Something is broken in logic conclusions. Let me resolve: > The person I was responding to explicitly said that sniffing dogs are secretly trained to respond t

Something is broken in logic conclusions. Let me resolve: > The person I was responding to explicitly said that sniffing dogs are secretly trained to respond to handler gestures. Yes, I did say that. > They're claiming that drug sniffing dogs are a charade No, I did not say that. > Are dogs used to get warrants fraudulently? The answer is absolutely. It happens all the time. Yep, my point. > But the idea that sniffing dogs are fake is ridiculous. Nowhere I claimed that sniffing dogs are fake. So we seem to agree on everything. Thank you, resolved the confusion.