> Michael, > WELCOME to the thread! Stand back people, things should really get > interesting now. I can hardly wait!!! > >VBG<
Just making a guest appearance. I don't want to risk "overexposure." Plus I have to finish producing the Dog Video the Whole Internet can't stop talking about.
Candy, sorry to hear about your infirmity. It increases the kindness of your taking the time to reply. Liz was a handler for many years, a vet tech, a groomer with about 30 years experience, and an LPN.
I did see your post to Leslie, and we were right---just about the time you got into Poodles, she was getting out of handling and attending shows. She was pretty well out when I met her back in 1976. Cannot fault people when they finally reach their full level for bull manure and hypocrisy and politics!! Comes the time you just cannot stomach it any more.
I hope you have a speedy and complete recovery. My eyesight has deteriorated to the point that I can barely read these posts. I cannot spend much time trying, as things just get more and more blurred. A real pain in the deriere. I have reached my limit tonight, so will wish you the best, and a fond adieu.
Hello Ruth, Long time no drivel from you!! So tell me my dear, just what qualifications do you have that make you a judge of the quality of people and their dogs?
I have bred champions in those breeds where it does mean a bit. I even had me a top ten all breed dog. Number five in the nation, in fact. Also number five in the breed standings. Finished with two 3 point majors, a 4 pointer, and last show a five pointer beating out the #1 Toy Manchester to go Best of Variety.
I pay my bills, I do not take drugs, and never have, I do not drink alchohol and never have, my parents started married life working for the Vounteers of America. My grandfather Ernst was southeastern regional director of the Volunteers. My folks ran a home for unwed mothers for the Volunteers, on Magazine Street in N.O. back in the early thirties. My paternal great grandfather founded the American Rescue Workers, headquartered in Philadelphia.
I love my dogs, and my entire existence is centered around them. They get the best of everything, and are not thrown away when they are of no further USE, as some people in this group do. My oldest dog will be 15 in October. Next is a 14 y.o. My Dobe turned 13 on Augest 15th.
I do not engage is sexual promiscuity and never have. I live a life with what God would want me to do constantly in mind.
My faults are an ingrained disdain for most people, an almost uncontrolable dislike for stupidity and ignorance, and a grave impatience with people who combine the above.
So, now tell me, you are you that anyone should trust your judgment of me or anyone else in this group. You are constantly making snid remarks about most everyone in this group, and what they have to say as their own personal opinions. So just who are you to say anything about anyone? You seem to have no life and no identity outside of this group (and the clique of "regulars" who do not even realize how pitiful it is that they have no lives, and no identity outside of this little alleyway of cyberspace). What do you know about breeding to qualify you to comment on a person's integrity as a breeder? Or comment on whether they are working for the good of their breed?
What do you know about genetics? Do you jump on the OFA,CERF bandwagon?
Until you know what you are talking about, which in my case means you will NEVER know me or about me, why do you not just write about those things with which you are familiar?? Or would that leave you also not even needing a keyboard??
Dogman wrote: > The human population is one of the most randomly mixed populations on > Earth, and we suffer from great numbers of genetic illnesses.
What, are you crazy? Are you comparing the prevalence of human disease, to that exhibited in various pure breeds? Who do you know who has to have their HIPS and FIFTY other things TESTED before they get married? And you make a great point here. The US population, is one of the most mixed and varied on earth, if not the most mixed and varied on earth. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that we are so strong and powerful? In culture, finance, education, technology, science, etc..etc..etc...etc..SPORTS, etc..etc..etc...
Japan is, by comparison, a highly inbred country. They are very specialized. They are also very powerful, but I know Japan, Japan is a friend of mine, and Japan, you're no USA. The Japanese are a highly successful "purebreed" of a nation, but they are as good as a "purebreed," can get, if you will, but they'll never approach the mangy, mongreled, multinationality, down and dirty, huddled masses/teeming diversity of the good ol' crossbred US of A.
> > Purebred breeders are obsessed with sameness, with > > breeding dogs to a rigid standard, to narrowing the > > gene pool further and further in quest of the > > Holy Grail. But there is no Holy Grail.
> No, there is no Holy Grail, but to shoot for anything less is to > virtually GUARANTEE MEDIOCRITY.
> Breed improvement comes in very small increments.
How much have you contributed to the "bettering of your breed" in the years since you've been breeding? And explain how and why.
Do you honestly think. Do you HONESTLY think. That as you tinker away on your isolated little ranch/facility/militia campground/whatever, as you sit there and inbreed your dogs to perfection, that you are having any effect on the BREED? You're a simple little man playing God in his little corner of the world, who is stupid enough to think he can eliminate all genetic disease via inbreeding, and who is even stupider enough to believe he can do it, while at the same time, still breeding for health, ability, temperament, appearance, etc..
I don't have time to explain how stupid you are if you actually believe you can do that.
I'm going to cease my lecturing of you at this point, as I have very important things to do. If you want more lectures, you'll have to wait for my book.
But I will say this: It's one thing to disagree with what I've said, it's one thing to take issue with a few statements, but to ramble on and on like a drunken, fool, and to call me stupid and a doofus, etc..etc...blah blah blah...
You see, people stumble here, they wallow, they flail, they battle incessantly, never hitting any targets. The battles, the battles they rage 24-7 here, in sort of a virtual paintball intellectual battleground, where nothing ever happens, because nobody can hit anything except the walls.
