The World Famous Frawley Castle Website

■■■  Copyright Notice  ■■■


Speed Reader Page


VIDEO FILES are in Flash Player (.flv) format.  AUDIO FILES are in .mp3 format.

designed for viewing at widescreen resolution - 24" monitor - 1920x1080

The WFFCW was created August 5, 2001 :: we're 15 YEARS OLD!

7655102
WFFCW hits since April, 2003


"It's like a nightmare, isn't it?  It just keeps getting worse and worse." .... Keith McCready, in "The Color of Money"

"The only vaccine powerful enough to inoculate you from lies is the truth." .... Al Franken, famous author

WFFCW Quote Of The Second

WHAT IS THIS WEBSITE ABOUT?  Some of this is a personal website containing REBUTTAL, REPLY, and COMMENT to (primarily) public statements and accusations made by various self proclaimed "internet dog training experts".  The majority of the statements and accusations are FALSE, and refer to me, personally.  The nucleus of this website is based on verbatim quotes of public messages, most of which are archived with their respective lists.  Unless noted, nothing has been altered, other than formatting line length to screen width and changing the font style.  Other parts of this site contain OPINIONS, HUMOR, PARODY, COMEDY, and SARCASM which reflect my own personal sense of humor and viewpoints.  The First Amendment of the Constitution adequately, particularly, and specifically provides these rights.  This site is for educational and entertainment purposes.  This is emphatically not a "hate" site.  There is no hate, and never was.  Profanity is kept to a minimum, but it does exist.  If this website seems offensive to you, in any way, please leave now.  Please do not subject yourself to being offended.

TO THOSE IN FEAR OF THIS WEBSITE:  Websites can be terrifying places.  If you're afraid, we'll never understand why, but what can WE do?  You're allowed to be frightened of webpages, or anything else.  This website contains NO THREATS of any nature - no direct, indirect, implied, supplied, or personified threats - it never did and never will.  There is a lot of SARCASM here.  If you're afraid, our heart goes out to you - we don't WANT you to be afraid.  We want you to get help.  Dial 911, and scream for help.  If you wind up in a straight jacket, that's your problem.  If you don't, that's your problem, too.

COPYRIGHT © is clearly acknowledged where, when, and if applicable.  It's even acknowledged where it's not applicableThe USCO website.  This link contains verbatim United States Copyright Law, which clearly allows for rebuttal, comment, criticism, etc.  United States Copyright Law specifically states "COPYRIGHT DOES NOT APPLY TO FACTUAL INFORMATION".  (Read the law - see for yourself.)  Rebutting falsified "factual information" is not a violation of copyright law.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE I'M TRUTHFUL, DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL SCREEN CAPTURES 

IF I'M NOT 100% HONEST AND ACCURATE, CALL ME A LIAR and CONFRONT ME WITH FACTS

Main WFFCW Menu


Voodoo Louie Makes A New Friend

SEVERE RISK

International Voodoo Louie Castle Security Threat Advisory Level

Current Voodoo Louie Warning Alert

HIGH RISK

HIGH RISK

ELEVATED RISK

GUARDED RISK

LOW RISK

Keep on typin', Louie!
Steve's message to Voodoo Louie Castle

You're about to see that COURT IS IN SESSION.  Judge Voodoo Louie thinks he's going to interrogate me.
He'll determine my qualifications if my answers are acceptable and suitable.
If they are, he'll degrade me while asking more questions.  If not, then he'll discredit me right on the spot.
Read on, as Louie tries to bait me into providing my credentials, background, and history for his approval.

Notice how Louie magically becomes "we" and "us" .... as if he's collecting information for an entire group of people.
Notice how he's appointed himself as the Grand Jury Spokesman, as he conducts his investigation.
Notice how Louie just grinds on and on, begging for my background.

Notice how Louie can shove his interrogation right up his ass

ALL RISE as JUDGE VOODOO LOUIE tries to control and intimidate me .... and fails.

 

This is how it all started, folks ....

This is the BEGINNING of the WFFCW


Here are Louie's first few messages discrediting me on a public protection dog message list.

Please take note of the dates and times.

 

Voodoo Louie's text is RED

Steve Leigh's text is BLUE


Headers and quoted parts of other or previous messages might be in
BLACK.

Louie's FIRST public attack message:

Date:         Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:44:39 EDT
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Lou Castle <UnclLou@AOL.COM>
Subject:      [PD-L] Character Assassination  Was: {P-T} E-collar training videos
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM

In a message dated 6/6/01 10:59:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sleigh@TAMPABAY.RR.COM writes:

Steve is it OK if I forward your post to Donn???  I'm sure that he'd be gratified to hear from you.

> In the mid 90s, I organized/participated in a 2 day seminar in San Diego.

I'm sure that since you're such an expert in these matters that you're familiar with the "K9 Wars" of the 1990's in Los Angeles.  That was when two lawyers backed by the ACLU tried to stop the use of K-9's by police agencies.  They were soundly thrashed and wound up winning, not even one, of the hundreds of suits they filed against both LAPD and LASD.
The lawyer who fought most of them for the City of LA credits Donn with those victories, not his own expertise.

>  One of the more interesting observations:  at that time (I don't know about now), LAPD and LASO both had 10 K9 teams, and countless liability lawsuits.

Yep, you seem to know a bit about them.  But not much.

> In comparison, at the same time, SDPD had 52 K9 teams on the street, and only a few lawsuits pending.

ROFLMAO.  There are several reasons that the wars were fought in LA and not in San Diego.  But the main one is that LA is a much more liberal city and therefore much more likely to dislike uses of force by police.  Another is that in LA at that time several members of the ACLU were on the Police Commission.  So your subtle attempt to hint that San Diego was a better unit, based just on just this one fact, is just pure BS.

>  Inter-agency dislike and ill-will were not only apparent, but extreme.

