Why so few men In agility

[Linda W. Anderson]

NADAC Agility: where the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the dogs are above average .....

Now I want a t-shirt with that!

Cindy and the Beagles

Me to how about hot pink

I want the purple one!!

I'm with you Cindy!  In purple too....

[Jeannine Doepke]

Steve - we're really that scary?  You scare easily.

Jeannine

[Sheila & the Shelties]

Steve - we're really that scary?  You scare easily.
Jeannine

 

[Dave Worldsbesjrts Dad]

Ok women of agility why no girls in the National History Bee

[Sheila & the Shelties]

Ok women of agility why no girls in the National History Bee

Because Al Roker is the emcee?   

I think the bigger question is why none of these boys knew the name of the president associated with the Whitewater scandal???

We don't even know the rules for how these competitors are chosen.  Perhaps all competitors were chosen from all male schools?  It has been said people on Jeopardy do not lack depth or breadth of knowledge to win Jeopardy; they just lose the battle for the buzzer.  We don't even know what the paramenters of this discussion are.

My final conclusion: David, you, sir, are a chain-yanker, a button-pusher, what my grandmother might have called a pot-stirrer.           Now I know you are not implying that women in general, or women participating in agility in particular are worse at knowing history than boys.  So you must just want to jab at the sleeping bear.  LOL

I'm not sure how the History Bee connects with women in agility.  Therefore you need to set up another topic on the board to discuss this at length.  If it is lengthy.  We woman are smarter than you think, and I think this topic is exceedingly small.  Until then, my lips are sealed...     At least on this topic.   

[Dave Worldsbesjrts Dad]

Ok women of agility why no girls in the National History Bee

Because Al Roker is the emcee?   

I think the bigger question is why none of these boys knew the name of the president associated with the Whitewater scandal???

We don't even know the rules for how these competitors are chosen.  Perhaps all competitors were chosen from all male schools?  It has been said people on Jeopardy do not lack depth or breadth of knowledge to win Jeopardy; they just lose the battle for the buzzer.  We don't even know what the paramenters of this discussion are.

My final conclusion: David, you, sir, are a chain-yanker, a button-pusher, what my grandmother might have called a pot-stirrer.           Now I know you are not implying that women in general, or women participating in agility in particular are worse at knowing history than boys.  So you must just want to jab at the sleeping bear.  LOL

I'm not sure how the History Bee connects with women in agility.  Therefore you need to set up another topic on the board to discuss this at length.  If it is lengthy.  We woman are smarter than you think, and I think this topic is exceedingly small.  Until then, my lips are sealed...     At least on this topic.   

No I was not saying anything of the sort. I truly wonder about a lot of things. I am a middle school teacher and see the differences in how kids learn every day. I happen to be watching the History Bee and was somewhat surprised that their were no Girls in the finials. I think it is a matter of interest not smarts. Most of history is just about wars I just think 13 year old boys are more interested in that than 13 year old girls. The same may be said of Agility it seems more women are interested in it than Men. I think it strange that that is the case and wonder why.  I have learned everything I know about agility which is not that much for sure from women.
I have the utmost respect for them. I did not mean to yank anyone's chain.
 I was watching the contest and thought of this topic so put out the post. Sorry If I gave the wrong impression.

As for the contest itself I think they added a lot of fluff questions for the tv audience sake. The Kids missed a lot of what to me is recent history or like the Whitewater question because it happen to recently to be put into the history curriculum but happen before the kids life time. I was keeping score on my answers and got around  90% correct those recent questions the ones I have lived through made up for the other questions that I sometimes had a hard time recalling.

You are right about the buzzer. That type of format rewards not only the one who can recall the information but who process quickly and can time the buzzer.

Any why please don't remain silent.

Dave

[TheQuestKnight]

As a fellow chain-yanker, button-pusher, pot-stirrer, sleeping dog laying waker-upper and bear-jabber, I find that asking "Why?" takes A LOT of people out of their comfort zones because they are forced to back up their statement, beliefs, opionions, etc. with the facts that led them to that conclusion.

For years, I have been endlessly fascinated by how dogs learn, how they each have their individual learning curves, etc. . . . and shake my head in bewilderment at how many folks try to teach their dogs and others with some sort of "cookie cutter, one-size fits all" method . . .

"Because everybody else is doing it!" is NOT a suitable answer to the question of Why???

Asking "Why???" will ALWAYS take the original question on divergent paths because answering the question is thought-provoking and will give rise to questions about aspects of the answers . . .

I dunno Chris, perhaps we need a "Devil's Advocate" section for some of us??? <Evil laugh>

[Anne Etherton]

Aren't there more men doing NADAC agility versus other venues and obedience.  The little bit of obedience competition and training I did I remember hardly any men.