And then along comes Michael
In need of a diversion from the hectic efforts involved in the Production of the VideoGraphic Event which will Rock the Dog Game, Deep into etc..etc..you know the drill and so forth and so on...
DOGZ ALLOWED
And I look at the screen for a moment, fling my arm back into the quiver, and with skill dripping from my pores, I proceeded to elevate, inhale, draw back, pause, digest, reflect, disassociate, reconvene, raise up into another zone, hone and thence proceed to accelerate an arrowbomb from the palm of my hands, understand? Without a plan, I took a stance and advanced the consciousness of the Dog Game populace, and all you come back with is the same ol' same ol' drunk ass blabber and wail
Explaining to the Hapless Cameraman How I'm messing with the Hapless Cameraman's mind, by using different ways to score on him, to the point where he can't figure out what I'm going to do next, just like I use different methods while training dogs, so they can't predict what I'm gonna do next. http://dogtv.com/Image6.jpg
Surveys the Beach before launching the Assault on Erie http://changethemuzzle.com/FaceLake2.jpg From the Video in Progress DOGZ ALLOWED taking dogz where they ain't allowed, and getting away with it, Bitch! ============================================
> > There is only one way genetic problems become rife > > within a breed, and that occurs through the > > narrowing of the gene pool. It's the only way.
> More pure unadulterated BULL CA CA.
> The primary reason that genetic problems can become rife within a > breed is that too many breeders use BAD BREEDING PRACTICES.
> Period.
> Bad + bad = BAD.
> > Narrowing of the gene pool, is primarily accomplished > > by "reputable" show breeders, at least they are best > > at it. "Backyard Breeders" are less likely to do it, > > and puppy millers, well, they're probably somewhere in > > between.
> Even MORE BULL CA CA.
> Narrowing the gene pool to ONLY GOOD GENES (and combinations) is > exactly how we get dogs that are virtually free from genetic defects > and illnesses!
> That is, by CLOSE-BREEDING!
> Someday, when the canine genome project is completed, we will be able > to virtually eliminate dogs from the gene pool that carry *any* > undesirable gene. Until that day arrives, close-breeding goes a long > way toward achieving that goal.
> That is, by close-breeding, I can detect or "squeeze out" any > undesirable gene that may be present by using various forms of > close-breeding techniques (inbreeding, line-breeding, etc.)
> It's the BACKYARD breeders and the PUPPY MILLS who breed *randomly* > who spread the dangerous and harmful genes throughout a gene pool.
> > Reputable show breeders are the most rabid about the > > need for genetic testing, because they suffer so much > > from the results of the homogenization of their breeds. > > They create the very problems they are so rabid about > > trying to eliminate. And their methods of trying to > > eliminate genetic disease (further inbreeding) > > are counterproductive, at best, since breeding away > > from one (supposed) flaw, inevitably decreases the > > gene pool even further.
> There is nothing wrong with a small gene pool if the genes are GOOD > ONES!
> In fact, it's DESIRABLE!
> That's the very theory behind the BENEFITS of CLONING, in fact!
> We're not talking about a WILD population here, Patton, we're talking > about a DOMESTICATED one.
> *Human beings* are responsible for the dog's survival, not Mother > Nature!
> > If all genetic problems were detectable, and they > > were all linked together, and manifest themselves as > > a fluorescent patch reading "diseased" imprinted into > > the pups' skin in the womb, then the right pups with > > the diseases could easily be removed, and the Show > > Breeders would have at least half a clue as to what > > they were talking about.
> And that's EXACTLY what CLOSE BREEDING can accomplish to a great > extent!
> No, not for every genetic problem, but for the vast majority of > SERIOUS ones.
> And no amount of testing can eliminate the effects of potentially > harmful MUTATIONS and RECOMBINATIONS.
> > But in reality, that's not the case. In reality, they > > don't have even half a clue about what they are talking > > about.
> Yeah, right.
> Just because *you* couldn't get past Bio 101, don't assume that > everyone else couldn't.
> > The issues of dog overpopulation, and dog genetic quality > > are two completely separate issues. Completely separate > > issues and that's why everyone is confused here.
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I know one thing:
> *I'm* not confused!
> And if you are, Patton, it's because you're so freakin' DUMB.
> > Show Idiots believe if they do all the breeding > > that dogs will be healthier. They couldn't be > > more wrong.
> Granted, there are some "show idiots." Idiots who have gotten their > priorities all screwed up. And there are similar idiots among the > performance breeders. But it's one thing to get them screwed up and > quite another not to even know what they are.
> Those priorities SHOULD BE:
> HEALTH, INTELLIGENCE, WORKING ABILITY, and APPEARANCE.
> In that EXACT order of importance.
> And it's when those priorities are changed that breeders get not only > themselves in trouble, but their lines -- their breeds.
> But it's the backyard breeders and puppy millers that do *nothing* > beneficial to any breed. That is, they RANDOMLY DISTRIBUTE > deleterious genes throughout a breed population.
> > Because every time you cull, you > > cull all the good, and all the bad the "cull" > > has to offer.
> Again, that's just BULL CA CA!
> You eliminate the "bad" genes *until* there is only "good" genes (and > combinations) left!
