［1000蚊美金個雪糕，梗係好味，但點解？］朋友兼舊同事LinkedIn睇返嚟嘅故事，作者唔係佢，係另一印度人Rajan Singh（https://bityl.co/3nP0）（＊）。

TLDR：1000蚊個雪糕，梗係好食啦，因為你自製浪漫。但，更高境界，應該係食垃圾都可以當米芝蓮咁食。

1. 作者講返，拿，紐約Serendipity 3呢（＊＊），可以叫個1000蚊美金的雪糕。呢度就收藏住快樂嘅秘密啦！點解？睇落去

2. 食1000蚊美金個雪糕，是好快樂的。但點解咁快樂？1000蚊美金嘅雪糕係咪好食過牛奶公司？咁肯定，但絶對唔會好食幾百倍。固然用料靚啲，你坐在餐廳裝修又靚啲，侍應又靚啲，加埋你仲可以打卡晒命。但，作者話呢度都唔係重點。重點係，好大程度個快樂嚟自你自己，你嘅心靈，你嘅腦袋，自製出嚟的。Mindfulness 呀（＊＊＊），佛教嘢呀。

3. Up乜？做乜1000蚊美金雪糕都關佛教事？佛祖都會食雪糕咩（答案係會嘅，但應該唔係1000蚊美金一個）

4. 你諗下你食平嘢，牛奶公司雪糕（我食緊），點食架呢？咪上住網食，寫住文食，一路玩住電話食，然後諗聽日要返工。買嗰時？去七十一買返10個8個（呢排特價喎），質落個袋度（唔係YUU會員，唔使問）。「真係唔係幾尊重隻牛」。食嗰陣？大大力咁筆，甚至飛埋落枱都有。

5. 但你去食個1000蚊嘅雪糕係點架？嘩，唔同喎。事先已經心中J咗一輪，睇咗一輪歷史。去到正襟危坐，抹乾淨個電話（影相嘛）。食嗰時？嘩，影完相，仲要睇下個色澤，聞兩聞，細細啖先放入口，吞落去時感受下個溫度，感受下佢點在你口中喉嚨中融化（＊＊＊＊），然後奶埋隻羹（一千蚊美金唔係唔奶下話？）。真係每一啖都係工匠精神，黃子華話頭，人地開法拉利，最鍾意塞車，每分鐘都晒緊條命呀。

6. 作者話，拿，呢啲就Mindfulness Eating啦！生活中嘅小確幸呀！（你個小確幸都好貴）。去唔到澳洲咪去澳門再唔係去大澳門，入鹽田梓打卡都等於去瀨戶內海藝術祭呀！

7. 苦樂嘅嘢，在主觀的心呀！不在客觀的事！樓下飲冰室主人都係咁講！

8. 作者亦話，真係架，呢啲只係業障（佢冇用呢個字，我講嘅）。平價十蚊紅酒，倒落支一千蚊嘅靚酒酒樽，飲起上嚟都好high架！（我諗起李兆波，不如拎個星巴克紙盃去裝公司啲即溶咖啡，「然後落樓下星巴克望女」）

9. 真的，如此類推，攬住李嘉誠都當係李嘉欣，攬住鄭欣宜都當係鄭希怡！手痺？it’ nothing！用你嘅意志克服佢。

10. 好似係，除非唔係。

11. 其實背後嘅理念，我係同意兼且明嘅。就係講集中，心無旁騖。真的，食平嘢你真係唔多尊重，一路食一落諗其他嘢。但食貴嘢喎，幾大都只係專注當下啦。每一啖都係錢，每滴水都係道呀。

12. 不過，有冇諗過，「正係因為平價嘢難食，我先要一路諗住其他嘢！」。邊個係因邊個係果？雖然，照計貴嘢，唔會好食到你即時忘記晒所有煩惱—但我估我攬住周迅而唔係他信，應該都十分忘我，唔會諗甚麼其他嘢。

13. 我自己想發表嘅係：over咗了。其實咁玩法先係業障！肯定釋迦牟尼聽到都激到返生呀！

14. 都話本來無一物，何處惹塵埃。要1000蚊美金食個雪糕先mindfulness，就肯定披上袈裟事更多。點解係要裝落個La Fite樽先覺得好飲？

15. 記得睇過《酒佬日記》，成套戲不停Pinot Noir。但我最記得係，最後呀男主角撞到前妻同前妻新老公，仲知道佢大咗肚。男主角大受打擊，開咗佢支珍藏，一支1961嘅 Château Cheval Blanc—但點飲？佢在路邊搵間快餐店，拎個發泡膠杯飲咗佢！唔記得有冇拎嚟送薯條。

16. 嗯，其實我屋企都有支在意大利，摩德納（Modena）酒醋莊買嘅Balsamic vinegar。百年嘢，紅藥水咁細支，千幾兩千銀！香港買就一個開。但我而家都冇用過—照計應該搵次拎嚟點麥當勞薯條。

17. 真的，呢啲咁嘅嘢，適可而止，太多咪係負累。特別係買咗唔捨得食嘅窮撚（即係我），就自尋煩惱啦。埃汾太（八周年！！！）話頭，佢啲名校女生中學冋學，著對Timberland去打波，一個月唔夠著爛就換一對！個Prada袋打波隨手掉落場邊花槽架咋！

18. GS Elevator 話齋，” I don't have an iPhone case. I'm not irresponsible or poor.”， 「有冇聽過洗Chanel衫嘅故事呀？」（https://bityl.co/3rIv）

19. 所以呢，「唔好成日去啲你要睇價錢嘅地方食飯」。要睇價錢，咪即係食唔起咯—當然好多人都Afford到買張頭等機票，但你懂的，唔同嘛。正如亦係GS Elevator 講：No first class selfies.

