Television ratings re Prison Break vs Origin, as a example of the failings of a free market system (Attn Duggy, Fran)

[Ext User(Kirilenko)]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:25:59 +1000, "Chock" <chock@nospam.com> wrote:

>Background: Seven has Prison Break scheduled at 8.30pm on Wednesdays, and it
>rates quite well. Last week Nein broadcast the State Of Origin in the same
>timeslot as per usual, and Seven decided that rather than take a certain
>ratings loss (in the northern states) it would skip showing PB that week
>(although it did show a double episode the week before in lieu).

Actually the double episode is the week after, not before

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Kirilenko" <somewhere@outthere.com> wrote in message
news:rlqe92545cl6obmjl4j1fb04n77im1ic75@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:25:59 +1000, "Chock" <chock@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Background: Seven has Prison Break scheduled at 8.30pm on Wednesdays, and
it
> >rates quite well. Last week Nein broadcast the State Of Origin in the
same
> >timeslot as per usual, and Seven decided that rather than take a certain
> >ratings loss (in the northern states) it would skip showing PB that week
> >(although it did show a double episode the week before in lieu).
>
> Actually the double episode is the week after, not before

Er, wrong - there was a double episode shown in Sydney the week before the
Origin.


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150759074.993904.176720@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Anthony Horan wrote:
> > > On 19 Jun 2006 02:15:11 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chock wrote:
> > > >> LOL, actually I *would* say that spectators at a New Year's Eve
> fireworks
> > > >> display can be considered consumers of the service provided by the
> fireworks
> > > >> company.
> > > >
> > > > They aren't the consumer, they're the end-user.
> > >
> > > The end-user IS the consumer. Duh.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Businesses are consumers of what are called
> > "consumables" (e.g office supplies) which they may then pass on to
> > other consumers. A business that produced a hardcopy newsletter would
> > need paper, ink, prestamped envelopes, and would pass on the actula
> > newsletterts to its own paying subscribers, who would be the end users.
> >
> >
> > Similarly, a company that configures computers passes them on to
> > consumers who might or might not be end users, but they will rarerly be
> > the producers of the component parts. Further up the chain, the
> > suppliers of the component parts may be consumers of circuit boards or
> > transistors, and they in turn, consumers of tool and die machines and
> > raw materials.
> >
> > To be a consumer in the business sense you just need to trade something
> > valuable for it. An end user is simply a subset of the class
> > "consumers", and in the case of my dogs, who are certainly the
> > end-users of the dog food I buy, they are consumers in a non-business
> > sense. Perhaps such entities should be described as "non-commercial
> > consumers" in order to distinguish them.
> >
>
> I see your point that your dogs are merely end-users and you are the
> consumer. That fits in with my definition that the consumer is the one who
> makes the purchasing decision, and thus participates in the market. But I
> still stand by my other example that since I direct my sister what CD to
> purchase, I am the one making the purchasing decision, and thus
> participating in the market by influencing what specific band and what type
> of music is rewarded.
>
> In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but the people
> attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up or staying away,
> and so are driving the decision made by the council as to what fireworks
> company to procure based on their proposal and budget.

Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The Council has a
budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an expectation
amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The Council
offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that ticks all
the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go ahead on the
basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have no hard
data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the people
who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are ratepayers.
Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and generally
support it, even though many of them are closed when the fireworks are
on.

So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to the
decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is chosen to
actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks are not in
a position to support the people who put them on politically, though
ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay rates to
the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council in TV
rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have to
clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my dogs. I
assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like and go
ahead and decide on their behalf.


> The council is still
> merely the proxy.


see above

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150774716.776472.50690@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150759074.993904.176720@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
> > >
> > > Anthony Horan wrote:
> > > > On 19 Jun 2006 02:15:11 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Chock wrote:
> > > > >> LOL, actually I *would* say that spectators at a New Year's Eve
> > fireworks
> > > > >> display can be considered consumers of the service provided by
the
> > fireworks
> > > > >> company.
> > > > >
> > > > > They aren't the consumer, they're the end-user.
> > > >
> > > > The end-user IS the consumer. Duh.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. Businesses are consumers of what are called
> > > "consumables" (e.g office supplies) which they may then pass on to
> > > other consumers. A business that produced a hardcopy newsletter would
> > > need paper, ink, prestamped envelopes, and would pass on the actula
> > > newsletterts to its own paying subscribers, who would be the end
users.
> > >
> > >
> > > Similarly, a company that configures computers passes them on to
> > > consumers who might or might not be end users, but they will rarerly
be
> > > the producers of the component parts. Further up the chain, the
> > > suppliers of the component parts may be consumers of circuit boards or
> > > transistors, and they in turn, consumers of tool and die machines and
> > > raw materials.
> > >
> > > To be a consumer in the business sense you just need to trade
something
> > > valuable for it. An end user is simply a subset of the class
> > > "consumers", and in the case of my dogs, who are certainly the
> > > end-users of the dog food I buy, they are consumers in a non-business
> > > sense. Perhaps such entities should be described as "non-commercial
> > > consumers" in order to distinguish them.
> > >
> >
> > I see your point that your dogs are merely end-users and you are the
> > consumer. That fits in with my definition that the consumer is the one
who
> > makes the purchasing decision, and thus participates in the market. But
I
> > still stand by my other example that since I direct my sister what CD to
> > purchase, I am the one making the purchasing decision, and thus
> > participating in the market by influencing what specific band and what
type
> > of music is rewarded.
> >
> > In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but the people
> > attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up or staying
away,
> > and so are driving the decision made by the council as to what fireworks
> > company to procure based on their proposal and budget.
>
> Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The Council has a
> budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an expectation
> amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The Council
> offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that ticks all
> the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go ahead on the
> basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have no hard
> data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the people
> who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are ratepayers.
> Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and generally
> support it, even though many of them are closed when the fireworks are
> on.
>

Agree with all that (less the first sentence, LOL)

> So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to the
> decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is chosen to
> actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks are not in
> a position to support the people who put them on politically, though
> ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay rates to
> the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council in TV
> rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have to
> clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my dogs. I
> assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like and go
> ahead and decide on their behalf.
>
>

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the council sells TV rights to the event.