> Geeeeeeeeeeez. What a freakin' DOOFUS you are.
> :>(
> > And frequently, the reason for > > the cull, has something to do with something > > superficial or pretty much meaningless (OFA > > number, a white spot, a wavy tail, and various > > other
>> The human population is one of the most randomly mixed populations on >> Earth, and we suffer from great numbers of genetic illnesses.
>What, are you crazy? Are you comparing the prevalence of >human disease, to that exhibited in various pure breeds? >Who do you know who has to have their HIPS and FIFTY other >things TESTED before they get married? And you make a great >point here. The US population, is one of the most mixed and >varied on earth, if not the most mixed and varied on earth. >I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that we >are so strong and powerful? In culture, finance, education, >technology, science, etc..etc..etc...etc..SPORTS, >etc..etc..etc...
I really have no interest in entering the rest of the arguments in this post, but how can you not consider the genteic diseases of humans. Cancers run in families (breast cancer, colon cancer,...), cystic fibrosis is a simple recessive trait where both parents of affected children are carriers, the children of diabetics are much more likely to become diabetics... The list goes on a very long way. Routine testing prior to having children would go a long way to decreasing the incidence of these diseases. For good or bad, routine testing will never be instituted because it interferes with the rights of individuals, but wouldn't it make us a healthier species?
In article <35EF5FD4....@juno.com>, Jana <collie...@juno.com> writes: > I wonder, is this because people are trying to make "giant" akitas, or >is it just a trend?
I don't think I would characterize it as going to Giant Akitas, like the trend that exists in Malamutes. I think it is more a case of where the standard wording that describes the dog as "large". People have different ideas about what large should be. I don't have a problem with a 30" Akita male, for example, but in general, it would be hard to find a dog that size which is balanced and not clunky and overdone.
The same is true with Rotties. The standard calls for dogs to be from 24" to 27" with the mid-range the most preferred. But, it also stresses the importance of correct proportions which goes to overall balance of the dog. How many have you seen that are clunks and could not get out of their own way?
Usually, it is the "macho image" which is desired to be projected in these types of dogs. Personally, I think it speaks more to the self-esteem of the owners, but that is an entirely different matter.
Oversize isn't exclusive to the larger breeds either. My wife tells me that when she was out in Iowa judging Siberians a few months ago, she saw a Papillion being walked on the grounds (was being shown in obedience) that had to be around 30 lbs. It was the size of a Beagle.
Yes, genetic testing would make us a better species as whole. So would careful inbreeding. The principles are the same but the social structure is different.
: >> The human population is one of the most randomly mixed populations on : >> Earth, and we suffer from great numbers of genetic illnesses. : > : > : >What, are you crazy? Are you comparing the prevalence of : >human disease, to that exhibited in various pure breeds? : >Who do you know who has to have their HIPS and FIFTY other : >things TESTED before they get married? And you make a great : >point here. The US population, is one of the most mixed and : >varied on earth, if not the most mixed and varied on earth. : >I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that we : >are so strong and powerful? In culture, finance, education, : >technology, science, etc..etc..etc...etc..SPORTS, : >etc..etc..etc... : >
: I really have no interest in entering the rest of the arguments in this post, : but how can you not consider the genteic diseases of humans. Cancers run in : families (breast cancer, colon cancer,...), cystic fibrosis is a simple : recessive trait where both parents of affected children are carriers, the : children of diabetics are much more likely to become diabetics... The list : goes on a very long way. Routine testing prior to having children would go a : long way to decreasing the incidence of these diseases. For good or bad, : routine testing will never be instituted because it interferes with the rights : of individuals, but wouldn't it make us a healthier species?
--
Sudhir Nayak Department of Biology University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 email: sna...@mail.sas.upenn.edu na...@wista.wistar.upenn.edu
>Anyway, as Liz said, it is simply a case of you being young, and on the >other side of the continent from Pensacola Fl. and having started in >Poodles after she quit keeping up with them. We both are duly impressed >with you accomplishments!! Way to go!! But she was wondering what >lines you got your foundation stock from?
lynn should recognize the name arlene mckernan (she was the breeder of record on Ch aizibel the aristocrat). i aquired a grandson of ch aizabel impetuous, Ch mc kernan karbon kopy, and used that with my Praver's bitch (all Beritas bred), along with a richard son that Beverly Nelson (one of my mentors and dearest friends still).
ten years ago i added a scintilla houdini daughter to the mix. lately i have had great success with katie kinowski's parade dogs, producing performance and breed dogs.
Well, Hello, Kathy Farmer..........I heard you were pa"troll"ing around these parts. Still picking up bargain basement dogs for your trailer park kennel? Or have we moved the trailer out on stilts yet? I also heard that you got "flicked" from a list that you recently joined, seems the list owner didn't want you spreading your useless and dangerous veterinary advice around. How Lovely to hear from you again. Trish
Bob & Trish Yana wrote in message <6sm1f9$b7...@supernews.com>...
>AMEN Brother Michael........tell it like it is!! >Trish
>Dog Game SuperStar wrote in message <35EE6AFC.B0522...@earthlink.net>... >>Leslie Weinberg wrote:
>>> When you talk about OFA. it reminds me of a couple of my experiences with >y >>> GSDs. Not all of them were OFAed, and the reason was ( I can hardly wait >>> to hear the flak on this one) that one of my mentors had had a few very >bad >>> experiences over the years of injured dogs from the x-ray procedure, and >in >>> addition, it didn't seem to mean much in terms of OFAed dogs producing >dogs >>> which did not develop HD or the opposite.
