic Stilwell's crew got it WRONG; a form-letter won't make it RIGHT - Pet Forums Community


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> the bummer is that these guys, IMO, are not at all reward-based trainers.
> 
> this particular video gives that impression - that they avoid coercion, ridicule dominance,
> that pack-theory is not their explanation for undesired behavior in our dogs.
> ...


Amen.

xxx


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> the bummer is that these guys, IMO, are not at all reward-based trainers.
> 
> this particular video gives that impression - that they avoid coercion, ridicule dominance,
> that pack-theory is not their explanation for undesired behavior in our dogs.
> ...


I agree with you and since I am not so nice, I say these guys(Mike D'abruzzo and Earl something) are total pylons (ie. just taking up space), like LFL mentions they are punishment based trainers and they induce defensive aggression so often, they normally train while wearing bite suits.

I train French ring and Schutz and while I lived in Europe KNPV and NVBK and if there is one thing every club guy knows is to stay away from the macho, bluster "I train protection dogs" poseurs. Those guys are dangerous.

Anyways, here is a short article displaying their 'wisdom'


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> Anyways, here is a short article displaying their 'wisdom'


the link didn't come thru, Cory. 
?? could U try again? _thanks.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> the link didn't come thru, Cory.
> ?? could U try again? _thanks.


Trying to bring back dominance

"Dominance in Dog Training Debunked" or is it? | Self Help Dog Training - Blog


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

"my comment is awaiting moderation", :lol: 


> Terry Pride - August 22, 2011 at 1-am
> Your comment is awaiting moderation._
> 
> Dogs are dogs  a domestic species, which species by definition are changed by domesticity.
> ...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I thought the article was okay. :001_unsure: 

I didn't like the videos they have up where they are using flooding. On saying that, the kind of dogs they're working with I would never come across anyway, so would neither want, nor need to learn these kind of techniques. 

The main problem I see with those kind of videos is that they look like bragging and self promotion and I see no need for them to be in the public domain tbh. People with aggressive pet dogs shouldn't think they need to dress up in armor and provoke an attack to cure their dog. 

The dog with the food guarding issues looked very distressed to me. I would have thought there were better methods to use, if you don't want to cause distress, even if the methods appear to work. 

I think that people are sometimes made to feel too soft and guilty about the way they treat their pets if they don't bully them a bit, but I didn't read the article as promoting violence, or bullying, just arguing against the normal perception of the word dominance, arguing semantics.

jmho


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> ...I didn't read the article as promoting violence, or bullying, just arguing against the normal perception
> of the word dominance, arguing semantics.


*dominance* has a very specific definition, in behavioral science. 
i'm not going to repeat it here - anyone who wants to find the definition, is more than capable of doing so.

this article did not use dominance in that sense; it warped the meaning as if it were reflected in a funhouse mirror.

we can't discuss anything logically, if we cannot agree on a common meaning of terms. 
if i announced that *genetics* included the study of acquired characteristics, i'd be lambasted by scientists.
genetics studies genes: their actions, heritability patterns, switches on & off, & so on. No-one would accept 
that 'genetics' includes the study of heritability of docked-tails, as Lamarck did many years ago. 
if acquired traits were heritable, Dobes & GSPs would whelp docked puppies.

giving *dominance* a new meaning & labeling practically every possible unwanted behavior 'dominance' 
makes logical discussion impossible. When pulling on leash, exiting or entering doors first, & jumping-up 
are 'dominance', any attempt at discussion becomes either a fantasy or a nightmare.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

This post seems to explain what they are doing in the food aggression video. I'm on their mailing list, they are not as sinister as you may think. Whether you like them or not, at least they show accurate examples of easily abused techniques.

Protective Gloves and Extinction in Dog Aggression Rehab | Self Help Dog Training - Blog



> 'Let's see how bad U are, Rocky...' what's the dog really learning?
> that growling does not work - this @$$! is deaf, or has a death-wish.


BTW, I think the reason the dogs are there is because they are NOT growling first. All seem to have bad bite inhibition and listed as having a bite history. "bit off finger for putting on leash"!? ouch!!