But, what would happen if no-one turned up the following year, because the
council chose a tenderer that failed to deliver? Or even if the talkback
radio stations were flooded with negative feedback after the unsuccessful
night in question? The council would have to reconsider its approach and
might do that by forming a committee from community representatives, or
surveying people, etc. So at least partly, the attendees/community is
driving the transaction as to which tenderer will be chosen next year. The
fact that most of them don't pay rates is irrelevant. As I said, it is fuzzy
but it is there.

As for your dogs ... I could even argue that your dogs do partly drive that
decision, as if they refused to eat something you served them, would you not
look for an alternative? ;-)

> > The council is still
> > merely the proxy.
>
>
> see above


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150774716.776472.50690@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> >
<snip>.
> > >
> > > In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but the people
> > > attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up or staying
> away,
> > > and so are driving the decision made by the council as to what fireworks
> > > company to procure based on their proposal and budget.
> >
> > Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The Council has a
> > budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an expectation
> > amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The Council
> > offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that ticks all
> > the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go ahead on the
> > basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have no hard
> > data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the people
> > who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are ratepayers.
> > Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and generally
> > support it, even though many of them are closed when the fireworks are
> > on.
> >
>
> Agree with all that (less the first sentence, LOL)
>
> > So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to the
> > decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is chosen to
> > actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks are not in
> > a position to support the people who put them on politically, though
> > ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay rates to
> > the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council in TV
> > rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have to
> > clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my dogs. I
> > assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like and go
> > ahead and decide on their behalf.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I'm pretty sure that the council sells TV rights to the event.
>
> But, what would happen if no-one turned up the following year, because the
> council chose a tenderer that failed to deliver?

They'd have to be absolutely crap. If they were only a little below
par, The Council might go with someone else the following year or not,
depending on the reasons for it.

> Or even if the talkback
> radio stations were flooded with negative feedback after the unsuccessful
> night in question? The council would have to reconsider its approach and
> might do that by forming a committee from community representatives, or
> surveying people, etc. So at least partly, the attendees/community is
> driving the transaction as to which tenderer will be chosen next year. The
> fact that most of them don't pay rates is irrelevant. As I said, it is fuzzy
> but it is there.
>

Well they probably should, but I suspect they wouldn't. It's not really
part of their core business the way garbage collection or maintenance
of parks and streets is.

> As for your dogs ... I could even argue that your dogs do partly drive that
> decision, as if they refused to eat something you served them, would you not
> look for an alternative? ;-)

Yes, of course. But my dogs are on a "seafood" diet. They see food and
they eat it. Sometimes they see possum poo or cat poo and they eat that
too. (Yuk!)

Some of the food that I know they'd eat, (and for all I know they'd
prefer), I deny them on health or cost or aesthetic grounds of course
(Pal makes them fart something shocking) and my Chi would happily scoff
down tubs of yoghurt, day-in day-out until he was balloon-shaped and
couldn't walk. So yes, I would, notionally, take their reluctance to
eat something into account, but I feed them what I think is best, ATC.

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150778364.828386.270520@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150774716.776472.50690@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> > >
> <snip>.
> > > >
> > > > In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but the
people
> > > > attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up or
staying
> > away,
> > > > and so are driving the decision made by the council as to what
fireworks
> > > > company to procure based on their proposal and budget.
> > >
> > > Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The Council has a
> > > budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an
expectation
> > > amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The Council
> > > offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that ticks all
> > > the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go ahead on
the
> > > basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have no
hard
> > > data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the people
> > > who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are ratepayers.
> > > Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and
generally
> > > support it, even though many of them are closed when the fireworks are
> > > on.
> > >
> >
> > Agree with all that (less the first sentence, LOL)
> >
> > > So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to the
> > > decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is chosen
to
> > > actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks are not
in
> > > a position to support the people who put them on politically, though
> > > ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay rates
to
> > > the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council in TV
> > > rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have to
> > > clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my dogs. I
> > > assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like and go
> > > ahead and decide on their behalf.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I'm pretty sure that the council sells TV rights to the event.
> >
> > But, what would happen if no-one turned up the following year, because
the
> > council chose a tenderer that failed to deliver?
>
> They'd have to be absolutely crap. If they were only a little below
> par, The Council might go with someone else the following year or not,
> depending on the reasons for it.
>

Of course - it was an extreme example. But you can still see the evidence in
decision making at that level from public feedback when expectations are not
met. Didn't Clover Moore get a bollocking one year because she attempted to
de-Christianise Christmas decorations in Sydney?

> > Or even if the talkback
> > radio stations were flooded with negative feedback after the
unsuccessful
> > night in question? The council would have to reconsider its approach and
> > might do that by forming a committee from community representatives, or
> > surveying people, etc. So at least partly, the attendees/community is
> > driving the transaction as to which tenderer will be chosen next year.
The
> > fact that most of them don't pay rates is irrelevant. As I said, it is
fuzzy
> > but it is there.
> >
>
> Well they probably should, but I suspect they wouldn't. It's not really
> part of their core business the way garbage collection or maintenance
> of parks and streets is.
>
> > As for your dogs ... I could even argue that your dogs do partly drive
that
> > decision, as if they refused to eat something you served them, would you
not
> > look for an alternative? ;-)
>
> Yes, of course. But my dogs are on a "seafood" diet. They see food and
> they eat it. Sometimes they see possum poo or cat poo and they eat that
> too. (Yuk!)
>
> Some of the food that I know they'd eat, (and for all I know they'd
> prefer), I deny them on health or cost or aesthetic grounds of course
> (Pal makes them fart something shocking) and my Chi would happily scoff
> down tubs of yoghurt, day-in day-out until he was balloon-shaped and
> couldn't walk. So yes, I would, notionally, take their reluctance to
> eat something into account, but I feed them what I think is best, ATC.
>

My dog's the opposite. He will only eat what he needs to so if I overfeed
him there's food left over. I think it's because he loves to run down at the
park and knows that being fat will impede this.