20. 不過其實，又真係沒有最低，只有更低。我以前以為坐長途商務影相嘅人（例如本人）已經夠low—「但而家啲人係拍片甚至開直播的」
　
最尾先廣告時間，其實我Patreon都有分享呢啲有趣小故事，趁月頭訂抵呀（https://bit.ly/31QmYj7）

（＊）我並不認識Rajan Singh，not even on LinkedIn，但由公開資料睇到，佢在賓洲Wharton讀MBA，做過McKinsey，做過私募基金。而家自己搞咗幾檔嘢，其中一檔教下你淨化心靈呀mindfulness呀Zen呀之類（https://bityl.co/3nPF）。寫啲文都不錯（https://bityl.co/3nPI），可以睇下。另外佢仲有搞啲線上嘅不同活動，好多都免費，「例如齊齊讀書一小時」，反正免費，你冇乜損失。又，都話我唔識佢，梗係冇任何利益。至於我舊同事，返咗孟買年幾，咁我總冇理由叫你「去開孟買搵佢」，所以唔開名。「但如果我去開孟買就會搵佢」，去開的話

（＊＊）明顯我冇去過美國，又冇乜睇美劇。但講開好貴嘅雪糕同漢堡包就有印象。又，原來在東京原宿有分店！嗚，可惜之前唔知。

（＊＊＊）Mindfulness中文叫「正念/靜觀/覺察」，雖然講英文有型好多，而我唔明做乜釋迦牟尼講英文。Mindfulness呢味嘢，近十幾年極商品化，十分搵錢，嗰班友搵到你錢就肯定搵到Mindfulness

（＊＊＊＊）你應該知我諗緊乜

———————————————————
Ivan Patreon 狼耳街華人，一星期至少三篇港美市場評點，一個月一舊水唔使，開張兩個月已600人訂！仲有兩篇免費試睇：https://bit.ly/31QmYj7

——————————————————————————
［收費短片第十擊］人民幣升值受惠股，美股二線科技股揭秘
課程資訊：https://homebloggerhk.com/course_detail/?code=CC010

內容:
*軟件股IPO狂潮
*買平台股好過
*人民幣強勢買咩好?

本星期內特惠售價: $80
課程編號：CC010
觀看期限：首次播放後一星期及限每影片４次
客服whatsapp: 63832145

#Twitter戰線【天下制裁方向：科技產品、紅色資本、白手套 —— 請立即Retweet】

我已用英文撰文，公開回應白宮有意切實推動制裁的路透社報導，並提出經濟制裁應從三個方向，包括軍民兩用科技產品、紅色資本和白手套企業入手，呼籲各位幫忙Retweet，香港正與時間競賽，反制北京實在爭分奪秒：https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf/status/1265469996123041797

中文原文：https://www.facebook.com/200976479994868/posts/3025281830897638/

#眾志國際連結 #國際戰線

Reuters and Bloomberg just confimed that the US is likely to sanction China if it approves the hugely controversial bill that damages HK's autonomy. When Beijing insists on ignoring international responses and breaching international norms and rules, it is time for China to face the grave consequences and international backlashes for its irresponsible act of scraping an UN-filed Joint Declaration.

In fact, the world has already expressed concern over the evil and ill-defined national security law that will kill democratic movements in HK and harm global business interest in the city. But China keeps dismissing all doubts from world leaders, business sectors and even bar associations. This law is even eviler than the extradition bill last year. China’s poor human rights records have already proved that it will undeniably use the law to crush HK’s civil society and dissents.

For a long time, Hong Kong has been treated by Beijing as a white glove port for importing sensitive strategic commodities. Once the law is implemented, a secret police agency and a CCP-led China’s court will be imposed upon this global business centre. At that time, HK will fall into Beijing’s direct rule, and de facto becomes another city of China. Hence, all special treatments granted to HK need to be subject to reconsideration.

In fact, countries starts to realize the changing role of Hong Kong in a bigger picture of China’s global strategy. For example, Israel’s security officials just rejected a bid from CK Hutchison Holdings for the potential security risks of Chinese involvement in a plant construction in the disguise of "HK companies”.

To safeguard the city’s freedoms and urge China to stop further misconduct, world leaders, not only the US, should consider sanctions on China as the only effective strategic option to send a warning signal to Beijing. The sanctions should not only be restricted to personal sanctions like travel bans and asset freezes (since China won’t really realize the severity), but also partial sanctions on pro-CCP companies and dual-use technology.

Democratic values and the virtue to respect treaties are the foundation of democracies. If China’s flagrant breach of Joint Declaration, a legally binding international treaty at the United Nations, is tolerated, it will set a bad precedent to all other treaties and agreements alike.

————————

儘管拉人封艇，取締眾志不再是空談，留一口氣，點一盞燈，拜托大家幫忙延續國際戰線血脈：https://bit.ly/DemosistoBackup（是次籌募以美金結算）

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言