I'm not getting the impression that these are typical "growling at the food bowl" cases. And, all the dogs certainly seem to be improved. Considering many trainers would have beat the s**t out of these dogs and others would have recommended euthanasia, I don't understand what the problem is?

My interpretation to "what's the dog really learning?" is that biting does not work and you will get a treat if you don't bite. Am I the only one that sees that? I don't see the dogs getting worse.

I also noticed they responded to Terry's comment on their "dominance" post.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> "my comment is awaiting moderation", :lol:


this is Mike's personal reply... 
Bear in mind, i've never met the man; i've no idea if he's one of the folks shown in the clips & if so, which, etc. 


> _ your lovely blog post
> 
> FROM: [email protected]
> TO: this...
> ...


Mike also wrote to a fellow-trainer that i engaged in _'child-like bashing... across the web, 
based on assumptions...'_ 
i can only respond to what i *see* in the videos; it has zip to do with the person, it's about the methods & tools 
which are suggested &/or shown.

in the same personal-message, he said - 


> _ She posted on another BB [bulletin-board] her "pending" comment to my blog with a rolling-around
> laughing smiley indicating she was starting issues. _


now *there* is a massive leap of assumption: 
my *"*:lol:*"* referred entirely to the _*pending*_ status, it had sod-all to do with 'starting issues'. :thumbdown: 
i responded point by point to statements that i disagreed with, as they appeared in the post. 
logical rebuttal is not 'starting issues' - it's discussion, which anyone should be prepared for, once they post 
an opinion publicly.

since PF-uk is the only forum on which i posted my message, & it also is the one with the :lol: icon, 
this must be the post referred to - but the conclusions drawn are not even close to the facts.

he says that he has difficulty writing _'to people like (me) as a respectable peer',_ 
& in his message to my colleague stated that, _'I do not consider her a professional...'_ 
hmmm. :huh: sticking to the issues, i stand by my statements.

i think i'm in excellent company, as David Mech, PhD, who published the original research *& later retracted 
his erroneous conclusions about wolves, pack behavior & etc,* is among those i agree with; his later research 
with wild-wolves observed in their own environs utterly disproved the earlier studies of captive assemblages that 
were made-up of unrelated wolves stuck in a pen together. A bonded pair & their offspring in a wild setting 
behave nothing like a random assortment of wolves plopped in a pen, & told to live together & deal with it. 
And they should not be expected to behave the same: self-selecting one's mate & rearing one's pups is far 
different from being stuck in an inescapable cage with others of one's species, & expected to get on 
with living; the captive wolves came from anywhere & everywhere, in stark contrast to young wolves who disperse
from their natal pack, & are very-much aware of neighboring packs - they may choose to court a mate 
from a pack they've known thru scents encountered since puphood.

familiarity & virtual-encounters via scent are IMO good things; i use them often, when working with dogs 
who are reactive or fearful of other dogs, as well as to introduce cats to dogs, or cats to other cats - 
as housecats are _*much!*_-more territorial & intolerant of a total stranger invading their space & their home-turf 
than are most average-dogs.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

greg1 said:


> ...they show accurate examples of easily abused techniques.
> Protective Gloves and Extinction in Dog Aggression Rehab | Self Help Dog Training - Blog


the technique shown is *flooding* & it's one that i would never use, nor would i recommend it.

provoking a dog to react, repeatedly, is not IMO helpful; rehearsing the undesired behavior 
is very specifically something i tell pet-owners & clients to *avoid - * preventing undesired behavior 
via management, & making desired behavior easy to do, then rewarding it when the dog performs it, 
is by far IMO the better option.

'learned helplessness' is not a desirable state; i want the learner to be operant & engaged, 
not shut-down & unresponsive, not inhibited from acting but *freely choosing to act in ways 
that are preferable to their past behavior, or that are the desired behaviors in this context - 
because they've learned that these preferable or desired behaviors are rewarded.*

it makes no difference if the learner is a 4-YO child, a 4-WO pup, a 4-MO foal, a 40-YO parrot - 
i want them to choose to do what is 'wanted' in this scenario, VS avoid doing something UNwanted 
in order to avoid an aversive consequence.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

I think he makes it pretty clear that the technique is extinction and not flooding. He has a separate post on flooding.