So what's new???  That's the case with large departments all over the country.  Not saying it's right, because it's certainly not, but that's still the way it is.

In many states it's the smaller departments who are hated by the larger, state units.  And usually that emotion is returned.  So please don't pretend that this situation is limited to the LA area.  That would just be stupid!!!

>  What came of lengthy discussion with several officers pointed to the fact that the more successful K9 programs typically results in a larger number of dogs and handlers.

Success or lack of it rarely has ANYTHING to do with how large a K9 unit is. That has to do, mainly, with political decisions made by those in charge of the entity.  In the City of LA, that's the Police Commission, who, as I pointed out, was extremely liberal.

Addition, written years later:  Here are two Voodoo Louie quotes, shown above.  I highlighted some words:

(1) "the main one is that LA is a much more liberal city and therefore much more likely to dislike uses of force by police"

(2) "City of LA, that's the Police Commission, who, as I pointed out, was extremely liberal."

Maybe Voodoo Louie doesn't understand "liberal".  "Liberal" means "broadminded, freethinking, tolerant" - the exact opposite of "narrow minded".

Thus, if the LA Police commission was so "liberal", why would they "dislike use of force by police"?  See this page.  

>  Mr. Yarnell was not spoken very highly of, by his own officers, or other officers who had done training with him.

This is extremely common.  I don't know your background but it's extremely rare for an experienced cop to like taking orders from someone who's not his supervisor, that is someone without stripes or bars.  That's the position faced by Donn, myself and many others.  Few, if any, of the people we've trained like us.  Few if any of them will say anything good about us.  That is until, they get exposed to the dogs of other units.  THEN they realize how good they've had it.

>  It was made mighty clear (at that time) that Mr. Yarnell was only in charge because of "political clout".

I've known Donn since before he founded the LAPD K9 unit.  He got that assignment because he had first founded the LAPD narcotics airport unit. There wasn't any political clout.  There was just competent dog training. How much political clout do you think that a police officer, not even a sergeant at that time, could have???

>  However, one of the vendors who was present, absolutely *LOVED* Mr. Yarnell because of the large budget (and thus,
>  commissions) LAPD could spend on dog equipment.

Of course.  Would anyone with any common sense think it would be any other way???  Vendors love me when I have 5 or 10K to spend.  If I had ten times that amount they'd love me ten times as much.

It appears that you know as much about this situation as you know about Ecollars.  Not very much.

If anyone is interested you can see Donn's resume at his website

www.donnyarnall.com

I think it's appropriate to ask you the same questions I asked of Mark, who was just as rude as you.

Why don't you tell us of your accomplishments???  I'm sure they're fantastic!!!  I'm sure that you've been around the world training dogs.  I'm sure that you've done hundreds of seminars.  I'm sure that your skills are in GREAT demand.  I'm sure that quite a few companies are after you for your endorsement.  I'm sure that you've made lots and lots of videos that sell in the six figures every year.  I'm sure that your day rate for training is in the four figures.  So tell us of YOUR accomplishments.

I suggest that folks visit YOUR website and see for themselves how involved you are in dogs at this time.

It's at www.sl-prokeys.com

But for me, the height of disrespect and discourtesy is to badmouth someone who's not present to defend themself.  I know that if you were face to face with either Donn or me you wouldn't say these things.

Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
(UnclLou@aol.com)

Louie's NEXT public message:

Date:         Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:44:53 EDT
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Lou Castle <UnclLou@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] {P-T} E-collar training videos
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Josh Lewis wrote:
> >..but not the off the cuff remarks from someone who might have PERSONAL issues to grind.

And Steve Leigh answered:
>  I wouldn't know, and won't get involved in that.

Problem is that by sending your first post on this topic you ARE involved. Too late to snivel out now.

>  So I think I'll buy Sgt. Thom Payne's tapes, because I know AND like *him*!

If this is where you got your knowledge of Ecollars, I'm sure they're worthless.  ROFL

I'm sure it'll be fine with you if I send your next post on this topic to Donn.

Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
(UnclLou@aol.com)

Then I wrote back publicly:

Date:         Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:34:49 -0400
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Steve Leigh <sleigh@TAMPABAY.RR.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] {P-T} E-collar training videos
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM

At 01:44 AM 6/7/01 -0400, you wrote:
Josh Lewis wrote:
> >..but not the off the cuff remarks from someone who might have PERSONAL issues to grind.

And Steve Leigh answered:
>  I wouldn't know, and won't get involved in that.

Problem is that by sending your first post on this topic you ARE involved.  Too late to snivel out now.

It's pretty apparent that one of us has an attitude problem.  And is quite argumentative.  And it's not me.

>  So I think I'll buy Sgt. Thom Payne's tapes, because I know AND like *him*!

If this is where you got your knowledge of Ecollars, I'm sure they're worthless.  ROFL

You can "be sure" of whatever you want :))  Thom was one of the officers who started the San Diego PD K9 unit a long time ago, around 1980.  You can call that "worthless" or "valuable", whichever you like.  Why worry yourself about my knowledge?

But since you're attempting to be so aggressive with me (and it's not even bitework) will you stop if I buy YOUR videos and Don's videos too?

I'm sure it'll be fine with you if I send your next post on this topic to Donn.

Whatever you say.  I'm not in control of what you forward, or what you backward either.

"Do yo' thang", as they say.   :)))

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

And I wrote back publicly again:

Date:         Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:58:08 -0400
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Steve Leigh <sleigh@TAMPABAY.RR.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] Character Assassination  Was: {P-T} E-collar training
              videos
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To:  <fb.1503b975.28506ec7@aol.com>

At 01:44 AM 6/7/01 -0400, you wrote:

Steve is it OK if I forward your post to Donn???  I'm sure that he'd be gratified to hear from you.

Who cares?