>>What are you doing, Leslie? You can't let that one out of >>the bag! OFA makes the "reputable" breeders feel so good >>about themselves. Don't spoil their party.
>>For lurkers:
>>Here's a quick test to see if you are buying a dog with >>genetic problems:
>> PROBLEMS OF THE PUREBRED DOG >> AND THEIR BREEDERS, CONCISE EDITION
>> The More testing the breeder has done >> The more diseases are surely to be found >> rife within that breed, >> hence the need for all the expensive testing.
>> Purebred breeders are obsessed with sameness, with >> breeding dogs to a rigid standard, to narrowing the >> gene pool further and further in quest of the >> Holy Grail. But there is no Holy Grail.
>> There is only one way genetic problems become rife >> within a breed, and that occurs through the >> narrowing of the gene pool. It's the only way.
>> Narrowing of the gene pool, is primarily accomplished >> by "reputable" show breeders, at least they are best >> at it. "Backyard Breeders" are less likely to do it, >> and puppy millers, well, they're probably somewhere in >> between.
>> Reputable show breeders are the most rabid about the >> need for genetic testing, because they suffer so much >> from the results of the homogenization of their breeds. >> They create the very problems they are so rabid about >> trying to eliminate. And their methods of trying to >> eliminate genetic disease (further inbreeding) >> are counterproductive, at best, since breeding away >> from one (supposed) flaw, inevitably decreases the >> gene pool even further.
>> If all genetic problems were detectable, and they >> were all linked together, and manifest themselves as >> a fluorescent patch reading "diseased" imprinted into >> the pups' skin in the womb, then the right pups with >> the diseases could easily be removed, and the Show >> Breeders would have at least half a clue as to what >> they were talking about.
>> But in reality, that's not the case. In reality, they >> don't have even half a clue about what they are talking >> about.
>> The issues of dog overpopulation, and dog genetic quality >> are two completely separate issues. Completely separate >> issues and that's why everyone is confused here.
>> CONCISER YET SUMMATION OF CURRENT ISSUE
>> Show Idiots believe if they do all the breeding >> that dogs will be healthier. They couldn't be >> more wrong. Because every time you cull, you >> cull all the good, and all the bad the "cull" >> has to offer. And frequently, the reason for >> the cull, has something to do with something >> superficial or pretty much meaningless (OFA >> number, a white spot, a wavy tail, and various >> other reasons non SHOW quality pups are culled >> from breeding pool.
>> The idea that SHOW pups should be the only ones >> to propagate the breed in terms of HEALTH is as >> utterly nonsensical as anything which has ever >> been nonsensical, utterly or otherwise.
>> The rigid requirements of the show >> standard, necessitate inbreeding to meet that >> rigid appearance standard.
>> Inbreeding for one trait results in genetic >> uniformity for many many other traits which >> tag along for the ride..... >> Genetic uniformity results in high >> concentrations of genetic diseases, if they are >> present to begin with (which they always are). >> Which results in high >> concentrations of genetic testing being done >> by frantic breeders and owners, more culling >> which often isn't even effective (see OFA) >> and the end result is a population with >> disease, and without diversity.
>> Thus, a population rife with disease. >> This is a self perpetuating downward spiral >> virtually every purebreed is caught in.
>> The Spay/Neuter obsession is simply a >> "control" issue, and has little to do with >> overpopulation.
>> Overpopulation stems from an oversupply of >> humans looking for consumable/disposable >> products. Puppies are bred to meet the >> demand for them. They come from "show" >> breeders, "backyard" breeders, puppy millers >> accidental breeders, etc... The demand for >> puppies is being met by the market. The >> demand for adolescents is much less than >> the supply, and for adults, lesser still.
>> The population problem has to do with an >> oversupply of adolescents and adults, not >> an oversupply of puppies.
>> FINAL ANALYSIS >> Show breeders want to save the world by >> making all the decisions about who >> should not be bred (the "show"/"pet" >> quality thing, in order to decrease the >> supply of puppies, and increase the >> (in)breeding of their selected "show" >> puppies. This course of action, >> inarguably, and inevitably, will >> result in the further deterioration of >> genetic health via inbreeding.
>> The only way to decrease population >> without decreasing genetic health, is >> to slow breeding of *all* dogs, "pet" >> "show" and "other"
>> The only way to decrease population >> and increase overall genetic health is >> to slow the breeding of *all* dogs, >> "pet" "show" and "other" >> while increasing the variability of >> those being bred (outcrossing, cross >> breeding etc..).
>> Population Control, and Genetic Health >> are two goals which cannot be >>accomplished >> simultaneously by Show Breeders. In >>fact, >> population control, is the ONLY goal they >> can accomplish.
>>That will be the end of this lecture.
>>The SuperStar >>Surveys the Beach before launching the Assault on Erie >>http://changethemuzzle.com/FaceLake2.jpg >>From the Video in Progress >>DOGZ ALLOWED >>taking dogz where they ain't allowed, >>and getting away with it, Bitch!