You can definitely see the difference in the two techniques which in my opinion is difficult to find focused examples of (in regards to aggression).

Can extinction not be used to teach a dog that has learned in the past that biting produces a desired result? And, that it now no longer produces that result?

He then goes on to counter condition with treats or perhaps he is rewarding the behavior of not biting? Either way, the dogs are not too stressed out to accept treats or "shut-down & unresponsive" in anyway. 

The dog in the flooding video (different blog post) does, however, certainly look frightened. I do not think this dog would take treats if it is any indicator of anything. THIS dog he admits he is flooding.

He writes that there IS a gray area. As I wrote before, whether you like him or not, from what I see he shows accurate examples of techniques done in a controlled way.

I would not do what he is doing, but for educational purposes I think the posts are useful to the student dog trainer.

I would prefer to make a judgment and choice about the proper use of flooding based on his rather controlled videos instead of watching the "other guy" on TV who makes a chaotic scene out of it. I also believe he uses correct terminology.

I believe there may be a use for this stuff, but not for the amateur or average pet owner. He also clarifies this in his post.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

He writes:



> Using extinction during dog training can be bordering on the technique flooding. Flooding in most cases should be reserved for emergencies. One of the major differences between flooding and extinction in dog training is whether the dog seems to be able to make a choice whether or not to bite (dealing with extinction) or if the biting is done due to a flight or fight response (dealing with flooding). Also, in order to be considered extinction the behavior must be one that was previously reinforced. Sometimes the difference between the two is a judgement call. Extinction and flooding are not the same, but there is a grey area.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

Terry,

I'm a little confused. you write concerning the k9-1 post on wolf/dog comparison:



> i think i'm in excellent company, as David Mech, PhD, who published the original research & later retracted
> his erroneous conclusions about wolves, pack behavior & etc, is among those i agree with; his later research
> with wild-wolves observed in their own environs utterly disproved the earlier studies of captive assemblages that
> were made-up of unrelated wolves stuck in a pen together. A bonded pair & their offspring in a wild setting
> ...


Does dog dynamics in the home more mimic the studies of captive wolves? After rereading the post and the comments, that seems to be the point he was trying to make. He claims that he is more in align with Dr. Mech's statement than the APDT.

This was his response to your comment:



> Hi Terry,
> Thanks for your feedback. With all due respect, I highly HIGHLY recommend that you join my website and/or buy the book The Domestic Dog edited by James Serpell.
> This book is comprehensive, state-ofthe-art account of the domestic dogs natural history and behavior based on scientific and scholarly evidence rather than hearsay or dog politics.
> Here is a video that I have done that was largely inspired by some of the information in the book:
> ...


He definitely doesn't seem to take criticism well! But, what are your thoughts on his response? If you remove his own "hissy fit", his points seem to be clear cut and make sense. I think everyone agrees (including Mike D'Abruzzo) that Cesar Milan alpha roll style dominance is bogus, but is it possible the APDT could have been a little more careful when writing such a bold statement? As a student of dog training I have been having a hard time swallowing the APDT statement myself and kind of agree that it seems like they are overcompensating for the popularity of Cesar style "dominance is the reason for everything" movement that was rising about the time that statement was put out.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

greg1 said:


> ...what are your thoughts on his response?


i think for a professional, he is remarkably personal in his reply. 
i also think that continuing my convo with him would be pointless - we disagree. Let that stand.

i also think the USA-apdt needs to get off that barbed-wire fence & stand for something, rather than be all things 
to any & all methods, and tools, and trainers. *if anything* their statement is too milk-toast for my taste. 
i think that AVSAB & the *Welfare in Dog-Training* signatories say it much better; frankness suits the issue, 
not hinting & implications & maybes & perhapses, but *statements*.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

greg1 said:


> Can extinction not be used to teach a dog that has learned... that biting produces a desired result?
> And, that it now no longer produces that result?


