To me that doesn't mean it isn't trolling. This thread was posted months ago as something that affected an established member of the forums, it was discussed in some depth and then dropped because this is a computer modification forum primarily. I can quite see why you would want to discuss this topic with other interested people but I don't think people on this forum are interested any more, we've discussed it already. Why did you feel the need to respond? Moriquendi
No, we aren't trying to prove we are better than anyone. Service Dog handers are a unique community and have to deal with a lot in our quest to live a normal life. We face public access challenges, comments, and horrible reactions from the public every single day. The only way to stop this is for every SD handler to hold themselves to an unapproachable level of decorum, and to educate those who do not.
Honestly, I didn't know this was a dead thread. The link took us directly to the thread and I didn't look at the date. If you are so uninterested....why do keep replying?
It's quite obviously not trolling. A troll's sole intent is to start an argument for the sake of an argument, which clearly isn't the case in this instance. Which means if anybody is trolling in this thread, then it's you. I don't see what the problem is, these forums are public and anyone can read or post in them. It doesn't matter whether someone is an established member of the community or is visiting for the first time as long as they have something constructive to add to the thread, which in this case is a different perspective and viewpoint that hasn't yet been expressed. May I also draw to your attention that this is the 'General' section of the forums, which means that pretty much everything but computer modifications are discussed in here, so it is entirely relevant. It also doesn't matter if people on the forums aren't interested. There are plenty of threads on these forums that don't interest me, I just don't bother reading them. I've actually only just read this thread for the first time, and have found it quite interesting to listen to people's views on this (I work in a supermarket and have had to clean up my fair share of crap even though it isn't my job). Personally, although the member of staff could have been much more sympathetic given the situation, I agree that the owner of the service dog should take full responsibility for it at all times. After all, they have to look after it, feed it, care for it 24/7 - why should that change when they enter a supermarket? Do they not clear up after the dog outside of the shop?
Every post has the date at the top... To begin with I asked a question, whether anyone else was thinking that it was trolling, maybe my definition of what trolling is differs from yours. What I read was a first post which to me aggressively proposed an argument into a thread that went quiet months ago followed by another first post that also sounded to me somewhat aggressive. In my experience this has often turned out to be trolling. If it isn't then I apologise for asking a question and then presenting the reasons I asked it. Moriquendi
Heh, I thought it was spam for something, just missing the link to the dodgy website. Spam for service dog toilet training or something. It really doesn't help that the "service dog community" is trying to "defend" itself here. No defending is necessary, and it only shames these members of this community that they're willing to accuse - in hindsight, for a situation they weren't even near - one of their "members" for doing a bad job and making the day a slight bit more, dare I say, crappy for a "non-service dog community" person. I agree. But... What could Gooey_GUI or his daughter have done other than clean up - as they did - with things that were immediately available to them? He could've run through the aisles - leaving his daughter - to find a mop, scoop, bucket, garbage bags, bottles of water and cleaning detergents; then pay for them and use them.... but I think the initial embarrassment and thoughts of "OMG I've got to clean this up!" blocked that thought out of his head. The fact is that the staff member could've been more sympathetic, not necessarily towards the situation (dog crapping on the floor), but to the feelings of those involved. It wasn't a pet, it was a service dog. Gooey_GUI dealt with it the best he could. The employee wasn't very sympathetic, but that's also understandable - nobody likes cleaning up dog crap. I wouldn't like it at my wage, and I'm sure a WalMart employee makes a lot less than I do. But, I would. I'd bitch about it afterwards, yes; but I'd clean it up. Because it's my job; and I do my job because I made a commitment to my employer stating that he'd pay me for doing said job. The dog, however, never signed a contract - nor could he be expected to - that he wouldn't have an unplanned number two on a shop floor... And, from whatever forum or background you come - service dog owners or not - or whatever the situation; it's always extremely easy to judge in hindsight. Yes, it could've been dealt with better. In hindsight. In hindsight, I could've been a ****ing millionaire by now. We all could've. But we didn't have that same hindsight ten years ago, did we? To summarise: **** happens. **** literally happened. **** literally got cleaned up. It was a one-time accident. The privilige of hindsight is only blurring our views.