Upon my taking a break from listening to the Walter Trout Band, Fri, 04 Sep 1998 05:54:22 -0700, Dog Game SuperStar <zzen...@earthlink.net> says:
>Dogman wrote:
>> The human population is one of the most randomly mixed populations on >> Earth, and we suffer from great numbers of genetic illnesses. >What, are you crazy?
Well, maybe just a little.
:>)
>Are you comparing the prevalence of >human disease, to that exhibited in various pure breeds?
Why, yes, Patton, I think I am.
>Who do you know who has to have their HIPS and FIFTY other >things TESTED before they get married?
Actually, Patton, I'm not aware of any species that *requires* that it hips be inspected before they get married. It's just that getting hips inspected in *some* breeds of dogs is the wise thing to do.
Just like it's wise for *some* Jews who are contemplating marriage to get tested for TaySachs disease, or for blacks to get tested for sickle cell trait, etc.
And, of course, *if* we had a genetic test, say, for the potential for breast cancer, or heart disease, humans would probably want to take those tests, too.
In fact, someday we *will* have those tests, and then humans are going to have some very *difficult* decisions to make.
>And you make a great >point here. The US population, is one of the most mixed and >varied on earth, if not the most mixed and varied on earth.
You bet. And we're one of the SICKLIEST species on Earth.
Without our extremely large BRAIN, we've have probably become extinct long ago.
>I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that we >are so strong and powerful? In culture, finance, education, >technology, science, etc..etc..etc...etc..SPORTS, >etc..etc..etc...
The answer to that question is:
The B-R-A-I-N.
With explicit exceptions for you and your "fans," the human brain is very large and capable of great intelligence, reason, logic, etc.
>Japan is, by comparison, a highly inbred country. They are >very specialized. They are also very powerful, but I know >Japan, Japan is a friend of mine, and Japan, you're no USA. >The Japanese are a highly successful "purebreed" of a >nation, but they are as good as a "purebreed," can get, if >you will, but they'll never approach the mangy, mongreled, >multinationality, down and dirty, huddled masses/teeming >diversity of the good ol' crossbred US of A.
That's a bunch of bull ca ca.
You'd first have to CONTROL for NATURAL RESOURCES, POLITICAL SYSTEMS, RELIGION, CULTURE, STRATEGIC POSITION, etc. to even present that hypothesis.
If Japan had had free access to *our* natural resources and *our* political systems for as long as we've had them, the tables could have gotten turned. In fact, they *still* may get turned.
The last chapters haven't been written yet.
>> > Purebred breeders are obsessed with sameness, with >> > breeding dogs to a rigid standard, to narrowing the >> > gene pool further and further in quest of the >> > Holy Grail. But there is no Holy Grail.
>> No, there is no Holy Grail, but to shoot for anything less is to >> virtually GUARANTEE MEDIOCRITY.
>> Breed improvement comes in very small increments.
>How much have you contributed to the "bettering of your >breed" in the years since you've been breeding? And explain >how and why.
Easy answer.
I've improved the breed by improving the QUANTITIES of rock-solid HEALTHY Labrador retrievers that live to ripe old ages. Labrador retrievers with great temperaments, that are very INTELLIGENT, and exhibit great trainability and memory. Labrador retrievers that have repeatedly shown on the field-trial circuit that they possess great WORKING ABILITY, exhibiting great courage, drive, determination, stamina, perseverance, nose, memory, swimming ability, etc. And Labrador retrievers that look pretty damn good, i.e., APPEARANCE.
And I arrived at that kind of Labrador retriever by CLOSELY BREEDING together the very *best* Labradors that I could find.
And I continue to closely breed their offspring together because that's the very *best* method there is for producing MORE OF THE SAME.
>Do you honestly think. Do you HONESTLY think. That as you >tinker away on your isolated little ranch/facility/militia >campground/whatever, as you sit there and inbreed your dogs >to perfection, that you are having any effect on the BREED?
You betcha! And that's why I have a 2-3 year waiting list for my puppies!
Will I ever make them much better than they are now? Probably not.
But I keep trying, nevertheless.
>You're a simple little man playing God in his little corner >of the world,
I'm not playing God. I'm simply using the *tools* that God gave me.
For example, my BRAIN, in learning how to produce SUPERIOR dogs.
And to be able to recognize a DOOFUS whenever I see one.
>who is stupid enough to think he can eliminate >all genetic disease via inbreeding,
I can't eliminate all genetic disease by inbreeding, but I can keep it VIRTUALLY eliminated from *my* line.
As long as genes can MUTATE or RECOMBINE, I will never be able to eliminate *all* the possibilities.
Even CLONING can't do that.
But I can come pretty damn close, you bet.
>and who is even stupider >enough to believe he can do it, while at the same time, >still breeding for health, ability, temperament, appearance, >etc..
Sure I can. Because I have my priorities correct. I breed first and foremost for HEALTH (including sound structure), then INTELLIGENCE (trainability, memory, temperament, etc.), then WORKING ABILITY (can they do the job they were originally bred to do, etc.), and then APPEARANCE (do they look like Labrador retrievers, etc.).
And in that EXACT order of importance.
Yes, I'm a performance breeder. No, I don't care much whether the angles of their dangles are 45 degrees or 40 degrees, etc.
If they can *do* the JOB, by definition, their angles are correct.