EXTINCTION is the systematic withdrawal of any reinforcement for a target behavior.

PROVOKING a dog to bite is not 'extinction', as it *elicits the behavior via a known trigger.*

ergo, only if this person is willing to redefine the entire established lexicon of terms involved, could this be accurate; 
the trainer is misapplying terms - we cannot discuss anything if we cannot agree upon specific terms, their use, 
& a common definition; if i steal money from strangers in the street & call the proceeds _*'donations'*,_ 
the local police are very unlikely to agree with my term - & the victims of my theft would not, either.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

> EXTINCTION is the systematic withdrawal of any reinforcement for a target behavior.
> 
> PROVOKING a dog to bite is not 'extinction', as it elicits the behavior via a known trigger.


Yes, this is extinction. "provoking" (going near food dish, picking up dog, clipping nails) is the antecedent that previously caused the dogs to bite. The bite was previously reinforced with the human withdrawing from the dog's space.

The reinforcement of the human withdrawing is systematically removed.

*This is extinction.* Then, he adds positive reinforcement (treat) to encourage the behavior of NOT biting.

Not your typical training plan, but it does seem thought out. It certainly is not *flooding* as you stated before.

If you can not see this than I guess I will agree to disagree with you and move on.



> we cannot discuss anything if we cannot agree upon specific terms, their use,
> & a common definition


Agreed, i'll leave this thread in peace.

PS. Whatever he did, it worked.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

There is a difference:

Flooding in Dog Training

and there is a link to cesar's flooding in the comments.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> EXTINCTION is the systematic withdrawal of any reinforcement for a target behavior.
> 
> PROVOKING a dog to bite is not 'extinction', as it *elicits the behavior via a known trigger.*
> 
> ...


Like many other trainers who think they know more than the sum total of the scientific community, these two jokers often rely on unorthodox (less polite word is f-ed up) definitions to sell their view. They are modern day snake oil salesmen and nothing more.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

Jokers yes. But, snake oil salesmen? Really?:huh:

This is work they have done for shelter dogs:

Urgent! Please Help Putnam Humane Society ! - YouTube

They have also led the bomb dog teams during the 9-11 recovery efforts...

Here, is the most unbiased and accurate video I can find on operant conditioning and EXTINCTION as it relates to dog training, and it is done by them:

Operant Conditioning in Dog Training - A lesson from the Dog Training Guys! (K9-1.com) - YouTube

Without a doubt it must be something personal. None of the logic here has been making sense to me. They may not agree with the sum of the dog training community, but certainly are on track with the scientific community. How are they not? Please explain without resorting to name calling.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

greg1 said:


> Please explain without resorting to name calling.


i didn't call ANYONE names - but please stop beating a dead-horse.

i strongly disagree that this is anything but *flooding*. The persons posting the video certainly can label 
their methods as anything they like - but if they want to discuss something, we must AGREE on definitions.

simply re-posting the same claim, over & over, does not make it more valid.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

greg1 said:


> Jokers yes. But, snake oil salesmen? Really?:huh:


Yes, snake oil salemen try to sell you something useless under the guise that it will help. Their adherence to dominance fall under that and so do many other of their ideas.

They have also led the bomb dog teams during the 9-11 recovery efforts...



> Here, is the most unbiased and accurate video I can find on operant conditioning and EXTINCTION as it relates to dog training, and it is done by them:


That's got to be the most daft argument I've ever hear. Hey look these guys are right. Here is a video saying they are right.  It's flooding. And large tracks of what they say is outdated nonsense or pseudoscience double speak. And I will insult them. As a working scientist I have no tolerance for quacks to pervert the work of my fellow scientists for their profit.


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

A business that has been around since 1998, has a perfect BBB rating, run by a trainer with excellent credentials, and has no searchable complaints by any clients is a quack?

THEY are quacks considering the overall low standards for who may call themselves dog trainers in the world?

With all the people out their just beating up dogs with no rhyme or reason, THEY are quacks?! 

