mn hq, is it really wise to have topics that are deamed so agressive/scary that most members don't want to post there?

I've just found the thread about the two puppies, again I didn't the advise the abusive, honest and straightforward yes but no personal attacks were made against the op and the advise was sound advise.

The op is the one who started the name calling. Perhaps the advise could have been worded more softly, but last time I checked this was an adult forum and not a creche. What the op was proposing to do was unsafe for the pups in question, particularly in Ireland where puppy farming is rife and downright nasty to the poor bitch who is to be locked in a garden all alone, day in day out, at risk of theft (by dog fighters or puppy farmers), bored and lonely and possibly exposed to the elements.

I read about Floyd earlier and have donated to his cause and will most likely donate again in the near future, however, other than the extremeness of Floyd's case I see little difference between his plight and that of the poor bitch locked in a garden all alone day in day out, both are neglectfull and cruel.

That is not a personal attack on the op of the other thread by the way, but it is my opinion and I don't see why I should condone her behaviour to make her feel better about her choices, when ultimately it is the dog and the pups who will end up suffering.

Threads like those are an extreme example. People asking for advise on regular, everyday problems with their dogs are given good, supportive advise.

If someone was to propose to neglect or endanger their child on a different board of MN I expect the responses would be much less tame than they are on the doghouse section, this does not mean that normal, responsible parents are not supported accross MN. I fail to see the difference?

It's a red herring to talk about whether advice is 'honest'. You can be honestly mean and nasty, and honestly nice and helpful.

IME, 'honest' is code for 'downright nasty and I should be ashamed of myself, but I let my emotions get the better of me and can't admit it.'

honest isn't an excuse for 'mean'
passionate isn't an excuse for 'aggressive'

That is what this thread is about. An aggressive tone, directed at posters who ask advice about a less than ideal circumstance.

Who would dream about being so aggressive to a woman who was considering placing their child for adoption because they didn't feel they could cope with their pregnancy/baby?

Who would dream of be so aggressive to a woman who was considering abortion in the same circumstances?

I am fairly passionate about that subject, but you will never find me telling a woman that I feel that abortion is murder, or that she shouldn't be considering it, etc. Why? Because that woman has enough on her plate without some faceless stranger shovelling guilt on her shoulders.

I came across this article yesterday.

THAT is abuse. THAT is neglect. Not rehoming a dog who you realise will not get the best life living with you.

Take that back, I am not wrong, just checked.
The thread about having to sell puppies had the op link to another thread. Where an argument was continued, that is what I am trying to say the OP was out of order for.
Bloody illness.

Maybe not, but condoning her choice would also be wrong. She was not spoken to in an abusive way on the first thread. She was offered excellent advise by all posters concerned and sympathy from quite a few. A select few chose to withhold sympathy as they struggled to understand why she had taken on such a huge responsibilty at such a turbulent time in her life, but she was not abused or bullied or attacked.

Imo she wasn't abused as such on the second thread. She wasn't supported, by any means, but no personal attacks were made against her character. Why should she have been supported in endangering her dog for the sake of cash when she was offered such good advise in the first thread?

Sorry DooIn think I got the wrong end of the stick
Still feeling by it all tbh.
I feel ill too so blame that

Dooin so you think it is acceptable for a bereaved widow to be spoken to in the manner in which she was (per the link earlier in the thread?). Mind you most of the comments in question have now been deleted by mumsnet.

I can only see a link to one thread and it's the one where the poster was offered a shed load of advise on how to rehome her dog safely, ignored it all and rehomed to a home that was wholly unsuitable because they were willining to pay £££ and a rescue could not have afforded to and then came back expecting sympathy. When she got none she cried "Oh but I am a widow" half of MN who had not seen the original thread then jumped to her defense, ignoring the fact that she had placed not only her own puppy in a precarious position, but also the existing dog in the home, all for the sake of a few pounds.

Where is the other thread?

It did start off abit irrate yes, but not enough to call the other posters bitches and to follow on with another argument on a seperate thread and link it.
I think it has all gone to far tbh. If you ask for advice you have to take the good and the bad.
I got flamed pretty bad on the doghouse once when talking about rehoming a pup of mine, but I have also been flamed on AIBU, Chat and other 'harmless' boards. It is not just the doghouse that can be 'scary' IYKWIM. :)

Really? The thread bought up in question here was about rehoming 2 pups for their sake and although the OP did get some advice eventually it was only after quite a few angry faces and censure at her even letting the bitch fall pregnant.

Didn't look very supportive to me.

Oh for the love of God. Really? How many times do we have to have this thread?

Imo the doghouse is not aggressive. Honest, yes, aggressive, no. Unfortunately the truth when it comes to dog welfare is more often than not not very pretty at all.