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150778364.828386.270520@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1150774716.776472.50690@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> > > >
> > <snip>.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but the
> people
> > > > > attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up or
> staying
> > > away,
> > > > > and so are driving the decision made by the council as to what
> fireworks
> > > > > company to procure based on their proposal and budget.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The Council has a
> > > > budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an
> expectation
> > > > amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The Council
> > > > offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that ticks all
> > > > the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go ahead on
> the
> > > > basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have no
> hard
> > > > data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the people
> > > > who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are ratepayers.
> > > > Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and
> generally
> > > > support it, even though many of them are closed when the fireworks are
> > > > on.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agree with all that (less the first sentence, LOL)
> > >
> > > > So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to the
> > > > decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is chosen
> to
> > > > actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks are not
> in
> > > > a position to support the people who put them on politically, though
> > > > ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay rates
> to
> > > > the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council in TV
> > > > rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have to
> > > > clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my dogs. I
> > > > assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like and go
> > > > ahead and decide on their behalf.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm pretty sure that the council sells TV rights to the event.
> > >
> > > But, what would happen if no-one turned up the following year, because
> the
> > > council chose a tenderer that failed to deliver?
> >
> > They'd have to be absolutely crap. If they were only a little below
> > par, The Council might go with someone else the following year or not,
> > depending on the reasons for it.
> >
>
> Of course - it was an extreme example. But you can still see the evidence in
> decision making at that level from public feedback when expectations are not
> met. Didn't Clover Moore get a bollocking one year because she attempted to
> de-Christianise Christmas decorations in Sydney?
>

Well some of the rightwing loonies tried to give her a bollocking, but
it was all so much tosh. The city was still covered in Christmas crap.

> > > Or even if the talkback
> > > radio stations were flooded with negative feedback after the
> unsuccessful
> > > night in question? The council would have to reconsider its approach and
> > > might do that by forming a committee from community representatives, or
> > > surveying people, etc. So at least partly, the attendees/community is
> > > driving the transaction as to which tenderer will be chosen next year.
> The
> > > fact that most of them don't pay rates is irrelevant. As I said, it is
> fuzzy
> > > but it is there.
> > >
> >
> > Well they probably should, but I suspect they wouldn't. It's not really
> > part of their core business the way garbage collection or maintenance
> > of parks and streets is.
> >
> > > As for your dogs ... I could even argue that your dogs do partly drive
> that
> > > decision, as if they refused to eat something you served them, would you
> not
> > > look for an alternative? ;-)
> >
> > Yes, of course. But my dogs are on a "seafood" diet. They see food and
> > they eat it. Sometimes they see possum poo or cat poo and they eat that
> > too. (Yuk!)
> >
> > Some of the food that I know they'd eat, (and for all I know they'd
> > prefer), I deny them on health or cost or aesthetic grounds of course
> > (Pal makes them fart something shocking) and my Chi would happily scoff
> > down tubs of yoghurt, day-in day-out until he was balloon-shaped and
> > couldn't walk. So yes, I would, notionally, take their reluctance to
> > eat something into account, but I feed them what I think is best, ATC.
> >
>
> My dog's the opposite. He will only eat what he needs to so if I overfeed
> him there's food left over. I think it's because he loves to run down at the
> park and knows that being fat will impede this.
>

Smart dog. I have my Chi X on a low carb/low fat diet and watch
carefully to make sure he doesn't muscle in on the others. He has
luxating patellae and we have to keep the weight off the back legs if
we're to hope to avoid surgery. He still does the tremble as he ogles
the others eating though.