I'm sure that since you're such an expert in these matters

You're mighty aggressive here, Uncle!  But it gets a lot better as you babble on .........

Yep, you seem to know a bit about them.  But not much.

With you around to fill us in, we're not missing a thing.

So your subtle attempt to hint that San Diego was a better unit, based just on just this one fact, is just pure BS.

Yeah, right.  My own EYES told me all I needed to know.

That's the case with large departments all over the country.  Not saying it's right, because it's certainly not, but that's still the way it is.

So?

So please don't pretend that this situation is limited to the LA area.  That would just be stupid!!!

Since you haven't made a point here, I didn't miss your point.

Success or lack of it rarely has ANYTHING to do with how large a K9 unit is.  That has to do, mainly, with political decisions made by those in charge of the entity.  In the City of LA, that's the Police Commission, who, as I pointed out, was extremely liberal.

52 functional K9 units (as opposed to 10) appears to my sensibilities as a department whose USE of K9s is somewhat more successful.  You can call it measles or rabies if ya want to, I really don't care.

[ a whole lot of drivel deleted ]

I think it's appropriate to ask you the same questions I asked of Mark, who was just as rude as you.

I wasn't rude in any way.  I simply replied to a message politely.  But YOU are plenty rude.  And challenging.  And argumentative.  And redundant, too.

Why don't you tell us of your accomplishments??? I'm sure they're fantastic!!!  I'm sure that you've been around the world training
dogs.  I'm sure that you've done hundreds of seminars.  I'm sure that your skills are in GREAT demand.  I'm sure that quite a few companies are after you for your endorsement.  I'm sure that you've made lots and lots of videos that sell in the six figures every year.  I'm sure that your day rate for training is in the four figures.  So tell us of YOUR accomplishments.

I've been around the world.  My skills, accomplishments, and abilities are adequate to make a living training dogs, which I've done for 20+ years.  Nobody endorses me, except my wife and clients.  But what's the difference?  All YOU'RE looking for is a fight, after we choose up sides to see who's taller.  Your jive doesn't do a thing except illustrate what a juvenile, locker room  attitude looks like in email.

I know that if you were face to face with either Donn or me you wouldn't say these things.

Oh, but I damn sure WOULD!  Then you could send your dog, and show me how BAAAAD you are?

Why don't you save your aggression for those that you can intimidate?

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

Getting slightly pissed off, I wrote a PRIVATE message to Louie:

Yo Uncle, or Lou, Yipyap, or whoever you are .......

We both know you have a grossly oversized, bloated ego, and you're entirely welcome to it.  You're the greatest, the smartest, the most experienced, the best, and the most knowledgeable.  But who gives a shit?  Nobody over here does.

The message you wrote (below) and your little kiddy challenges deserve some personal attention.

I'm not one of your customers or one of your Ho's.  Your attitude - in a mailing group, no less - clearly show that you gained a buncha weight when they handed you a badge and a gun.  I know that's impressive to you, but it don't impress me at all.

Challenging me regarding my accomplishments serves no purpose, except to bloat your ego even more.  That's fine - I bet you haven't gone to Stuckenbrock, but I have.  (Do you even know what Stuckenbrock is?)  Have you titled dogs in Germany?  I have.  Are you even DEA licensed, or you use pseudos?  I am.  But who gives a shit?  You've done your things - I've done mine.  We gonna choose up sides now and see who's got the biggest dick?  That's your mentality, not mine, Bubba.

When you take on the objective of belittling somebody with your ego, you need to first determine if they care.  Nothing you can do or say has much impact in my life.  I'll go on doing what I do regardless of your childish bullshit and aggressive attitude.

If you choose to hero worship Yarnell, or anybody else, that's a good thing.  It's YOUR thing.  No problem.  But don't expect everybody else in the world to get in line and share YOUR viewpoint.  Cause we don't.  Period.  And nothing you type is gonna convince us that what we SAW is what we DIDN'T SEE.  Your voodoo isn't powerful enough.  You have your viewpoint, and it's not right or wrong - it's just yours.  You won't EVER force your viewpoint down MY throat, cause you have no effect on my life.  I'm not one of your subordinates, you're not my leader.

You don't have to worry about my income.  Four figures (daily) isn't something I'll see for dog training right away.  But I'm fairly certain YOU aren't getting rich with dogs, either.  But again, who gives a shit?

Your opinions are just exactly that: opinions.  You may THINK you have all the answers, but I *KNOW* you don't.  You do have a king sized ego, and maybe you're good to go as far as dogs are concerned.  I don't know, and don't really care.  *I* don't have to put up with you, and that's a good thing, too.

In my world, there are plenty of great dog people that are accessible to me.  When I need to know, I can learn from any number of really great guys - it's not necessary to wade thru all your chest pounding bullshit, and ask you.

You don't need to reply to me, cause I'm not very interested in anything you can say.  But I feel certain that your kind just can't resist, so go ahead and get in the last word, show us how tough you are, and try and intimidate me some more.  I'm not gonna intimidate, but I bet you try anyhow.

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

Of course, Louie publicly slams back:

Date:         Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:56:19 EDT
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Lou Castle <UnclLou@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] Character Assassination  Was: {P-T} E-collar training videos
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM

In a message dated 6/7/01 8:04:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sleigh@TAMPABAY.RR.COM writes:

> 52 functional K9 units (as opposed to 10) appears to my sensibilities as a department whose USE of K9s is somewhat more
> successful.  You can call it measles or rabies if ya want to, I really don't care.

At this time LAPD has 16 units or so.  That' all they seem to need.  They make it to every search they're called to. Too bad that you think that numbers are what makes good K9 teams.

>  I've been around the world.  My skills, accomplishments, and abilities are adequate to make a living training dogs, which I've

>  done for 20+ years.  Nobody endorses me, except my wife and clients.  But what's the difference?