Yes, I subscribe to the maxim that form follows function, not the other way around.
>I don't have time to explain how stupid you are if you >actually believe you can do that.
Not only can I do that, but ANY BREEDER can do that if he or she will just learn how to BREED INTELLIGENTLY and RESPONSIBLY.
Of course, there's absolutely *no* money in breeding that way, so I don't expect a huge conversion.
>I'm going to cease my lecturing of you at this point, as I >have very important things to do. If you want more >lectures, you'll have to wait for my book.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
You're CUTTING and RUNNING yet again.
No surprise there, Patton.
Because you're a PUSSY.
And a very DUMB one, to boot.
>But I will say this: >It's one thing to disagree with what I've said, it's one >thing to take issue with a few statements, but to ramble on >and on like a drunken, fool, and to call me stupid and a >doofus, etc..etc...blah blah blah...
I don't think many people here think I "rambled." Not even your "fans," who now seem to have disappeared completely from the face of the Earth, eh?
I simply responded point-by-point to your absolutely ignorance-driven diatribe against pure-breds.
Which is ALWAYS what I do here whenever a DOOFUS opens his mouth
>You see, people stumble here, they wallow, they flail, they >battle incessantly, never hitting any targets. The battles, >the battles they rage 24-7 here, in sort of a virtual >paintball intellectual battleground, where nothing ever >happens, because nobody can hit anything except the walls.
I think I hit my targets pretty well, Patton. And you should know that more than most, eh? You've been a target here so often that you're virtually a DRONE for my F-18 rebuttals, eh?
That is, you make a great punching bag.
>And then along comes Michael
Yeah, in that regard, you're a lot like the Ebola virus.
I.e., a quick and noisy outbreak -- even deadly to a few of the very WEAK (minded), and then it CUTS and RUNS.
In article <35f719cf.2394...@news.i1.net>, dog...@i1.net (Dogman) wrote:
> You betcha! And that's why I have a 2-3 year waiting list for my > puppies! > being a DUMB PUSSY.
Without going into whos wrong or right on this issue, I wonder if your wating list we be so long if people knew how rude and self involved you are! Personally I wouldn't get within ten feet of a dog socialized by someone who revels in the oppurtunity ( or percieved oppurtunity ) to publically attack people!
Patton, like him or not, agree with him or not, causes paople to think, and so doing raises the bar and level of conctiousness(sp), in much te same way Howard Stern or even Madonna have. Simply by having the balls to express an opposing view point (something you would never do) he forces everyone to think long and hard about what they "know" to be true.
I personally largely disagree with him on this point, and believe that concentious(sp) breeding, and breeding to minimize problem areas is the way to go... and in fact closely emulates what happens in the wild, where natural selection eliminates the weak! Ditto for line breeding, this is natures way...
Unfortunately the human race has been polluted by pompous windbags like yourself, who ruin all the good they could do with there destructive attitude.
Grow up Dogman -- "Survival is it's own reward and can't be rationalized intellecutally" --- A.R.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Whoa there Nancy girl. Who do you mean about real Poodle People? The Eastern click that never even put a hand on one of their own dogs? I had a conversation once with three of the TOP Pro handlers at a party at Marjorie Tranchins home in Dallas Texas, years ago. One a well know and highly respected judge,made the statement about the Doberman and Poodle ( standard) being so simular. We also disscused the wrong movement for the discription in the standard on Poodles. Words like reach and drive we see today . were not mentioned. This handler stated that the People at that time in PCA were "figure heads" Many never planned a breeding . A great many of todays top handlers are still the ones who handle the breeding of many top dogs. They say yea or nay. The so called breeder or owners have in many cases very little actual knowledge of what is or is not acceptable. I realise that this may suprise some of the people on this group. But the real breeders in some breeds are the handlers of the dogs in their care and not the owners of said dogs. Ask Annie. Frank. Dennis. Peggy., Vernell. Barbra to name just a few.
Upon my taking a break from listening to the Walter Trout Band, Fri, 04 Sep 1998 20:52:52 GMT, seanmcdon...@my-dejanews.com says:
>> You betcha! And that's why I have a 2-3 year waiting list for my >> puppies!
>> being a DUMB PUSSY. >Without going into whos wrong or right on this issue,
Why not? Are you really here to LEARN about dogs?
Or to play freakin' HALL MONITOR?
What?
This is your *first* freakin' post here and you just leap in without a freakin' clue? Unfreakingbelievable!
> I wonder if your wating >list we be so long if people knew how rude and self involved you are!
More importantly, Sean Baby, is will I care.
The answer is: NO!
>Personally I wouldn't get within ten feet of a dog socialized by someone who >revels in the oppurtunity ( or percieved oppurtunity ) to publically attack >people!
That's because you're a DOOFUS, Sean.
DOOFUSES are *always* more concerned with STYLE than with SUBSTANCE.
[Although I'd be happy if you were just a little concerned with, say, spelling. Another Outcomes-based education, eh?]
That's why we're stuck with a scumbag like Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton as President.
>Patton, like him or not, agree with him or not, causes paople to think,
You gotta be kiddin' me?
The *only* thing that Patton does here is to prove that more people look at MTV than READ.
If people like Patton cause people like you to "think," our schools are in even more trouble than I feared.