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150781811.074595.260180@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150778364.828386.270520@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > >
> > > Chock wrote:
> > > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1150774716.776472.50690@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> > > > >
> > > <snip>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but the
> > people
> > > > > > attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up or
> > staying
> > > > away,
> > > > > > and so are driving the decision made by the council as to what
> > fireworks
> > > > > > company to procure based on their proposal and budget.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The Council
has a
> > > > > budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an
> > expectation
> > > > > amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The
Council
> > > > > offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that ticks
all
> > > > > the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go ahead
on
> > the
> > > > > basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have no
> > hard
> > > > > data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the
people
> > > > > who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are
ratepayers.
> > > > > Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and
> > generally
> > > > > support it, even though many of them are closed when the fireworks
are
> > > > > on.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agree with all that (less the first sentence, LOL)
> > > >
> > > > > So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to the
> > > > > decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is
chosen
> > to
> > > > > actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks are
not
> > in
> > > > > a position to support the people who put them on politically,
though
> > > > > ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay
rates
> > to
> > > > > the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council in
TV
> > > > > rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have to
> > > > > clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my
dogs. I
> > > > > assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like and
go
> > > > > ahead and decide on their behalf.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I'm pretty sure that the council sells TV rights to the event.
> > > >
> > > > But, what would happen if no-one turned up the following year,
because
> > the
> > > > council chose a tenderer that failed to deliver?
> > >
> > > They'd have to be absolutely crap. If they were only a little below
> > > par, The Council might go with someone else the following year or not,
> > > depending on the reasons for it.
> > >
> >
> > Of course - it was an extreme example. But you can still see the
evidence in
> > decision making at that level from public feedback when expectations are
not
> > met. Didn't Clover Moore get a bollocking one year because she attempted
to
> > de-Christianise Christmas decorations in Sydney?
> >
>
> Well some of the rightwing loonies tried to give her a bollocking, but
> it was all so much tosh. The city was still covered in Christmas crap.
>
> > > > Or even if the talkback
> > > > radio stations were flooded with negative feedback after the
> > unsuccessful
> > > > night in question? The council would have to reconsider its approach
and
> > > > might do that by forming a committee from community representatives,
or
> > > > surveying people, etc. So at least partly, the attendees/community
is
> > > > driving the transaction as to which tenderer will be chosen next
year.
> > The
> > > > fact that most of them don't pay rates is irrelevant. As I said, it
is
> > fuzzy
> > > > but it is there.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well they probably should, but I suspect they wouldn't. It's not
really
> > > part of their core business the way garbage collection or maintenance
> > > of parks and streets is.
> > >
> > > > As for your dogs ... I could even argue that your dogs do partly
drive
> > that
> > > > decision, as if they refused to eat something you served them, would
you
> > not
> > > > look for an alternative? ;-)
> > >
> > > Yes, of course. But my dogs are on a "seafood" diet. They see food and
> > > they eat it. Sometimes they see possum poo or cat poo and they eat
that
> > > too. (Yuk!)
> > >
> > > Some of the food that I know they'd eat, (and for all I know they'd
> > > prefer), I deny them on health or cost or aesthetic grounds of course
> > > (Pal makes them fart something shocking) and my Chi would happily
scoff
> > > down tubs of yoghurt, day-in day-out until he was balloon-shaped and
> > > couldn't walk. So yes, I would, notionally, take their reluctance to
> > > eat something into account, but I feed them what I think is best, ATC.
> > >
> >
> > My dog's the opposite. He will only eat what he needs to so if I
overfeed
> > him there's food left over. I think it's because he loves to run down at
the
> > park and knows that being fat will impede this.
> >
>
> Smart dog. I have my Chi X on a low carb/low fat diet and watch
> carefully to make sure he doesn't muscle in on the others. He has
> luxating patellae and we have to keep the weight off the back legs if
> we're to hope to avoid surgery. He still does the tremble as he ogles
> the others eating though.
>

Actually on reflection it might be more to do with competition, or rather
lack of (how's that for a link back to the original topic?) Before my other
dog died a couple of years ago, I'd have to feed them separately as they
would both try and eat each other's without even having finished their own.
When they were fed separately they would both still practically inhale their
food and then nearly burst from waiting to get to the other's bowl. But
since she's been gone he eats at a leisurely pace.


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150781811.074595.260180@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1150778364.828386.270520@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Chock wrote:
> > > > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1150774716.776472.50690@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > <snip>.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but the
> > > people
> > > > > > > attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up or
> > > staying
> > > > > away,
> > > > > > > and so are driving the decision made by the council as to what
> > > fireworks
> > > > > > > company to procure based on their proposal and budget.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The Council
> has a
> > > > > > budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an
> > > expectation
> > > > > > amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The
> Council
> > > > > > offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that ticks
> all
> > > > > > the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go ahead
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have no
> > > hard
> > > > > > data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the
> people
> > > > > > who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are
> ratepayers.
> > > > > > Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and
> > > generally
> > > > > > support it, even though many of them are closed when the fireworks
> are
> > > > > > on.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree with all that (less the first sentence, LOL)
> > > > >
> > > > > > So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to the
> > > > > > decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is
> chosen
> > > to
> > > > > > actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks are
> not
> > > in
> > > > > > a position to support the people who put them on politically,
> though
> > > > > > ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay
> rates
> > > to
> > > > > > the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council in
> TV
> > > > > > rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have to
> > > > > > clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my
> dogs. I
> > > > > > assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like and
> go
> > > > > > ahead and decide on their behalf.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I'm pretty sure that the council sells TV rights to the event.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, what would happen if no-one turned up the following year,
> because
> > > the
> > > > > council chose a tenderer that failed to deliver?
> > > >
> > > > They'd have to be absolutely crap. If they were only a little below
> > > > par, The Council might go with someone else the following year or not,
> > > > depending on the reasons for it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course - it was an extreme example. But you can still see the
> evidence in
> > > decision making at that level from public feedback when expectations are
> not
> > > met. Didn't Clover Moore get a bollocking one year because she attempted
> to
> > > de-Christianise Christmas decorations in Sydney?
> > >
> >
> > Well some of the rightwing loonies tried to give her a bollocking, but
> > it was all so much tosh. The city was still covered in Christmas crap.
> >
> > > > > Or even if the talkback
> > > > > radio stations were flooded with negative feedback after the
> > > unsuccessful
> > > > > night in question? The council would have to reconsider its approach
> and
> > > > > might do that by forming a committee from community representatives,
> or
> > > > > surveying people, etc. So at least partly, the attendees/community
> is
> > > > > driving the transaction as to which tenderer will be chosen next
> year.
> > > The
> > > > > fact that most of them don't pay rates is irrelevant. As I said, it
> is
> > > fuzzy
> > > > > but it is there.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well they probably should, but I suspect they wouldn't. It's not
> really
> > > > part of their core business the way garbage collection or maintenance
> > > > of parks and streets is.
> > > >
> > > > > As for your dogs ... I could even argue that your dogs do partly
> drive
> > > that
> > > > > decision, as if they refused to eat something you served them, would
> you
> > > not
> > > > > look for an alternative? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Yes, of course. But my dogs are on a "seafood" diet. They see food and
> > > > they eat it. Sometimes they see possum poo or cat poo and they eat
> that
> > > > too. (Yuk!)
> > > >
> > > > Some of the food that I know they'd eat, (and for all I know they'd
> > > > prefer), I deny them on health or cost or aesthetic grounds of course
> > > > (Pal makes them fart something shocking) and my Chi would happily
> scoff
> > > > down tubs of yoghurt, day-in day-out until he was balloon-shaped and
> > > > couldn't walk. So yes, I would, notionally, take their reluctance to
> > > > eat something into account, but I feed them what I think is best, ATC.
> > > >
> > >
> > > My dog's the opposite. He will only eat what he needs to so if I
> overfeed
> > > him there's food left over. I think it's because he loves to run down at
> the
> > > park and knows that being fat will impede this.
> > >
> >
> > Smart dog. I have my Chi X on a low carb/low fat diet and watch
> > carefully to make sure he doesn't muscle in on the others. He has
> > luxating patellae and we have to keep the weight off the back legs if
> > we're to hope to avoid surgery. He still does the tremble as he ogles
> > the others eating though.
> >
>
> Actually on reflection it might be more to do with competition, or rather
> lack of (how's that for a link back to the original topic?) Before my other
> dog died a couple of years ago, I'd have to feed them separately as they
> would both try and eat each other's without even having finished their own.
> When they were fed separately they would both still practically inhale their
> food and then nearly burst from waiting to get to the other's bowl. But
> since she's been gone he eats at a leisurely pace.
>