The difference is that you didn't answer a single one of my questions.  If you're going to criticize someone you should at least have some base of knowledge.  But since you've chosen to conceal rather than tell us of your accomplishments or experience we can only guess that you have neither.
How about this.  Tell us of some trainers that we can go to to ask about you???  Perhaps they'll tell us something good.
Got any names to drop besides Thom Payne???  Got contact info for him???

Regards,

Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
(UnclLou@aol.com)

Getting MORE slightly pissed off, I wrote another private message to Louie:

At 01:44 AM 6/7/01 -0400, you wrote:

I'm sure that since you're such an expert in these matters that you're familiar with the "K9 Wars" of the 1990's in Los Angeles.  That was when two lawyers backed by the ACLU tried to stop the use of K-9's by police agencies.   They were soundly thrashed and wound up winning, not even one, of the hundreds of suits they filed against both LAPD and LASD.

What a load of shit!  Ya forgot to mention the DOZENS that were settled OUT OF COURT and paid off!

The lawyer who fought most of them for the City of LA credits Donn with those victories, not his own expertise.

Yeah right.

So please don't pretend that this situation is limited to the LA area.  That would just be stupid!!!

"Stupid" describes YOUR inability to READ the message you reply to.  Nobody even SUGGESTED that this was limited to LA area.  It's just (another) delusion of your mind.  Learn how to read and comprehend, willya?  Learn to ASK what was meant if English is too hard for you to understand.

Success or lack of it rarely has ANYTHING to do with how large a K9 unit is. That has to do, mainly, with political decisions made by those in charge of the entity.  In the City of LA, that's the Police Commission, who, as I pointed out, was extremely liberal.

Liberal my ass.  The example is right at your doorstep, Bubba.  LA's dogs MAKE more fuckin problems than they SOLVE.  San Diego's don't.  THAT'S why the city budget puts 52 (or more) dogs to work, compared to a city 3x the size (LA) with 10.  You gotta be blind to make these kinds of statements.  I'm not one of these freakin women who hang on your every word, Bubba, and think it's absolute gospel.  Run this bullshit off on them, maybe it'll work.

That's the position faced by Donn, myself and many others.  Few, if any, of the people we've trained like us.  Few if any of them will say anything good about us.

And there ya have it!  Right outa your own keyboard.  ROFLMAO!

It's just plain INCREDIBLE that I've trained with some GREAT trainers over the years, all over the world!  And have NOTHING BUT GOOD THINGS to say about them!  Maybe YOU'RE missing something here, Louie?  Or maybe YOU know it ALL, and guys like Gene England don't know shit, right?

That is until, they get exposed to the dogs of other units.  THEN they realize how good they've had it.

Yeah right.  Gimme a break Louie - your EGO is larger than LAX, ya know that?

Of course.  Would anyone with any common sense think it would be any other way???  Vendors love me when I have 5 or 10K to spend.

I love ya when ya have these delusions. You're a real piece of work, Louie.

It appears that you know as much about this situation as you know about Ecollars.  Not very much.

ROFLMAO!  It's a waste of time communicating with you.  You aren't ABLE to communicate with anyone who doesn't agree WITH YOU.

I think it's appropriate to ask you the same questions I asked of Mark, who was just as rude as you.

Bubba, you get the PRIZE for rude.  It's a character flaw of yours, and I feel positive that most cops who have EVER had contact with you would reinforce that.

I suggest that folks visit YOUR website and see for themselves how involved you are in dogs at this time.

With your limited range of thinking, maybe a website is an indicator.  Regardless of involvement OR websites, I've been around a little.  Certainly enough to recognize what you are:  just another bloated ego complete with a badge and gun and a computer.  If I'm supposed to be impressed by you, you're gonna have a long wait.

I know that if you were face to face with either Donn or me you wouldn't say these things.

No reason not to ....... Frankly, I'd get a kick out of seeing your "training" next time I'm in CA.  LOL!  It's been awhile since I've seen somebody who knows it ALL.  ROFLMAO!

I'll be glad, at that time, to tell you, right to your face, that you write asshole messages and have a major personality problem.  Maybe you'll be so offended that you'll draw a weapon and shoot me, or send a dog to kick my ass.  But that won't change anything - my opinion of you will remain exactly the same.  :))  YOU created it with your yipyapping messages.

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

Now Louie puts some private intimidation on me:

From: UnclLou@aol.com
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:56:21 EDT
Subject: Re: [PD-L] Character Assassination  Was: {P-T} E-collar training videos
To: sleigh@tampabay.rr.com

In a message dated 6/7/01 9:04:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sleigh@tampabay.rr.com writes:

> Yo Uncle, or Lou, Yipyap, or whoever you are .......

What a little punk you are.  In all that bullshit you still didn't answer even ONE of my questions.  That's because you can't.  You ain't shit.  You are just some little piece of slime that pretends to know about dog training and exposes his ignorance on an email sub list.  Too bad you're just a waste of skin.

And I put some back on Louie, on the public list:

Date:         Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:31:36 -0400
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Steve Leigh <sleigh@TAMPABAY.RR.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] {P-T} E-collar training videos
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM

At 03:56 AM 6/8/01 -0400, you wrote:
In a message dated 6/7/01 7:41:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sleigh@TAMPABAY.RR.COM writes:

> It's pretty apparent that one of us has an attitude problem.  And is quite argumentative.  And it's not me.

Hold on a second.  You dump on my best friend, a guy who's given me hundreds of hours of his own time (before we were friends) just because I was a police officer who asked and who needed help.

I didn't "dump" on anyone.  Reread what I wrote.  What he has "given you" has absolutely nothing to do with my mention of him.

You quote third party hearsay while bashing him.

I didn't quote a thing.  I didn't bash anyone.  I just stated what several dogs at a seminar didn't do, and that several people had nothing positive to say about the same person.

And **I** have the attitude probelm.