Posters are not asked not to rehome their dogs via Gumtree or their dogwalker for the sake of being nasty. It's to aviod situations where the dog ends up in the wrong hands. I read a story on the net about a dog being rehomed privately. I can't find it now, it was on a local forum somewhere. Not long after rehoming the dog came back to the original owners in a dire state. He died at the vets, suspected poisoning. The 'buyer' had only wanted a stud dog to put with his bitch. When the rehomed dog would not 'perform' he was beaten, burnt and poisoned and eventually returned to the original owners. You might think this is rare. I wish it was. Unfortunately it is all too common. I know of two dogs personally who have faced similar abuse in private rehomes gone wrong.

People do have strong opinions on rescue vs breeders, mainly because they work with rescue dogs and face the reality of what happens to abandoned pets day in day out. It's a job I could not do. I help from a distance via fostering and fundraising. I could not cope with being on the front line, trying and failing to get dogs out of pounds where they are to be killed and into rescues, where space is short.

I do not know of a single poster who would berate someone for buying a Pedigree puppy from a reputable breeder. I know which poster most of you are referring to and I have seen her point people in the direction of god breeders despite her personal beliefs. I have seen her offer advise to pedigree pup owners, without mentioning the fact that the pup is a pedigree.

When it comes to the likes of buying off Gumtree etc. posters are advised not to do this for their own safety as much as anything else. When it comes to freeads, puppy farmers and backyard breeders it is not a case of differing opinions. Buying from any of the above is a danger to both the buyer and the puppy. There are only two ways to safely accquire a dog, this is either via a reputable rescue or a reputable breeder. This is not just my opinion. It is fact.

The doghouse is full of support. Any poster would be supported on any issue, even rehoming. No-one will be supported in making a choice which could potentially harm their dog. Why should they be?

I made a post earlier and have just checked up on the thread I was trying to defend.
I was wrong. I have just re read abit of that thread and the op was not being very cool.
I am sorry to try and defend the thread in question and have no other issues about the dog house. I personally as I said before find it a brilliant part of mn. :)

Well this thread has proved one of my theories about MN.

You can come on here and complain about your DC, DH, MIL, boss, neighbours, chatty till operators at Tesco - call them all bastards and be agreed with.

BUT if you have a little moan about your dog well then you had better be wearing a hard hat!! You will be destroyed!

Vizsla's don't have a dog smell. So ner.

Plus cats don't STINK. Like dogs do. And the owners cars. Ew

No you definitely don't Hall

That is because one does not own cats, but are tolerated by them. Totally different dynamic.

All I'll say is you never get this shit with cat owners

And, of course, WOOF
HTH

having a core of posters who all think and react in the same way does not mean that the prevailing attitude is right.

it just means that there is a clique. who are happy with the status quo

This is very true. I have never been in the doghouse, not having a dog but it equally applies to other subjects.
There are subjects where you will meet abuse if you do not agree with the very vocal majority. It appears that they speak for everyone, they do not, many people just get frightened off. I have been on 3 very contentious threads where I have had supportive emails from those who have seen the unpleasantness.

I don't own a dog and I don't post on the Doghouse but I've stumbled on the odd thread and I agree that some of the comments and attitudes on there are shocking. It's far, far more aggressive than breast and bottle or AIBU or any other corner of MN, and there is often no recognition at all of the fact that there is a human being, possibly a vulnerable one, on the other side of the screen.

And for all those people saying "well they also give great advice" - brilliant. Super. Lovely. But isn't it possible to give good advice without calling people cunts, murderers and lots of faces? Other topics seem to manage.

Besides which, there's no point in giving great advice if people are too scared to go and seek it out because of flying bullets.

Silverfrog has said it for me.

I have been pondering a complaint for a few days now having been part of a few threads recently but I hadn't realised this was here. Hopefully MNHQ will deal with as they see appropriate.

I'd never go anywhere near thedoghouse for information on a dog.

"having a core of posters who all think and react in the same way does not mean that the prevailing attitude is right."

Exactly. Just because the average MN doesn't give two hoots about animal welfare doesn't make it any less important. Back to my imaginary child-selling MN, if that was the status quo, imagine being one of the few posters who challenged that idea. You would start off gently, then, after repeating yourself hundreds of times, would start to get frustrated by the fact that to hundreds of MN, your plight is simply an irritation.

having a core of posters who all think and react in the same way does not mean that the prevailing attitude is right.

it just means that there is a clique. who are happy with the status quo.

Also applies to the feminist topic. I consider myself to be a non-militant feminist, ie wouldn't judge or condemn anyone else for holding different views.

But when I challenged someone's blatant sexism on a thread, I got such an aggressive response it was comical. I don't even read it now, which is a real shame.

well, just imagine how busy and thriving it could be if only it were just the teensiest bit welcoming...

having a core of posters who all think and react in the same way does not mean that the prevailing attitude is right.

it just means that there is a clique. who are happy with the status quo.

but to generate the amount of complaints it has here, and on other threads, then I wouldnt be proud to be part of a board like that, tbh.

I do think that if a significant number of posters state that they find a particular board to be unwelcoming, it makes sense for the contributing members of that board to take a step back and reassess. No one wants to be part of something that has a bad reputation, do they?