Pets left alone in RV at campground?

[solismaris]

We are now a dog owner and would consider bringing her on next camping trip. Question for all: is it considered acceptable to leave dog in trailer while we are away?

Windows and vents will be open, curtains drawn, propane will be turned off. Where I travel no AC is needed. Dog is not a barker.

I asked at one place and they said no unattended pets. Of course they did. Maybe better to not ask and do it surreptitiously?

Surely campers with dogs are still able to get away for a restaurant, museum, other no-pets tourist attractions?

[ford_truck_guy]

Boon Docker wrote:
This thread is becoming more hilarious as time goes on.
Keep up the good work guys. :B

I don’t disagree ! :B

[Walaby]

My dog agrees with me that it's okay to leave him alone. He actually enjoys his quiet time.

He disagrees vehemently when we don't take him camping with us. He knows when we are going camping or even when I pack for a business trip.

So yeah, as long as he behaves he's going with us. And I will continue to treat him just like we do at home. If we go out to dinner, he stays home. If we go for a walk, or go sightseeing, he goes with us as appropriate.

So, unless someone of authority comes and tells me to leave a campground Im at because I left him alone in my RV, not sure I care what anyone else thinks of that.

And yeah, I will have alcohol, even when a park says no alcohol. I have even inquired about it and was told as long as it's not seen, and Im not a problem, they are fine with it. Out come the coozies and it's all good.

I have also been known to speed a time or two. Guess Im living a little dangerously in my old age.

Mike

[Boon_Docker]

This thread is becoming more hilarious as time goes on.
Keep up the good work guys. :B

[toedtoes]

Hypocritism at its best! Well done.

[dedmiston]

toedtoes wrote:
How am I NOT supposed to take it personally? I am the only one on this thread who wrote "I don't disagree". You then put down people who say "I don't disagree". Just because you didn't know I was "standing right there" doesn't make it not refer to me.

And the truth is I'm being called out for being disingenuous, yet you are being disingenuous.

Saying "I'm sorry that you were offended" is disingenuous. It's saying you're sorry for my actions not your own. And you are not sorry for my actions - you are not feeling remorse in my stead. You are unhappy/mad that I took offense at what you wrote.

So basically you have just done what you have insulted me/others for doing.

OK. Go ahead and be offended then. It's your choice.

And "I'm sorry that you were offended" isn't disingenuous. It's probably insensitive and possibly unkind, but I assure you it's 100% accurate. In other words, I think it's a shame that you choose to have your nose bent out of shape because someone else has a dim view of a phrase that you used.

You don't like the words that I used, but I chose to sleep like a baby last night and I'll sleep great again. You disagree with what I said, but I choose not to be offended.

Hopefully we can move past this though. Or not. That's up to you and it's fine with me either way. Good luck to you.

[wing_zealot]

Grit dog wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
Geez people! You accuse ME of equivocating... Just say it "we take issue with everything Toedtoes has to say" and quit beating around the bush.

And for the record, I said "I don't disagree", because while I agreed with Lantley's preamble, I don't agree with their conclusion.

Aaaaand here’s the aforementioned Karen…
Do you not disagree? Lol

I thought denigrating another member wasn't allowed?

[toedtoes]

How am I NOT supposed to take it personally? I am the only one on this thread who wrote "I don't disagree". You then put down people who say "I don't disagree". Just because you didn't know I was "standing right there" doesn't make it not refer to me.

And the truth is I'm being called out for being disingenuous, yet you are being disingenuous.

Saying "I'm sorry that you were offended" is disingenuous. It's saying you're sorry for my actions not your own. And you are not sorry for my actions - you are not feeling remorse in my stead. You are unhappy/mad that I took offense at what you wrote.

So basically you have just done what you have insulted me/others for doing.

[Grit_dog]

toedtoes wrote:
Geez people! You accuse ME of equivocating... Just say it "we take issue with everything Toedtoes has to say" and quit beating around the bush.

And for the record, I said "I don't disagree", because while I agreed with Lantley's preamble, I don't agree with their conclusion.

Aaaaand here’s the aforementioned Karen…
Do you not disagree? Lol

[dedmiston]

toedtoes wrote:
Your statement was clear. Your apology isn't really an apology but an effort to backpedal.