Yes indeed you do.  Without question.

And **I'M** being argumentative!!!

Yes you certainly are.  Ask anyone :))

Am I missing something here???

A muzzle.

Because you continually state every myth about Ecollar usage as if it was fact.  Because you only know how to use Ecollars as punishment but you pretend that you're an expert in every phase of their use.

I haven't continually stated anything.  YOU'RE the expert.  YOU know it all.  YOU'RE the finest trainer on this, or any other list, and probably in the world.  YOU'RE the guy who corrects one and all in each of your messages unless the person happens to AGREE with you, and YOU'RE the one who knows everything about EVERYTHING, including people you don't know but YOU KNOW.

Because you're liable to influence someone who really wants to learn about them.

No way.  Not with the resident expert, Uncle Louie out here to PROTECT them.

>  But since you're attempting to be so aggressive with me (and it's not even bitework) will you stop if I buy YOUR videos and
>  Don's videos too?

LOL.  Good one Steve.  I don't have any videos but I'd really like you to buy Donn's when it's available.  Tell you what.

No - I'll tell YOU what.  If I need to know, there are several *great* trainers, here, in Germany and Holland, just a phone call away.  Challenge, insult, and snowball somebody else.  If you can't understand by now, your attitude sucks and doesn't work on me.  Find somebody you CAN intimidate.

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

And a little more, still on the public list:

Date:         Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:38:54 -0400
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Steve Leigh <sleigh@TAMPABAY.RR.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] Character Assassination  Was: {P-T} E-collar training videos
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To:  <d7.78da436.2851df23@aol.com>

At 03:56 AM 6/8/01 -0400, you wrote:

But since you've chosen to conceal rather than tell us of your accomplishments or experience we can only guess that you have neither.

Guess anything you want to.

How about this.  Tell us of some trainers that we can go to to ask about you???  Perhaps they'll tell us something good.

Louie, you just don't get it, do you?

Got any names to drop besides Thom Payne???  Got contact info for him???

YOU'RE the name dropper, the REAL expert, the REAL pro, the leading seminar trainer, and the most in demand for your "electric"
knowledge.  (ROFLMAO)  You're also ego bloated and mighty aggressive.

Of course I have contact info - Thom will contact you when the time comes.  Till then, just keep up the good work.

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

 


At this point (and it's still only June 8! .... this fight's barely even one day old!), I'm getting about fed up with this asshole Louie and his locker room challenges.  I'm trying to keep this shit private, but Voodoo Louie insists on making it public.  He's miserable unless he has an audience available to take sides.


Steve writes privately:

At 03:56 AM 6/8/01 -0400, you wrote:
In a message dated 6/7/01 9:04:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sleigh@tampabay.rr.com writes:

> Yo Uncle, or Lou, Yipyap, or whoever you are .......

What a little punk you are.

What a mutual feeling!  I don't have any respect for you either, Yipyap.

In all that bullshit you still didn't answer even ONE of my questions.

Who the fuck are YOU?  A JUDGE?  ROFLMAO!!!!

That's because you can't.

I CAN - I won't.

You ain't shit.

Exactly right.  I'm not shit.  And I don't yipyap like you, either.

You are just some little piece of slime that pretends to know about dog training

Nah yippy, after 20 something years, there ain't no pretending.  I been, I done, I know.

and exposes his ignorance on an email sub list.  Too bad you're just a waste of skin.

Ya still can't understand.  Your ego is in your way, Bubba.  You're a fuckin legend in YOUR mind.  The rest of the world knows what you are.  And they don't CARE.  :)))

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

So Louie privately reattacks:

From: UnclLou@aol.com
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:34:31 EDT
Subject: Re: Straight up, Louie
To: sleigh@tampabay.rr.com

You're such a loser that it's not any fun playing with you in private mail any more.  It's just too easy.  I'll be happy to embarass you on the list any time you write crap though.

Feel free to have the last word.

Needing the LAST word, Louie happily embarrasses me on the public list:

Date:         Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:34:52 EDT
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Lou Castle <UnclLou@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] Character Assassination  Was: {P-T} E-collar training videos
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM

I wrote:
> >But since you've chosen to conceal rather than tell us of your accomplishments or experience we can only guess that you have > neither.

And Mr. Leigh responded:

>  Guess anything you want to.

When someone is asked for references or experience and they refuse to provide them, instead they provide another evasive answer, we know what that means. They have no references or experience.  Guessing isn't necessary.

>  Of course I have contact info - Thom will contact you when the time comes.

Since you have contact information on Sgt. Payne, please supply it so we can go directly to him.

Is there some reason that you continue to be so evasive and abusive???

Regards,

Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
(UnclLou@aol.com)

Steve sends Louie another private message:

At 04:10 PM 6/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
I'm doing a seminar in the Tampa area, where I believe you're located, around Thanksgiving.  Part of what I'm teaching is the Ecollar.  It's just a short course, not the full seminar that I prefer to do.  But I will be working with a couple of dogs with problems.  I'd be happy to check with the people putting on the seminar and see if you could attend the Ecollar portion free of charge to help you see what's being done today.  Please let me know.

Yo Yipper - you MUST be slap outa your fuckin mind!

You publicly insult me, challenge me, and belittle me for no reason - except to boost up YOUR know-it-all ego - then offer me your pal's freebie videos and training?  You're gonna HELP me understand?  What if I ALREADY understand, Yipper?

Tell ya what ya do, big boy - APOLOGIZE a few times - just as many times as you insulted me - and I'll consider it.  And do it publicly - the same place you challenged me in the first place.

Yipyap, I was using electricity _correctly_ when you were still wettin your bed.  When punishment was all that we had, we pushed the red button.  When they came out with the 1-80s and 1-90s, we used them, too.  You aren't even ABOUTS to teach ME low level avoidance, just like I'm not ABOUTS to teach YOU how to fuckin READ.  Yer head is just as thick as your ego.  I could teach YOU avoidance training, except I couldn't stand bein around your type for more than 3 minutes.  What the fuck makes YOU think you know it all?  Yesterday OR today?  What gives YOU the idea that you stand in judgement??