No 2 dog is a bit like that -- she eats much more enthusiastically when
the other dogs are within munching distance. She also gets a kick out
of nicking their toys but ignores the same toys when they aren't
playing with them.

Fran


>
> --
> - Chock
>
> Current killfile population:
> 1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
> 2. Temuchin
> 3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator
>
> Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150783612.910924.179340@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150781811.074595.260180@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > Chock wrote:
>> > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:1150778364.828386.270520@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > Chock wrote:
>> > > > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > news:1150774716.776472.50690@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > <snip>.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > people
>> > > > > > > attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up
>> > > > > > > or
>> > > staying
>> > > > > away,
>> > > > > > > and so are driving the decision made by the council as to
>> > > > > > > what
>> > > fireworks
>> > > > > > > company to procure based on their proposal and budget.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The
>> > > > > > Council
>> has a
>> > > > > > budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an
>> > > expectation
>> > > > > > amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The
>> Council
>> > > > > > offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that
>> > > > > > ticks
>> all
>> > > > > > the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go
>> > > > > > ahead
>> on
>> > > the
>> > > > > > basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have
>> > > > > > no
>> > > hard
>> > > > > > data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the
>> people
>> > > > > > who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are
>> ratepayers.
>> > > > > > Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and
>> > > generally
>> > > > > > support it, even though many of them are closed when the
>> > > > > > fireworks
>> are
>> > > > > > on.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Agree with all that (less the first sentence, LOL)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is
>> chosen
>> > > to
>> > > > > > actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks
>> > > > > > are
>> not
>> > > in
>> > > > > > a position to support the people who put them on politically,
>> though
>> > > > > > ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay
>> rates
>> > > to
>> > > > > > the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council
>> > > > > > in
>> TV
>> > > > > > rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my
>> dogs. I
>> > > > > > assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like
>> > > > > > and
>> go
>> > > > > > ahead and decide on their behalf.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, I'm pretty sure that the council sells TV rights to the
>> > > > > event.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But, what would happen if no-one turned up the following year,
>> because
>> > > the
>> > > > > council chose a tenderer that failed to deliver?
>> > > >
>> > > > They'd have to be absolutely crap. If they were only a little below
>> > > > par, The Council might go with someone else the following year or
>> > > > not,
>> > > > depending on the reasons for it.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Of course - it was an extreme example. But you can still see the
>> evidence in
>> > > decision making at that level from public feedback when expectations
>> > > are
>> not
>> > > met. Didn't Clover Moore get a bollocking one year because she
>> > > attempted
>> to
>> > > de-Christianise Christmas decorations in Sydney?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Well some of the rightwing loonies tried to give her a bollocking, but
>> > it was all so much tosh. The city was still covered in Christmas crap.
>> >
>> > > > > Or even if the talkback
>> > > > > radio stations were flooded with negative feedback after the
>> > > unsuccessful
>> > > > > night in question? The council would have to reconsider its
>> > > > > approach
>> and
>> > > > > might do that by forming a committee from community
>> > > > > representatives,
>> or
>> > > > > surveying people, etc. So at least partly, the
>> > > > > attendees/community
>> is
>> > > > > driving the transaction as to which tenderer will be chosen next
>> year.
>> > > The
>> > > > > fact that most of them don't pay rates is irrelevant. As I said,
>> > > > > it
>> is
>> > > fuzzy
>> > > > > but it is there.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Well they probably should, but I suspect they wouldn't. It's not
>> really
>> > > > part of their core business the way garbage collection or
>> > > > maintenance
>> > > > of parks and streets is.
>> > > >
>> > > > > As for your dogs ... I could even argue that your dogs do partly
>> drive
>> > > that
>> > > > > decision, as if they refused to eat something you served them,
>> > > > > would
>> you
>> > > not
>> > > > > look for an alternative? ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, of course. But my dogs are on a "seafood" diet. They see food
>> > > > and
>> > > > they eat it. Sometimes they see possum poo or cat poo and they eat
>> that
>> > > > too. (Yuk!)
>> > > >
>> > > > Some of the food that I know they'd eat, (and for all I know they'd
>> > > > prefer), I deny them on health or cost or aesthetic grounds of
>> > > > course
>> > > > (Pal makes them fart something shocking) and my Chi would happily
>> scoff
>> > > > down tubs of yoghurt, day-in day-out until he was balloon-shaped
>> > > > and
>> > > > couldn't walk. So yes, I would, notionally, take their reluctance
>> > > > to
>> > > > eat something into account, but I feed them what I think is best,
>> > > > ATC.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > My dog's the opposite. He will only eat what he needs to so if I
>> overfeed
>> > > him there's food left over. I think it's because he loves to run down
>> > > at
>> the
>> > > park and knows that being fat will impede this.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Smart dog. I have my Chi X on a low carb/low fat diet and watch
>> > carefully to make sure he doesn't muscle in on the others. He has
>> > luxating patellae and we have to keep the weight off the back legs if
>> > we're to hope to avoid surgery. He still does the tremble as he ogles
>> > the others eating though.
>> >
>>
>> Actually on reflection it might be more to do with competition, or rather
>> lack of (how's that for a link back to the original topic?) Before my
>> other
>> dog died a couple of years ago, I'd have to feed them separately as they
>> would both try and eat each other's without even having finished their
>> own.
>> When they were fed separately they would both still practically inhale
>> their
>> food and then nearly burst from waiting to get to the other's bowl. But
>> since she's been gone he eats at a leisurely pace.
>>
>
> No 2 dog is a bit like that -- she eats much more enthusiastically when
> the other dogs are within munching distance. She also gets a kick out
> of nicking their toys but ignores the same toys when they aren't
> playing with them.
>