Holy thread revival batman. I can understand why the dog handler community would state that gooey_gui should have been more responsible and allowed his/his daughters dog to do its business. As he said he had done before they went into the store we can only assume he is telling the truth. We cannot say the dog was not ill, and could have needed to toilet because of this. We cannot say the dog was not new, or the handlers not new so would not be used to this. In fact we cannot say anything other than what has been told to us already. Any statements about bad handlers or any other information not already stated would be pure conjecture, so I think we should leave this as is and get back on with our lives. Could be good if this was closed.
this kinda reminds me of this story about moscow dogs being smarter than average http://englishrussia.com/?p=2462.. without the dumps
I'm sorry that you feel that we are attacking you. We are trying to educate you for the benefit for all service dog handlers. If your daughter is in Oregon (as your profile says you are), you should inform her that Oregon does not grant Service Dogs in Training public access, so having a dog that is in training in Wal Mart is illegal. The ADA grants public access rights only for fully trained Service Dogs, states handle public access for Service Dogs in Training. Some grant full public access rights, some limited and some none. Here is the link to Oregon's Service Dog laws... http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusorguidedoglaws.htm
OK, then your adult daughter should have known it was her job to completely clean up behind her dog. That includes small smears. Either way, the SD community frowns on situations like this for a reason. What one handler does can literally affect all of us. Neither of us (Lilfarfa or myself) need your little lecture about invisible disabilities as both of us have them; our responsibilities as a handler remain the same - know our animal, make sure it is trained appropriately/maintains such training, know which state laws are applicable for where ever we may be, and to pick up behind it. Quite honestly, most handlers I know, would have horrified that their dog did something like that. They certainly wouldn't want any family members posting about it online.
Although we value the input of new perspectives by obviously informed members on any topic (regardless of the age of the thread), we do try to keep conversation pleasant. Yes, discussions can get heated but usually it is all in good spirits. I'm not sure that entering the debate with such a strongly challenging first post is very constructive however, especially when it does not appear to acknowledge the facts. People will pick up on the attitude ("And who are you, stranger?") and not on the point that you try to make. Education is not brow-beating. It is easy to stand from the sidelines and wag your finger reproachfully while not in full possession of the facts (e.g. person's disability, familiarity with the dog, whether it had eaten something that disagreed with it etc.) but I'm not sure what it does except highlight your own discomfort with these situations. It feels a bit like the fraught mother whispering harshly: "Oh, for God's sake, stop embarrassing us!". It kind of colludes with the non-disabled public who cannot cope with the fact that, well, **** happens. As Imperium says: Indeed. **** happens. When it does, I like to think that we generally try to be civil about it and not add humiliation to a person's embarrassment. How many disabled people have lost control over their bladder for instance? Should we tell them reproachfully that they should take responsibility for their disability, "know their own bladder" and then lecture them on making sure to void it before going out (I bet they never thought of that, duh!) and having diapers or spare pants at the ready? After all they give other disabled people a bad name... don't they? No, it gives those who can't deal with ordinary human accidents and misfortunes a bad name. Like the fraught mother whispering loudly at her child to stop embarrasing her, it is she who is making a show of herself and drawing all the unwanted attention.
..How is this still going on? It was some dog ****. It was cleaned up. I'd wager that, unless reminded, the cleaner has forgotten the whole thing.
The problem isn't these things happening. The problem is that a portion of the general public have to be complete a-holes when something unfortunate happens. Just look at the media. People just complain about everything and just sit on the sideline telling everybody else what they should do, completely disregarding the fact that they themselves may be the source of the problem. If more people tried to be more helpful, we wouldn't have problems like this. For instance, how often do you see "young" (15-50) people hold doors open for the person that's following them? Not many of those left. It takes next to no effort, but could make someones day a tiny bit better. (Yes, it could.)