Ya STILL don't understand.  I got trainer FRIENDS a phone call away who can bury whatever ya THINK ya know about dogs AND training AND electricity.  I never SEEN you Yipyap - and I can TELL ya - they're ALL better than you are.  I got no use for you - you got too much ego to put up with - even IF ya DO have anything new to teach about electrics - which I VERY VERY VERY  seriously doubt.  I'm convinced you're just peddling the same old shit as we got in the second Tortora book in the late 70s/early 80s.  *AVOIDANCE*  *LOW STIM*  Nothin' new.

Whatever you're doing in Tampa area, I want no part of it, OR any part of the chumps in Tampa who need you to "help" them with their "problem" dogs.  No doubt many of em have already been out here, and been tossed right out the gates.  You know what's happening, just like I do.  Your "clients" are actually "failures".  That's why they want you here - a quickie fix for their problems.  They'll never fix em themselves :))  If they're sporty people - yer welcome to em.  If they're cops, they gonna be doin a lot of beggin to the brass, or leavin the dogs HOME!!!  ROFLMAO!

The point is to have them work successfully.  I don't think it matters in the slightest what tool is used.  I prefer the Ecollar because it's the easiest to teach, the safest and the most humane method.

Aw shit.  Suddenly the bloated ego AGREES with me.  Multiple personalities, Louie?

As I said at the top of this, the main drawback to Ecollars is their expense.

Nah, ya hard headed asshole - the DRAWBACK is the ease of use.  The fuckin simplicity of pushing a button.  The magic-fuckin-wand.  "I couldn't teach Bosco WITHOUT it!"  Your adoring fan club Liz (?) or whatever the fuck her name is  - is a walkin example - she's YOUR OWN STAR ASSHOLE WITNESS:  NOW that she gots an electric she gots a PERFECT DOG.  Uncle Louie HELPED her!  Before - she couldn't HOPE to control doggie!  But NOW?  He don't break downs, don't chase deer, don't even move around in the house!!!  She's in TOTAL control now!!  But HOLD ON!!!!!!  She discovered she bought a cheap piece of shit fuckin COLLAR!  And it's MOMENTARY ONLY!  And it ain't POWERFUL ENOUGH!!

So the lady will go buy the NEW Yipyap model - cause it's MO' POW'FUL!!!!  ***THAT*** will make a DOG LEADER outa her!!  ROFLMAO!  At you AND her!

***THIS*** is what you're doing.  THIS don't impress me one drop.  It never will, yipper.

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

Steve sends the list a public message:

At 04:08 PM 6/9/01 -0400, you wrote:

Punishment training is often done BEFORE the fact, as with snakeproofing or trashbreaking.  The stimulation is given BEFORE the dog gets to the snake or is in the trashcan.  The correction is given for approaching the object. This could just be a matter of semantics though.

In fact, it is - semantics.  If the dog has shown interest, and is committed towards the snake, deer, garbage, whatever ..... that's the fact.  To punish, you don't need to wait until he's finished EATING the trash - or wait until AFTER the snake bites him - you punish when he COMMITS.  I realize how very difficult it is to respond to my message, and admit that maybe I'm correct.

These dogs because of their high levels of drive didn't exhibit the frantic behavior that Mr. Leigh describes.  They were too distracted by the chase for it to get to that level of discomfort.

Maybe.  Some dogs.  Sometimes.  Under some circumstances.  The rest of em screamed and bolted, jumped, danced, and levitated.

So this means that "In the mid-70s," Mr. Leigh was using a tool that cause his dogs to "become frantic."  Why anyone would use such a tool in such a manner is beyond my understanding.  I guess that earning a living as a dog trainer justified it, at least in his mind.

While the thrill of JUDGING me, and my behaviors is quite apparent, it's not accurate.  EVERYBODY borrowed my Tritronics back then to "teach outs".  Maybe you weren't around in the late 70s.  Back then, that's what we had - that's what we used.

Don't waste your time, or the list's entertainment value, in "guessing" what was "in his mind".

I avoid using punishment training for anything other than a life threatening situation, such as "snakeproofing."

Maybe it's MY turn to guess?  I can't imagine why anyone would want to snakeproof a dog, and use a tool that causes the dog to become FRANTIC?  Or does electric snakeproofing create calmness?  I guess that earning a living as a dog trainer justifies it, at least in his mind.  Ya can't have it both ways here, Louie. :))

Mr. Leigh is, of course, free to make his own decisions about when he uses Ecollars and when he doesn't.

Hey - thank you very much!

But many MECU's are doing nothing BUT training with Ecollars with John Q Public (JQP).

So what?  Many people smoke pot, too.  Does that mean we ALL have to??  I hope you don't mind if I don't.

It's far easier to teach timing with an Ecollar than it is to try to get them to deliver a proper leash correction.

Says you.  Others might disagree.

Even if they are good with a leash it takes a long time, often many years, for JQP to get to the point where they can give the appropriate level of correction with a leash, in a consistent manner.  With the Ecollar a 2 is always a 2.

Unless the battery needs charging.  Or they left the collar at home.  But what's the point?  Speed?  "I'll have you training just like a PRO in 35 minutes, Mrs. Miller!!"?

That's the main reason they're having problems.  It's the job of the trainer to teach them this skill.

LOL!  My job PAYS.  :))  Or I don't WORK.

I recently had a client who had a very stubborn pit bull puppy, about 16 weeks old that had bitten everyone in the family and was running the house the way HE wanted to.

ROFLMAO! 16 WEEKS!!!  Your "client" was (and probably still is!) SUBORDINATE.