I once had an incident when the other dog was still alive, not long after I
got my current dog - my sister came over and had bought two large bones for
them, so we gave them to them. They were both more concerned about what the
other one was doing and soon there was a fight, pretty nasty too - I had to
grab the new dog and hold him up above my shoulders because the female was
jumping up and trying to attack him! But apart from that they got along
fine. Learnt the lesson though!


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2006 02:15:11 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> > They aren't the consumer, they're the end-user.
> The end-user IS the consumer. Duh.

Not if they don't consume.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2006 00:55:00 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> >> On 18 Jun 2006 21:23:38 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> >>> Yes. Anything that the networks do that you don't agree with is
> >>> contempt.
> >> You already know thats not true.
> > What do they do that you disagree with that isn't contempt?
> Forgotten my message from a couple of days ago where I stated something
> one of the stations did was because of stupidity not contempt?

No, why?

> >> They're about human behaviour but they don't necessarily factor in actual
> >> observed human behaviour.
> > They observed that when a TV show has a continuing arc that a ratings
> > drop will stop some people coming back. They observed that the State
> > of Origin causes a rating drop in other shows. They decided not to
> > show an episode of a continuing arc
> Ah I see you're slipping back into non-sequiturs.

It's an example of them factoring in actual human behaviour.

> Its only in the last 20 years that actual human behaviour is being integrated back into > economic theory.

Boy, are you stupid. You're trying to say that Economics doesn't
integrate actual human behaviour and then state it is trying to.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 20 Jun 2006 01:13:51 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:

[snip]

> > >> They're about human behaviour but they don't necessarily factor in actual
> > >> observed human behaviour.
> > > They observed that when a TV show has a continuing arc that a ratings
> > > drop will stop some people coming back. They observed that the State
> > > of Origin causes a rating drop in other shows. They decided not to
> > > show an episode of a continuing arc
> > Ah I see you're slipping back into non-sequiturs.

> It's an example of them factoring in actual human behaviour.

>> Its only in the last 20 years that actual human behaviour is being integrated back into > economic theory.

> Boy, are you stupid. You're trying to say that Economics doesn't
> integrate actual human behaviour and then state it is trying to.

<sigh> descending into abuse without provocation yet again. Pity, you have
the intelligence to engage in civil debate but you just can't help
yourself.

Oh and notice the qualifier above.