I don't think I'm backpedaling and I don't suppose I'm apologizing either.

I'm not sorry for what I said (which would have been an apology). I'm sorry you took it personally and sorry you're offended. That's all I can offer.

I think you're mistaken to take it personally. Not everything is about you.

[MFL]

As I said, earlier in this thread, some argue relentlessly, right or wrong. I have been around enough forums to know, that calling out a forum mod/admin is not going to end well, for a lowly member, such as myself.

Can we just get back to defining the dog unattended rule, that most know to be common sense, outside, or inside a solid walled home away from home.

Jerry

[Walaby]

Not that dedmiston needs to be defended, but in his defense, I didn't quote you so unless he scrolled back to see who said it, he wouldn't know.

You said that you were conveying that you "agreed with his preamble (or whatever), but disagreed with his conclusion. How about just saying "I agree with your description of the situation, but differ in the conclusion. Saying I don't disagree just confuses your argument

And for what it's worth, I wasn't personally attacking you either, which is why I didn't quote you. I simply stated I find it amusing how people have resorted to saying "I don't disagree".. instead of simply stating "I agree".

It really is okay to say "I agree with your description but have a different opinion on why it's important to follow the rules".

To say "I don't disagree", and then state in a paragraph or two why you disagree makes no sense and weakens the written argument.

It's clear how you feel about the issue, as it is equally clear how others do.

Mike

[toedtoes]

dedmiston wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

dedmiston wrote:

It’s intellectually dishonest and I’m pretty sure that people who speak that way aren’t trusted by their dogs.

Seriously? You are a frigging Administrator and you make a personal attack on a poster who has done nothing to you?

Hey Toedtoes - I'm sorry you took that as an attack. I wasn't thinking of you or responding to you. I was responding to this statement by Walaby:

I also get a chuckle when people say "I don't disagree".

I didn't bother to scroll back and see who he was referring to. My response to him wasn't about you or anyone in particular. It was my opinion about the phrase "I don't disagree". At the risk of making it personal, I find it to be a weak use of language. Nothing more, nothing less. "I agree" and "I disagree" are more direct and less ambiguous.

Again, I'm sorry you saw this as an attack. I honestly wasn't thinking about you at all when I wrote it.

Rather like saying "blondes are so stupid" at a party and then saying "oh but I didn't mean you" when you realize a blonde is standing next to you.

Your statement was clear. Your apology isn't really an apology but an effort to backpedal.

[Bobbo]

dedmiston wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

dedmiston wrote:

It’s intellectually dishonest and I’m pretty sure that people who speak that way aren’t trusted by their dogs.

Seriously? You are a frigging Administrator and you make a personal attack on a poster who has done nothing to you?

Hey Toedtoes - I'm sorry you took that as an attack. I wasn't thinking of you or responding to you. I was responding to this statement by Walaby:

I also get a chuckle when people say "I don't disagree".

I didn't bother to scroll back and see who he was referring to. My response to him wasn't about you or anyone in particular. It was my opinion about the phrase "I don't disagree". At the risk of making it personal, I find it to be a weak use of language. Nothing more, nothing less. "I agree" and "I disagree" are more direct and less ambiguous.

Again, I'm sorry you saw this as an attack. I honestly wasn't thinking about you at all when I wrote it.

I don't disagree. :B

[dedmiston]

toedtoes wrote:

dedmiston wrote:

It’s intellectually dishonest and I’m pretty sure that people who speak that way aren’t trusted by their dogs.

Seriously? You are a frigging Administrator and you make a personal attack on a poster who has done nothing to you?

Hey Toedtoes - I'm sorry you took that as an attack. I wasn't thinking of you or responding to you. I was responding to this statement by Walaby:

I also get a chuckle when people say "I don't disagree".

I didn't bother to scroll back and see who he was referring to. My response to him wasn't about you or anyone in particular. It was my opinion about the phrase "I don't disagree". At the risk of making it personal, I find it to be a weak use of language. Nothing more, nothing less. "I agree" and "I disagree" are more direct and less ambiguous.

Again, I'm sorry you saw this as an attack. I honestly wasn't thinking about you at all when I wrote it.