After about 90 minutes they understood what the problem was, how to communicate with him

Oh my!  From follower to pack leader in just 90 minutes!

AND how to use an Ecollar to fix their problems.

It's just like a magic wand, isn't it?  Hope the batteries don't discharge.

The dog is a happy member of the family who has assumed his rightful place.

Questionable.  The dog already learned to challenge - he's already "tested the waters" and won, and it's better than a 50/50 chance he gonna test 'em AGAIN.

There is NO training tool that's as fast or as easy on the dogs as Ecollars.

And there ya have it!  HURRY UP!

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

 


Judge Voodoo Louie couldn't get a response out of me with his "guessing" and "we can only assume" bullshit.  His threats aren't having any impact on me, and his vast, superior knowledge doesn't look too vast OR superior to me.  It doesn't even look like knowledge.

Moving forward to August, 2001, a public table training discussion took place.  Voodoo Louie has already insulted and degraded me repeatedly regarding "my methods" of training.  Now he attempts to discredit me for using tables.  These, and dozens more messages, are contained in the original_msgs.zip file, a tiny zip which can be downloaded in about a minute or less.


Louie publicly accuses me of shocking testicles and hanging dogs to unconsciousness:

 

Date:         Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:19:45 -0400
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Steve Leigh <sleigh@TAMPABAY.RR.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] Tabletop Training:  DEFINITELY YES
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To:  <116.2f181cc.28a5a0ea@aol.com>

At 04:41 PM 8/10/01 -0400, you wrote:

I'll answer you directly.  "You don't deserve an answer".

Since Mr. Leigh continually evades direct questions with remarks such as this,

I don't evade anything.  Your questions are literally "nothing".  They're similar to listening to an infant babbling.  In one word:  nonsense.

we can only assume

You are welcome to assume whatever you want to assume, whenever you feel like assuming.

that he DOES use electricity on the testicles of dogs that he trains and that he DOES habitually choke dogs to the point of unconsciousness.

Anytime at all that you can PROVE these statements, I encourage you to do so.

This isn't training, this is abuse.

No Voodoo Louie - YOU are abuse.  Your messages, challenges, and attempts to fight are nothing but abuse.

I think we can dispense with any training advice that comes from him in the future.

As I said weeks ago, it matters exactly ZERO what you think.  Your opinion is just one of billions in the world, and has no effect whatsoever on me, my school, or my training work.

Furthermore - unlike you - I don't care to GIVE advice.  So feel free not to take what I'm not giving.   :)

As I also said - weeks ago - writing this type of challenging, put-down type of message publicly serves no purpose for the list.  While it may pump up your already bloated ego by putting me down with your ridiculous assumptions, it only makes the mail list have to wade through yet another war.  I've invited you repeatedly to take up your problems with me PRIVATELY, and leave the list out of it.  Actually, you have done this - but you're obviously not content trading verbal punches in private - you feel the need to include everyone else.

This kind of slamming and bashing belongs off the list, but I can easily understand why you feel so threatened there - simply because in private, I'll gladly confront you in ways that are completely inappropriate for the public list, and highlight your lack of knowledge, understanding, and ethics.  We both know I'll tear into you in private, but certainly won't do it publicly.  That's because MY ego doesn't need to be inflated by belittling you for others to see.

I apologize to the list in general for this kind of public display.  Maybe the list moderator would be kind enough (again) to recommend that this type of bashing and flaming be done privately.

Steve Leigh - sleigh@tampabay.rr.com
www.sl-prokeys.com

 

Louie tries to answer my public interrogation game:

 

Date:         Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:25:16 EST
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Lou Castle <UnclLou@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: [PD-L] Claims?  Please clarify
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM

In a message dated 11/25/01 7:14:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, steve at sl-prokeys dot com writes:

Does this statement mean that Culver City PD has dozens of working dogs/handlers?

Over the 20+ year period that I was a handler and then trainer, CC had a maximum of 4 dogs at one time and when the Chief wasn't in the mood, as few as none.  Average was 3.  "Dozens" is he number over the 20 years.

Last I heard, Culver City PD was a one dog department, working towards two.

That's the case now.

the maximum number in the last 15 years?  Or does the "dozens" above refer to pets and neighbor's dogs?  Or police dogs in other departments?  Does the "dozens" actually mean "hands on" training, or does it include "phone training", too?  And, as a last question in this part, does "training" mean constant daily work with the same dog/handler for months, until the training is resolved, OR does "training" in your meaning refer to - for example - going out to training and making a suggestion, then not having anything else to do with that particular dog again?

Steve you really should consider the source when you propose such nonsense. Training means working with handlers on a daily basis for 6-12 weeks, riding along with them, working with them, fixing problems and teaching them everything that a handler needs to know.  It means going along on every real search that they do while I'm on duty and quite a few call-outs from home.
It doesn't include pets or phone help that I've given to hundred of people.

Someone is feeding you bullshit and you're swallowing it.  Please stop.  Make the phone call to the K9 Lieutenant, Cerris Black.  You have the number. Stop spreading rumors such as this.  It just makes you look stupid.

The problem I'm having interpreting these claims is simply that, from what I've researched, Culver City PD didn't HAVE "dozens" of dogs to provide for "training".

[Late addition, after phone calls and research:  Culver City PD is a small department with ~117 employees, some of which are not police officers.  There IS no "Department K9 Trainer" position in Culver City.  That position doesn't exist.  End of addition.]  

Your research obviously leaves much to be desired.

That's saying quite a bit.  In San Diego PD, for example, a unit with over 50 working dogs, Sgt. Thom Payne (who founded the K9 unit), probably had more to "recognize" each day, than a city with 1 dog would have to recognize in a year.  Of course, Thom was also a "mere handler".  But being directly involved (and responsible) for a 50+ dog unit, for 15 years or so, surely provides a REAL foundation for "knowledge".