>and >so doing raises the bar and level of conctiousness(sp), in much te same way >Howard Stern or even Madonna have.
Yeah, right, Howard Stern has REALLY raised our level of consciousness!
UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE!
Without all his incessant babbling about farting, the size of women's breasts, whether they have ever had sex with animals, etc., our consciousness would have been, what, lacking?
Howard Stern is to consciousness what Bill Clinton is to truth.
But even Stern probably knows more about dog training and breeding than Patton does.
Patton is to breeding what Osama bin Laden is to Judaism.
>Simply by having the balls to express an >opposing view point (something you would never do) he forces everyone to >think long and hard about what they "know" to be true.
Geeeeeeeez. You graduated from the School of Relativity, eh? Where everyone's opinions and view points are equal, is that right?
[Is there any wonder why S.A.T. scores have to be "adjusted" every few years?]
>Let me guess. >I personally largely disagree with him on this point, and believe that >concentious(sp) breeding, and breeding to minimize problem areas is the way >to go...
Hear this, asshole, no one here gives a rat's ass about what you "think."
Stick to BICYCLING, eh? Otherwise you're going to make a fool out of yourself.
In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you *were* Patton and are using an alias here.
Yup. That's what I think -- now.
>and in fact closely emulates what happens in the wild, where natural >selection eliminates the weak! Ditto for line breeding, this is natures >way...
What in the f*** are you trying to say here? That you KNOW Patton is a DOOFUS -- but you still think his opinions have merit?
Geeeeeeeez.
>Unfortunately the human race has been polluted by pompous windbags like >yourself, who ruin all the good they could do with there destructive >attitude.
You haven't a freakin' clue about me, or the HISTORY that exists between ZENDOOFUS and this newsgroup, and until you stick around long enough to LEARN something about the DUMB SCHMUCK that you're trying to defend, you'd be smart to keep your freakin' trap shut.
That is, to learn how to MIND YOUR OWN FREAKIN' BUSINESS.
Stick to BICYCLING, eh?
Interestingly enough, bicycles are the only form of transportation that ZENDOOFUS can afford.
Candy, Which,of the Pravers dogs ? My late ex and I finished a number of Roy and Bernies dogs. Have known them since the 50s. My pride and joy was Ch Pravers Hullabaloo. He did quite well back in the 70s also David Charlie and My lovely brown Ch CACIB Pravers Miss Conduct. I cant remember for certain but Beritas Ballyhoo and Mannix come to mind as dogs we finished for Pravers, Would love to hear what your bitch was out of. I can also tell you a lot about some of the dogs you mentioned. Haveing gone head to head with some of them. One thing I am not is a kennel blind person. I do not mind one bit walking out when a better dog goes up. Sometimes we win when we should not sometimes we loose when we should not. That is life. But I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I have seen some lovely Poodles in the last 50 years! I for one like the way the breed has evolved, The elegance and style, the soundnes, the presentation all make one gorgouse dog. You have my respect and admiration.
>CR E wrote in message <10694-35EF32F3...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... >Well, Candy I have know Dennis for about 15 years---not closely, but he >knows he knows me when he sees me. I have had my hands on that big >white male poodle, and he ain't no 25" dog!! >Oh, and many people for about 20 years have been talking about Poodles >as "Doberman's in drag." I have a friend who is well versed in Poodles >who was checking out the newsgroup the other day, and saw a couple posts >from you and wanted to know who you are, and how long you had been >breeding, and if you had ever finished any dogs, cause your name did not >ring any bells with her. Nor the kennel name.
I'm not too versed in Poodles, but I know Candace's dogs. She lives out this way in the Great Pacific Northwest! She's at pretty much all the shows I go to, and I've probably even been in the ring with her. (I worked for a local Poodle breeder for a while). They are quite lovely dogs, and do well in the ring.
In one of her earlier posts she gave a "resume", and apparently has done pretty well with her dogs. I might add though, that just because someone doesn't have really big wins, or is not know nationally doesn't mean they don't know from dogs, or can't have some really nice ones.
It bothers me sometimes when people imply that just because you aren't a "name", it means that your opinions, experiences or dogs are less worthwhile. We can't all be "names". In fact, some "names" don't always know their breed, or breeding as well as people believe.
Hi Candy---Liz is going to get around to posting here. She has to go to a wake this early evening. And I am SUPPOSED to be going to the grocery store--according to my dogs!!!
Anyhoo, Liz told me that she and Lou Ascorbe and his wife were good friends who hung out together at the shows and that one of Lou's dogs was the sire of Ch. Merri-Mar Queen of the Nile. You must have heard of her, since I recollect that at one time she was the top winning minni in the breed's history. (I had thought lo these many years that Cleo was a toy--shows how much interest Puddles do not hold for me!!)
If Liz can overcome her reluctance to set foot in this group she knows lots of Poodle history and many of the old time greats and could probably offer some interesting info on such topics. Or privately by e-mail if not that many people are interested in learning the history of a breed!! (Other than those who own MI-Ki!!!!!!!)
Well, duty calls---as does Winn Dixie---so must go. How did you happen to break your arm?? Is it going to be better than new when the cast comes off? (That is no joke, as I am sure YOU know!! Healed bone is most often stronger than before--at least in the area of the break!! Ya may break the same arm again some day---God forbid---but it won't break in the same place again!!) Hope you are not itching too badly. Columbia powder down inside the cast helps with the itching!!
