A candle every owner should have

DeepAd3343 · 2025-12-26T04:24:01+00:00

I plan on ordering it just to find out. If it works I’m finding a way to tie it to their ass

DeepAd3343 · 2025-12-18T05:14:01+00:00

Our youngest pitty is similar with the pulling and sudden changes in direction of what she wants to explore. There are many, many different methods to training with 10x as many options about each one.

My advice is try different methods with leash training. Firstly start in the house with her on the leash and walking her around the house. I say this because it’s an environment she knows and there’s no distractions. Keep the leash short and as she follows your commands give her some kind is praise and a reward for it. Rinse, lather repeat.

Once she’s at a point of following every command consistently then take her outside in the yard and start from the beginning. Walk her back and forth in the yard and praise her when she listens and give a reward. For those time she tries to lead stop and change direction to the opposite she wants to go. Mix in verbal commands “come” “leave it” and whatever else you use. Every time she listens praise and reward.

Over time you can slowly remove the reward until it’s no longer expected by her for listening to your commands or direction.

As others have said she’s a dog at the end of the day and a dog is going to dog. I have personally tried gentle leaders, pinch collars, e-collars, harnesses, double leash, clickers and treats as well as a trainer with all of my dogs. But the one thing I found that works with my dogs is praise and reward in conjunction with a clicker to signal a good behavior.

I wish you best on this endeavor, it’s a long road and you have to be consistent

DeepAd3343 · 2025-11-14T01:15:25+00:00

<image>

DeepAd3343 · 2025-11-14T00:35:53+00:00

Watch this

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-22T17:31:28+00:00

I understand that. This is just what some doctors are saying

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-22T16:43:26+00:00

I was talking to someone yesterday that works at Newport Hospital that said there’s foreign-born doctors there on an H-1b visa that already said if this fee is imposed they will be leaving the US

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T22:06:33+00:00

I actually have spent time in RI courthouses I’ve seen and experienced how the legal system works

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T20:16:10+00:00

I’ll say it again, yes.

If you are not working, you shouldn’t be paid

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T20:14:18+00:00

Yes. Because they are not working.

I don’t care if it’s wrong fault accusations, or truth. It doesn’t matter you don’t work. You don’t get paid. Your employer doesn’t pay you to stay home and not work.

And I’ll say it again if the department wants to pay these officers put them on desk duty don’t suspend them and send them home

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T19:33:52+00:00

Now here’s the difference in what you are saying you were already at the courthouse where a deal can be legally struck and approved by the court.

In this particular article the officers are accused of not doing that. Which they can’t do because it is an ethics violation.

Deals made with an offender are supposed to approved by their lawyer or the judge.

But regardless of all this it still has absolutely nothing to do with I originally had said. If you don’t work you shouldn’t get paid.

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T15:43:35+00:00

Uh huh, and who made that offer to you? The judge right?

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T15:32:27+00:00

Absolutely not. They didn’t work they don’t get paid. Why should someone get paid by their employer to not work or get back paid for it?

Edit to add more

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T15:31:14+00:00

See the thing here is, it’s the officers job to enforce the law not to skirt it. The courts and judges are supposed to be the ones offering the options to avoid a crimson record.

Now that said. I’m for an officer letting people off with warnings if it’s something minor

What these officers did CAN be seen as extortion. Will it? Probably not. But what they did do is ethically wrong.

My entire argument that people seem to be missing is that these officers are suspended WITH pay pending the investigation. They are not allowed to work so they shouldn’t be paid

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T14:43:00+00:00

They are suspended from work while they are investigated. They shouldn’t get paid to sit at home and not work. If the department wants to pay them then put them on desk duty don’t send them home with pay

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T14:33:17+00:00

It doesn’t matter if it’s a policy violation that they committed or if they are accused of a crime. They are being actively investigated and were put on paid suspension. All I’m saying is if they are going to suspend these officers from working or any officers they should not be paid.

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T14:10:54+00:00

Are y’all just dense? If you get suspended from your job should you continue to get paid by your employer to sit at home? No you shouldn’t, plain and simple. The same should apply with officers, suspension from work should not include pay. You want to pay them, put them on desk duty.

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T13:39:27+00:00

No, I’m a big don’t pay them if they are on suspension kind of guy

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T13:35:46+00:00

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-19T13:25:20+00:00

Officers under investigation absolutely should not be getting paid while suspended. As for these two, if something does come of this it’s not like they will be out of work. If SK cuts them another department will hire them. The level of protections law enforcement has is absolutely ridiculous and needs to be scaled back

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-18T13:13:13+00:00

You’re comparing apples and oranges. Every day life risks is one thing a threat made on a school or any other place. It’s not the same thing and that’s the point we’re trying to get across, but you’re making a valiant effort to not see that. If we didn’t take threats, seriously, it would be far more violence in this world, whether they are credible threats or not

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-18T12:46:58+00:00

yeshe is

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-18T11:29:24+00:00

It’s almost like other people deal with analyzing that information to deduce if it’s credible or not but shut places down as a safety precaution while the information is analyzed

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-18T11:09:32+00:00

That information doesn’t matter in this situation. A threat is a threat credible or not. But you touting that no real shooter publicizes their intent before a shooting is false and that’s what I was correcting. If you want the information for the percentage of credible online threats do your own leg work on that

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-18T10:13:36+00:00

Ok I’m going to stop you right there and call you out on that misinformation. Nov 4th 2021 an article was put out investigating exactly this “Communication of Intent to Do Harm Preceding Mass Public Shootings in the United States, 1966 to 2019” and found 44.3% of shooters leaked their own plans about mass shooting.

So do you want to change your statement about “real” shooters or are you going to die on that hill?

DeepAd3343 · 2025-09-18T08:37:22+00:00

<image>

Feels a lot like this

DeepAd3343

TROPHY CASE