You say:


> i didn't call ANYONE names


but you say in this same thread:



> I say these guys(Mike D'abruzzo and Earl something) are total pylons (ie. just taking up space).


and



> They are modern day snake oil salesmen and nothing more.


and



> I have no tolerance for quacks


but, you give NO logical explanation to back up your name calling. I am a student of dog behavior and training and this stuff they are saying is right out of behavior modification textbooks!

Unless anyone comes along that makes an ounce of sense, I am finished with this thread.

Come for logical explanations and get vague statements and name-calling. But, have convinced me of NOTHING.

FINISHED HERE! Have fun and call me names too if you wish.

You have already confirmed what all the fit about them is really about.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

greg1 said:


> You say:
> 
> but you say in this same thread:
> 
> ...


I said: 


> i didn't call ANYONE names.


*Corinthian said:*


> I say these guys... are total pylons (ie. just taking up space).


*Cory also said:*


> They are modern day snake oil salesmen and nothing more.


* and Cory also said: *


> I have no tolerance for quacks


_Please attribute accurately - sloppy attribution is inexcusable, 
there is a 'Quote' function which will accurately tag excerpts.

My NAME is in my signature - there's no excuse for confusing my statements 
with anyone else, & unlike U, i do not use a pseudonym or make anonymous posts.

*please EDIT and correct Ur prior post, 'greg'.*_


----------



## greg1 (Jun 18, 2011)

Apologies to Terry and Cory,

Cory DOES call people names and Terry does NOT call people names.

But, I think BOTH do not understand what the difference is between "extinction" and "flooding" when used to modify aggressive behavior.

I think K9-1 has interesting information and didn't understand all the fuss. They think they are bad news.

Cory seems to *passionately* dislike them.

Terry is the only one who uses her real name.

I am not good at the quote tool.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Did I cover everything? Can we close this out?


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

greg1 said:


> A business that has been around since 1998, has a perfect BBB rating, run by a trainer with excellent credentials, and has no searchable complaints by any clients is a quack?


Quacks are snake oil salemen. Since, I consider them snake oil peddlers based on their pitch, it also qualifies them as quacks. Neither length of business nor lack of complaints is proof against quackery.

And take note of this icon







when responding to multiple posters


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

To my understanding, this is an example of both extinction and flooding? 

Extinction is present, but through negative reinforcement (the aversive stimulus does not remove when the dog is being aggressive- it is not positively reinforced as in previous situations). 

Flooding is also present, because they have intentionally pushed the dog over threshold by putting the dog in the highly stressful situation- however, they do not aim to just make the dog 'get over it', so flooding is not the main technique being used here.

Regardless of terminology, I think we all agree that this is not the best way of doing things. It isn't the safest, it isn't the most humane and it isn't the most high percentage.

What is the dog learning here? That biting the stranger with the bite arm is not reinforcing? Is that all?

Dogs need proofing and in any other behaviour modification technique, every family member would practise the training technique. They obviously are not getting every family member to do this, though.

I don't know how the dog is doing now, but I certainly wouldn't trust the dog in its original situation with the owners, in the home, just because he stopped biting in the training centre.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> Flooding is also present, because they have intentionally pushed the dog over threshold by putting the dog
> in the highly stressful situation...
> I think we all agree that this is not the best way of doing things. It isn't the safest, it isn't the most humane
> & it isn't the... [highest percent-success].


Agreed. :nonod: provocation is IMO a very-bad choice; specific to *biting*, it is very-likely 
to damage the dog's *bite-inhibition*, that highly-important, very precise control of bite pressure. 


Rottiefan said:


> Dogs need proofing and in any other behaviour modification technique, every family member would practise
> the training technique. They obviously are not getting every family member to do this, though.
> 
> I don't know how the dog is doing now, but I certainly wouldn't trust the dog in his original situation -
> with the owners, in [their] home, just because he stopped biting in the training centre.


also agreed: 
practice makes permanent, & dogs are notorious for not generalizing easily or readily.

Example:
* that I can handle an over-excited dog in a crowd of strangers & other dogs, at a Bark in the Park, 
does not imply that the owner or the owner's best-buddy can handle the dog equally well. * 
- the dog has a HISTORY with the owner: both of them have habitual responses to one another's actions. 
those habits are often unconscious, making them very-hard to break - it requires strict awareness.