If Sgt. Payne was responsible for the training of 50+ dogs, he was a trainer.  If he handled a dog he was a Handler / Trainer.  Again there's a difference between someone who trains dogs and someone who just handles one.  If you can't see this I'm not going to explain it to you.

>I've worked just about every assignment on a police department except for motors.

I read somewhere that includes restocking ammunition on a shelf in an armory.

Yep for a while I was assigned as the Department Rangemaster.  That meant designing and then running shoting courses for the department.  That also meant moving ammo around for the shoots. I'm not one to bother others to do menial tasks that I can do myself, such as moving that ammo.

And since you see fit to question my credentials, perhaps you'd feel like discussing some of yours.  I notice that your website talks about piano and organ sales, but not a word about dog training.  You keep telling us that you've made a living training dogs for 20 years but there's no mention of your training field or any Departments that you've trained for.  Why is that???

It's obvious that you have a HUGE amount of knowledge about dogs from all that you've shared here on the list.  I seem to recall quite a bit about table training that you could have gotten from a book.  Where are your references???

Regards,

Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
(UnclLou@aol.com)

I take some public shots at Louie:

Date:         Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:07:47 -0500
Reply-To: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Protection Dogs Discussion List              <PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Steve Leigh <steve at sl-prokeys dot com>
Subject:      [PD-L] Here we go again
To: PROTECTION-DOGS-L@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <45.f925e26.2934debd@aol.com>

At 07:19 AM 11/27/01 -0500, you wrote:

Noel by your last statement, "Now the rest of us have to solve their problems...." it's apparent that you (and some unnamed others) have fixed some dogs that I trained and solved problems that they've had.   Can you tell us the names of those handler and their dogs???  And the dates that you worked with them???

It requires an incredible ego to interpret Noel's statement to mean dogs that *YOU* have trained. You might try reading BEFORE you reply.

As for your absurd "magic wand" comment let's look at the facts.  I was a handler from 1979 to 1985.  Just about every other department the size of CC hires an outside vendor to do their monthly maintanance training.  CC didn't hire anyone until I was injured and unable to continue as the trainer.  That was some 15 years later.

Even when I was on crutches, recovering from surgery I was going out and running training.

I bet you functioned real well with your crutches, ice chests, Lidocaine, pillows, pumps, velcro, etc.  I read your entire "internet biography", vividly describing how your multiple injuries didn't slow you down one bit.  The problem with all that is, it's unbelievable.  You even claim it took your captain TWO YEARS to discover you were on crutches.  Sorry, Louie.  That's only YOUR side of the story, the side that makes YOU look like you want to appear.

Pretty good magic wand huh???  I had them all fooled for about 20 years.

No, Louie - you fool SOME of em, not ALL of em.

Anyone who doubts my credentials is invited to call my department and speak to the K9 Lieutenant, Cerris Black.  Of course none of the people involved in this conversation, Noel, Fred or Steve had made, or will make that call. They'd rather talk to uninformed idiots who are jealous of my success.

Louie, if YOU'RE an example of success, I'm sure I speak for the rest of us - we'd rather be failures.  I have personally spoken with numerous "uninformed idiots" in California who make a LIVING training dogs.  They are assuredly NOT "jealous of your success", Louie.  They laugh at you.

All you really ARE is a bloated ego looking for arguments, making conflict, putting people down to make yourself look like an expert, and trying every way you can to make tension and strife.  You thrive on writing messages that belittle people.  You thrive on badmouthing and arguing.  You never stop.  Your reputation on the internet is incredible - you've waged battles with more people for no reason than *anyone*.

Steve Leigh
please note new email - steve at sl-prokeys dot com
www.sl-prokeys.com

Then I Got Some Logic:

After several months of Voodoo Louie's LIES, ARGUMENTS, ABUSE, and CHALLENGES, I DROPPED OUT

I sent an UNSUBSCRIBE message ....  

 

X-From_: MAILER-DAEMON  Sun Dec 16 19:06:39 2001
Delivered-To: slprokeys@mail.powweb.com
Date:         Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:06:33 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at Apple (1.8d)" <LISTSERV@APPLE.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Subject:      Re: UNSUBSCRIBE PROTECTION-DOGS-L
To: Steve Leigh <steve at sl-prokeys dot com>
 
> UNSUBSCRIBE PROTECTION-DOGS-L
You have been removed from the PROTECTION-DOGS-L list.

> Steve Leigh

Unknown command - "STEVE". Try HELP.

> please note new email - steve at sl-prokeys dot com

Unknown command - "PLEASE". Try HELP.
Unknown command - "WWW.SL-PROKEYS.COM". Try HELP.
Summary of resource utilization
-------------------------------
 CPU time:        0.032 sec
 Overhead CPU:    0.234 sec
 CPU model:         500MHz Pentium III 512k (512M)
 Job origin:      steve at sl-prokeys dot com

Three of the industry giants are in intense competition, struggling for the endorsement contract from Voodoo Louie Castle.  Clairol, Loreal, and Vidal Sassoon are now at the multi-million dollar bidding stage, and only Voodoo Louie knows where it will all stop. 

Louie has applied for exclusive copyright, trademark, patent, and registration rights to his own brand new, unique hairstyle, known nationally as ....

the Shamu VooDoo Doo ®©TM

Louie invented this amazing hairdo while he was sitting around in a parked police car with no hat on.  At last, after many hours of research with his duct tape, his electric collars, and his piercing needles, Louie has finally transcended the need for costly implants or shampoo.  Louie can be seen showing off his new "doo", struttin' his stroll at Santa Monica and Western.  Or look for him in The Blue Oyster Bar, his favorite hangout.

Louie won 11th place in the Los Angeles "Isaac Hayes Look-A-Like Contest" with his Shamu Voo Doo Doo hairdo!

48248