Anne

[Sheila & the Shelties]

Ok women of agility why no girls in the National History Bee

Sheila:  Because Al Roker is the emcee?   

My final conclusion: David, you, sir, are a chain-yanker, a button-pusher, what my grandmother might have called a pot-stirrer.           Now I know you are not implying that women in general, or women participating in agility in particular are worse at knowing history than boys.  So you must just want to jab at the sleeping bear.  LOL

I'm not sure how the History Bee connects with women in agility.  Therefore you need to set up another topic on the board to discuss this at length.  If it is lengthy.  We woman are smarter than you think, and I think this topic is exceedingly small.  Until then, my lips are sealed...     At least on this topic.   

Dave:      No I was not saying anything of the sort. I truly wonder about a lot of things. .
I have the utmost respect for them. I did not mean to yank anyone's chain.
 I was watching the contest and thought of this topic so put out the post. Sorry If I gave the wrong impression.

Any why please don't remain silent.
Dave

Dave , this reponse was mostly tongue in cheek.  I prepared a long response to you (Dave) and Al, and it disappeared into the Internet, the ethernet, the black hole, or Chris's freezer. I will try again later.

[Dave Worldsbesjrts Dad]

Not to Worry. I could tell my all the smiles but I thought others might fell the same way for real. I do like a good discussion.

[TheQuestKnight]

Hey Sheila,

I enjoy a vibrant discussion, so I AM most definitely a provocateur . . .

Although it doesn't always come across as I intend and my sarcasm can frequently get the better of me, I don't intend my posts to be insulting or demeaning to anyone . . .

Lots of folks do lots of things that I don't fully understand . . . and wish that they would take the time to provide the "whys" without having to request that they divulge the "whys" . . . state your opinion and provide some support for it!!!

I so much more appreciate a person's opinion based on their experiences, rather than being referred to someone else's "works" . . .

. . . and I still believe that agility is still a very simple game, unless we choose to make it complicated.

I understand that some folks believe that they have some "secrets" that are worth $$$ if someone wants to know; but it's just a dang GAME that we're talking about!!!

I don't begrudge anyone that makes $$$ from their knowledge . . . it's just that I'm NOT willing to pay for something that I feel is soooooooooooooooo easily understandable with just a bit of logic and common sense . . .

I'm NOT "politically correct" . . . and I know that's a real problem for some folks that have thinner skin than me . . .

I anticipate that many of my posts will be controversial; but that's just who and what I am . . .

Al in Ohio 

[Dave Worldsbesjrts Dad]

Wow over 1000 views whoed have thunk it

[Sheila & the Shelties]

Although it doesn't always come across as I intend and my sarcasm can frequently get the better of me, I don't intend my posts to be insulting or demeaning to anyone . . .

Lots of folks do lots of things that I don't fully understand . . . and wish that they would take the time to provide the "whys" without having to request that they divulge the "whys" . . . state your opinion and provide some support for it!!!

I did not take offense at anything and was kidding around.  I know sometimes on emails and posts it is difficult to interpret a comment because the "tone" is missing, which is why I try to include a lot of smileys when I am kidding!

And as for people taking the time to explain their opinions, good luck!  Sometimes we don't have any basis for opinions.  Stating opinions and providing evidence for it---isn't that what lawyers are for?   

But seriously, there was an article I read not too long ago called "Five Logical Fallacies that make you wrong more often than you think."  If you have time, I'd urge everyone to read the article.   And you'll understand when you when your husband (or wife or friend or sibling) get in an argument and he(she) will just not see that you are RIGHT!      I now AM aware of this stuff, and I STILL get in these arguments.  But a good argument is fun to have unless it is an emotionally charged issue!

http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html

[Dave Worldsbesjrts Dad]

Nice article lots of good points. But I don' agree with any of them.

[TheQuestKnight]

cracked.com seems like a good place for this article . . . some good points are made; but the "logic"(?) used to support them is contradictory and flawed . . . at least IMHO . . .

Perhaps I should say, that with the exception of a very few women . . . and you opinion-substantiated lassies know who you are! <G> . . . I agree with Stephen Hawking . . .

It is easier for me, as a NON-astro-physicist to gain a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics, string theory and the origins of the universe . . .

. . . than it is for me to understand the thought processes of the human female . . .

I'm much like Mr. Spock from Star Trek . . . I find women interesting and fascinating . . . attractive, too . . . but that doesn't mean that I can understand what they consider to be "logic"! <LOL>

Seemed to me that the pot needed to be stirred again . . . and the heat turned up a bit! <ROTFLMAO!>

Al & the totally wicked sense of humor possessed BCs in Ohio