- also, i have assiduously-practiced handling skills with a leash, which most owners have not learned, 
NOT because they are dumb or clumsy, but because no-one has taught them how to handle a leash well. 
no-one develops beautiful penmanship by writing a phrase 500 times till their hands cramp; they must watch 
as each letter is formed, practice each letter, assemble letters into words, learn to space them legibly, 
& so on. Complex learning takes both muscular & intellectual feedback, & consistent practice.

it's the *consistent* part that's most difficult, with dogs & humans: no child acts with the decisive 
& co-ordinated grace of an adult who has practiced a maneuver for years, & we cannot expect them to do so.

family-dogs do not respond to aged elders, clumsy toddlers, impatient teens, & casual, hurried adults 
in the same exact way - and those may all be *members of one family*. 
expand it to the public street and every passerby, & the variables are infinite: strange [to the dog] 
dress, accessories, behavior, speech, gait, scent [DIFFERENT DIET = different odor], *expectations: *

there are people who expect every dog to adore attention from strangers & accept petting anytime. 
there are equally people who expect every dog to be erratic, untrustworthy, snappish or even 'vicious'.

i tend to restrict 'vicious' as an adjective to human-behavior, as it requires forethought. i DON't think that dogs - 
or horses or elephants or parrots or lions or rattlesnakes or ______ - pre-plan an assault to maximize injury. 
OTOH i know doggone well that some people deliberately plan to torture, kill, maim or emotionally injure others, 
whether their intended victim is human or non-human.

dogs act in the moment - & generalization for dogs takes time, practice, & multiple contexts. 
i think convincing a dog that BITING does not work, inside a training center with a gauntleted handler, 
is not only a high-priced version of teasing, but does not imply that the same dog won't bite another person 
with force, outside the training center, who is NOT wearing gauntlets - & the dog won't be tethered, either.

:thumbdown: 
IMO & IME, it's a bad technique. I would never recommend it, & i would never use it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

greg1 said:


> A business that... has a perfect BBB rating... & has no searchable complaints
> by any clients is a quack?


just a factoid for future reference: 
*the Better Business Bureau discards all their records every 3-years. 
the presumption is that the person complained about may have left, management changed, etc, 
over 36-months.* they also discard all records if the management changes, the Board-members change, etc. 
*many businesses use this to their advantage. * that there 'are no complaints' does not mean 
that there were none 3-mos or 6-mos or a year ago, or even last week - it depends entirely upon 
how recently there was a change in Admin, BoD, or other company details.

EXAMPLE from my past experience:
i worked for an "employment agency" for 3-weeks & never earned a dime; it was all done on commission, 
the established staffers got the most-qualified clients to 'sell', & they were extremely shady. THEY TOLD MY CLIENT 
over the phone that she was going to be SUED for changing her mind, & deciding to look for a job on her own. 
THEY TOLD HER that she would be charged $200 for each of 4 interviews that i had set-up for her that day, 
which BTW is illegal, as according to their own contract, she only owed us $$ if we GOT HER A JOB. 
i listened to this entire phone-call *to my client* from the top-earning staffer; she was sobbing audibly 
when that filthy, lying *#&*$%#!* hung-up. I gave her 10-minutes to recover; 
_then i called her at home, TOLD HER that what he had said was untrue & illegal, 
& further told her that if he phoned her, she could charge him with harassment. 
then i gave her the phone-number of the legal-office that would respond to her complaint, told her 
how to file for free, assured her that they had no grounds to pursue a claim, & wished her well.

then i went into the boss's office, & quit my 'job'. :thumbdown: that company HAD NO COMPLAINTS 
on record, either; they systematically ripped-off desperate people, threatened, lied, 
badgered, omitted facts, misrepresented their contracts, etc.

THEY ALSO shuffled the deck every year: the Prez became CFO, the CFO became CEO, the Chairman 
became the COO, etc; & the Better Business Bureau promptly discarded their entire file.

businesses who do not want to appear in the BBB's bad-books can easily evade that fate. _


----------