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150783612.910924.179340@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1150781811.074595.260180@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Chock wrote:
> >> > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > > news:1150778364.828386.270520@b68g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Chock wrote:
> >> > > > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > > > > news:1150774716.776472.50690@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > <snip>.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > people
> >> > > > > > > attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up
> >> > > > > > > or
> >> > > staying
> >> > > > > away,
> >> > > > > > > and so are driving the decision made by the council as to
> >> > > > > > > what
> >> > > fireworks
> >> > > > > > > company to procure based on their proposal and budget.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Actually, the situation here is almost the opposite. The
> >> > > > > > Council
> >> has a
> >> > > > > > budget available to promote the city as a venue. There's an
> >> > > expectation
> >> > > > > > amongst the city as a whole that there will be fireworks. The
> >> Council
> >> > > > > > offers tenders for the work and takes the cheapest one that
> >> > > > > > ticks
> >> all
> >> > > > > > the required boxes. They assume people will turn up and go
> >> > > > > > ahead
> >> on
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > basis of the "build them and they'll come" principle. They have
> >> > > > > > no
> >> > > hard
> >> > > > > > data on who will turn up, though they can guess. Almost all the
> >> people
> >> > > > > > who turn up live outside the Sydney CBD and very few are
> >> ratepayers.
> >> > > > > > Local businesses in the CBD think it's important for them and
> >> > > generally
> >> > > > > > support it, even though many of them are closed when the
> >> > > > > > fireworks
> >> are
> >> > > > > > on.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Agree with all that (less the first sentence, LOL)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > So decisions to go/not go make no difference at all, even to
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > decision on whether to stage the fireworks (still less who is
> >> chosen
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > actually deliver the show), and those who like the fireworks
> >> > > > > > are
> >> not
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > > a position to support the people who put them on politically,
> >> though
> >> > > > > > ultimately, they may trade with some of the businesses who pay
> >> rates
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > the City. I think some of the money may be recovered by Council
> >> > > > > > in
> >> TV
> >> > > > > > rights, but I'm not sure on that. Certainly, Council staff have
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > clean up afterwards. So here, the attendees are rather like my
> >> dogs. I
> >> > > > > > assume they want to be fed, and have an idea what they'll like
> >> > > > > > and
> >> go
> >> > > > > > ahead and decide on their behalf.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Yes, I'm pretty sure that the council sells TV rights to the
> >> > > > > event.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > But, what would happen if no-one turned up the following year,
> >> because
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > council chose a tenderer that failed to deliver?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > They'd have to be absolutely crap. If they were only a little below
> >> > > > par, The Council might go with someone else the following year or
> >> > > > not,
> >> > > > depending on the reasons for it.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Of course - it was an extreme example. But you can still see the
> >> evidence in
> >> > > decision making at that level from public feedback when expectations
> >> > > are
> >> not
> >> > > met. Didn't Clover Moore get a bollocking one year because she
> >> > > attempted
> >> to
> >> > > de-Christianise Christmas decorations in Sydney?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Well some of the rightwing loonies tried to give her a bollocking, but
> >> > it was all so much tosh. The city was still covered in Christmas crap.
> >> >
> >> > > > > Or even if the talkback
> >> > > > > radio stations were flooded with negative feedback after the
> >> > > unsuccessful
> >> > > > > night in question? The council would have to reconsider its
> >> > > > > approach
> >> and
> >> > > > > might do that by forming a committee from community
> >> > > > > representatives,
> >> or
> >> > > > > surveying people, etc. So at least partly, the
> >> > > > > attendees/community
> >> is
> >> > > > > driving the transaction as to which tenderer will be chosen next
> >> year.
> >> > > The
> >> > > > > fact that most of them don't pay rates is irrelevant. As I said,
> >> > > > > it
> >> is
> >> > > fuzzy
> >> > > > > but it is there.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Well they probably should, but I suspect they wouldn't. It's not
> >> really
> >> > > > part of their core business the way garbage collection or
> >> > > > maintenance
> >> > > > of parks and streets is.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > As for your dogs ... I could even argue that your dogs do partly
> >> drive
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > decision, as if they refused to eat something you served them,
> >> > > > > would
> >> you
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > look for an alternative? ;-)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yes, of course. But my dogs are on a "seafood" diet. They see food
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > they eat it. Sometimes they see possum poo or cat poo and they eat
> >> that
> >> > > > too. (Yuk!)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Some of the food that I know they'd eat, (and for all I know they'd
> >> > > > prefer), I deny them on health or cost or aesthetic grounds of
> >> > > > course
> >> > > > (Pal makes them fart something shocking) and my Chi would happily
> >> scoff
> >> > > > down tubs of yoghurt, day-in day-out until he was balloon-shaped
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > couldn't walk. So yes, I would, notionally, take their reluctance
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > eat something into account, but I feed them what I think is best,
> >> > > > ATC.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > My dog's the opposite. He will only eat what he needs to so if I
> >> overfeed
> >> > > him there's food left over. I think it's because he loves to run down
> >> > > at
> >> the
> >> > > park and knows that being fat will impede this.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Smart dog. I have my Chi X on a low carb/low fat diet and watch
> >> > carefully to make sure he doesn't muscle in on the others. He has
> >> > luxating patellae and we have to keep the weight off the back legs if
> >> > we're to hope to avoid surgery. He still does the tremble as he ogles
> >> > the others eating though.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually on reflection it might be more to do with competition, or rather
> >> lack of (how's that for a link back to the original topic?) Before my
> >> other
> >> dog died a couple of years ago, I'd have to feed them separately as they
> >> would both try and eat each other's without even having finished their
> >> own.
> >> When they were fed separately they would both still practically inhale
> >> their
> >> food and then nearly burst from waiting to get to the other's bowl. But
> >> since she's been gone he eats at a leisurely pace.
> >>
> >
> > No 2 dog is a bit like that -- she eats much more enthusiastically when
> > the other dogs are within munching distance. She also gets a kick out
> > of nicking their toys but ignores the same toys when they aren't
> > playing with them.
> >
>
> I once had an incident when the other dog was still alive, not long after I
> got my current dog - my sister came over and had bought two large bones for
> them, so we gave them to them. They were both more concerned about what the
> other one was doing and soon there was a fight, pretty nasty too - I had to
> grab the new dog and hold him up above my shoulders because the female was
> jumping up and trying to attack him! But apart from that they got along
> fine. Learnt the lesson though!
>


You have to be careful lifting one dog higher than another, especially
when the lifted dog is lower in the pack. Height equals status in the
dog world. Dogs tend to hate that stuff. The top dog gets narky and the
number 2 gets nervous and can lash out. You're better off issuing the
stand down command "Leave it!", assuming your top dog is properly
trained. Otherwise, a sharp no and a slap across the nose with the open
hand (without carrying on with it) is best.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> > Boy, are you stupid. You're trying to say that Economics doesn't
> > integrate actual human behaviour and then state it is trying to.
> <sigh> descending into abuse without provocation yet again.

Actually, the "Boy, are you stupid" was a West Wing quote, but I admit
that typed and in the context it doesn't work. Even when I say it in
real life I never really sound like CJ. But in my head, you know, it
sounds funny/cool.

> Pity, you have
> the intelligence to engage in civil debate but you just can't help
> yourself.

> Oh and notice the qualifier above.

Which one?

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150804162.180440.233530@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150783612.910924.179340@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > >
<snip>
> >
> > I once had an incident when the other dog was still alive, not long
after I
> > got my current dog - my sister came over and had bought two large bones
for
> > them, so we gave them to them. They were both more concerned about what
the
> > other one was doing and soon there was a fight, pretty nasty too - I had
to
> > grab the new dog and hold him up above my shoulders because the female
was
> > jumping up and trying to attack him! But apart from that they got along
> > fine. Learnt the lesson though!
> >
>
>
> You have to be careful lifting one dog higher than another, especially
> when the lifted dog is lower in the pack. Height equals status in the
> dog world. Dogs tend to hate that stuff. The top dog gets narky and the
> number 2 gets nervous and can lash out. You're better off issuing the
> stand down command "Leave it!", assuming your top dog is properly
> trained. Otherwise, a sharp no and a slap across the nose with the open
> hand (without carrying on with it) is best.
>

I only did it that once to save the new dog from being attacked, as the old
dog was definately top dog. I put the new one in the garage for an hour so
they would both calm down, and after the bones were taken away, they were
fine.

I've heard that it's not a good idea to hit a dog on the nose, as smell is
one of its most important senses. On the rare occasion I have to discipline
my dog I hit him on the back. But he's quite well behaved, despite not being
formally trained, and so I haven't needed to for a long while now.

And for dogs, they consider their owners (and the family) as part of the
pack - and pack order is mostly determined by eating order in the household.
So be sure to feed your dogs after you've had your own dinner! I'm top dog
in my house LOL


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(atec77)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150804162.180440.233530@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> Chock wrote:
>>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1150783612.910924.179340@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> <snip>
>>> I once had an incident when the other dog was still alive, not long
> after I
>>> got my current dog - my sister came over and had bought two large bones
> for
>>> them, so we gave them to them. They were both more concerned about what
> the
>>> other one was doing and soon there was a fight, pretty nasty too - I had
> to
>>> grab the new dog and hold him up above my shoulders because the female
> was
>>> jumping up and trying to attack him! But apart from that they got along
>>> fine. Learnt the lesson though!
>>>
>>
>> You have to be careful lifting one dog higher than another, especially
>> when the lifted dog is lower in the pack. Height equals status in the
>> dog world. Dogs tend to hate that stuff. The top dog gets narky and the
>> number 2 gets nervous and can lash out. You're better off issuing the
>> stand down command "Leave it!", assuming your top dog is properly
>> trained. Otherwise, a sharp no and a slap across the nose with the open
>> hand (without carrying on with it) is best.
>>
>
> I only did it that once to save the new dog from being attacked, as the old
> dog was definately top dog. I put the new one in the garage for an hour so
> they would both calm down, and after the bones were taken away, they were
> fine.
>
> I've heard that it's not a good idea to hit a dog on the nose, as smell is
> one of its most important senses. On the rare occasion I have to discipline
> my dog I hit him on the back. But he's quite well behaved, despite not being
> formally trained, and so I haven't needed to for a long while now.
>
> And for dogs, they consider their owners (and the family) as part of the
> pack - and pack order is mostly determined by eating order in the household.
> So be sure to feed your dogs after you've had your own dinner! I'm top dog
> in my house LOL
>
>
So what brand of woofy biscuits do you prefer ?

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 20 Jun 2006 06:05:15 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>>> Boy, are you stupid. You're trying to say that Economics doesn't
>>> integrate actual human behaviour and then state it is trying to.
>> <sigh> descending into abuse without provocation yet again.
>
> Actually, the "Boy, are you stupid" was a West Wing quote, but I admit
> that typed and in the context it doesn't work. Even when I say it in
> real life I never really sound like CJ. But in my head, you know, it
> sounds funny/cool.

OK fair enough.

>> Pity, you have
>> the intelligence to engage in civil debate but you just can't help
>> yourself.

>> Oh and notice the qualifier above.

> Which one?

Necessarily.

--
"Read less, more TV" - House

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"Chock" <chock@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:449737ed$0$12254$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "David Barnett" <dbarnett@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:GFGlg.12431$ap3.3182@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:1150687298.245276.303560@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> >> But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
>> >
>> > Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to sensible
>> > business practise. They've missed the point entirely.
>>
>> "Sensible" (sic) business practise may, nevertheless, be contempt for
>> viewers.
>> Contempt for viewers may make it not so "sensible".
>>
>
> And that's exactly what I've been arguing all along - that whilst a
> particular scheduling decision may be good business sense, it can still be
> comtemptuous to viewers. (Not so much in the Prison Break example, as I
> have
> conceded was more of a personal threshold decision on my part and would
> probably not affect most other people in the same way. But definately on
> the
> Enterprise example.)
>
> BTW your sic should have been on "practise" and not "sensible" :-)

Agree.
I did not notice the misuse of the word; it may have been a typo.
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150804162.180440.233530@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1150783612.910924.179340@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > > >
> <snip>
> > >
> > > I once had an incident when the other dog was still alive, not long
> after I
> > > got my current dog - my sister came over and had bought two large bones
> for
> > > them, so we gave them to them. They were both more concerned about what
> the
> > > other one was doing and soon there was a fight, pretty nasty too - I had
> to
> > > grab the new dog and hold him up above my shoulders because the female
> was
> > > jumping up and trying to attack him! But apart from that they got along
> > > fine. Learnt the lesson though!
> > >
> >
> >
> > You have to be careful lifting one dog higher than another, especially
> > when the lifted dog is lower in the pack. Height equals status in the
> > dog world. Dogs tend to hate that stuff. The top dog gets narky and the
> > number 2 gets nervous and can lash out. You're better off issuing the
> > stand down command "Leave it!", assuming your top dog is properly
> > trained. Otherwise, a sharp no and a slap across the nose with the open
> > hand (without carrying on with it) is best.
> >
>
> I only did it that once to save the new dog from being attacked, as the old
> dog was definately

I''ve seen you type this at least twice now: "definitely".

> top dog. I put the new one in the garage for an hour so

ten minutes would have done.


> they would both calm down, and after the bones were taken away, they were
> fine.
>
> I've heard that it's not a good idea to hit a dog on the nose, as smell is
> one of its most important senses.

Usually, the dog shrinks back and all that results is a cuff across the
muzzle -- sometimes there's no contact at all, and even if there were,
you couldn't damage their smell with a shapr slap with the open hand.


> On the rare occasion I have to discipline
> my dog I hit him on the back.

That's not advisable with dogs as they tend to want to guard their
rears. That's aggression to most dogs, whereas the slap is like the
"puppy bite" given by the top dog to juniors. Some dogs also have weak
knees when subjected to downward force and it's inadvisable on that
score too, as a general rule. (I'm writing for all here who might read
this at some point not just you)

> But he's quite well behaved, despite not being
> formally trained, and so I haven't needed to for a long while now.
>
> And for dogs, they consider their owners (and the family) as part of the
> pack - and pack order is mostly determined by eating order in the household.

True. That's a rule to remember with kids at the crawling stage, who
may seem to be competition to a dog and who may stick their faces in
thos of a dog -- which is also seen as challenging, especially to alpha
dogs.

> So be sure to feed your dogs after you've had your own dinner! I'm top dog
> in my house LOL

Most wise.

Fran