>DOOFUSES are *always* more concerned with STYLE than with SUBSTANCE.
and I've done what to show I was concerned with style???
[Although I'd be happy if you were just a little concerned with, say, spelling. Another Outcomes-based education, eh?]
Ahh yeah that's it, or maybe I was typing in a hurry, and had no time or need to spell check, I'm quite sure that you knew exactly what I was saying.
>If people like Patton cause people like you to "think," our schools >are in even more trouble than I feared.
Why, he's caused you quite an obsession...
>Without all his incessant babbling about farting, the size of women's >breasts, whether they have ever had sex with animals, etc., our >consciousness would have been, what, lacking?
Exactly
Geeeeeeeez. You graduated from the School of Relativity, eh? Where everyone's opinions and view points are equal, is that right?>Geeeeeeeez. You graduated from the School of Relativity, eh? Where
>everyone's opinions and view points are equal, is that right?
Well, no, but an opposing view is certainly stimulating, and does cause people to stop and think...
>[Is there any wonder why S.A.T. scores have to be "adjusted" every few >years?]
1410, ten years ago, additionally I was a national merit scholar.
>Hear this, asshole, no one here gives a rat's ass about what you >"think."
Never said they did...
>What in the f*** are you trying to say here? That you KNOW Patton is >a DOOFUS -- but you still think his opinions have merit?
No, I'm saying I disagree with him, but still respect his right to have an opinion, and IF I choose todiscuss my difference of opinion with him, I will do it lik a grown up, and avoid terms like DOOFUS.
>and until you stick around long >enough to LEARN something about the DUMB SCHMUCK that you're trying to >defend, you'd be smart to keep your freakin' trap shut.
I'm not defending anyone I'm attacking you for acting like a child who has had his sandbox invaded! Patton doesn't need me to defend him, he makes you look like a jackass everyday without any need for my help.
>Fuck you, Sean.
>And fuck the bicycle you rode in on, Zendoofus.
>You can't fool anyone here.
>You're too freakin' S
Fool anyone about what???
Love and kisses SeanEMac
"don't be so modest, your not as great as you think you are"
>Candy, Which,of the Pravers dogs ? My late ex and I finished >a number of Roy and Bernies dogs. Have known them since the 50s. My >pride and joy was Ch Pravers Hullabaloo. He did quite well back in the >70s also David Charlie and My lovely brown Ch CACIB Pravers Miss >Conduct. I cant remember for certain but Beritas Ballyhoo and Mannix >come to mind as dogs we finished for Pravers, Would love to hear what >your bitch was out of.
my very first mini bitch was Praver's Tintinabultaion CD. i got her from Carroll Overby, who got her from roy for showing either flower power or flower child? her sire was Beritas Mannix of Praver's and out of Praver's Love Affair. sadie was a lovely headed bitch, but lacked in showmanship (as did I at age 15!). i bred sadie once, got a singleton puppy who wasn't show quality, but when bred to my karbon dog produced a lovely litter.
Candy Hullabaloo was out of Beritas Ballyhoo and a Pravers bitch. The Beritas dogs had heads rivialed only by Azibel. We had mannix and I am pretty sure he finished. Balyhoo was my favorite. When he walked out of the crate I said and so did Betty Jo Gallas of Jodan (Toys) Here is a best in show dog. Unfortunately he just would not sparkle in the ring. Out of the ring he would knock you off your feet!
Andrea, there is a getting to know you type of repartee that goes on between serious dog people. When you are interested in learning about someone, you try to find some mutual ground. You also try politely to find out the extent of the other persons involvement and experiences in dogs.
By finding out what lines someone has, you learn what type of a particular breed they prefer. And there are some old timers who may sound like they are dropping names, but simply are talking about friends they have known and loved and respected. If it sounds like name dropping to you, then your ear needs fine tuning!! (I like that, heh, heh!!) (Forgive pitiful humor--just ate and blood sugar is waaayyy up. Makes me feel tooooo good!)
The only "famous" people I have known were the Butts (Sporting Fields Whippets) Lou Dunson, breeder of Ch. Lou-Gin's Kiss Me Kate (White Standard Poodle) the Mederos (Bettancourt Kerry Blues) Jeff, Brucker of course--I use to do his laundry (anyone sees him, ask him about the red silk blouse hidden in the laudry basket when he lived in Pensacola---and the pink underwear, heh heh, heh!!!)
Doris Wear was a phone friend for a few years (Stoney Meadows Whippets), I love Cal Perry to death, and only met him once in Tallahassee!!! (Appraxin Whippets)
It just happens that if you are involved in something long enough you will rub shoulders with some people who either are outstanding in their field (breeding dogs) or go on to eventually become outstanding!!
But, to bring this back to the discussion with Candy, who Liz did or did not know does not mean squat, except that she is familiar with many of the dogs in Candy's foundation stock. If Candy is curious about any of the older dogs from Ascorbe's kennel, Liz may have some aneccdotes to provide. It is not to the detrement of Candy and her dogs, and since Candy is a semi-oldtimer, I am sure she is fully aware of the "getting to know you" verbal dance, and is not offended now that she knows the purpose of the questions----Not to challenge her and her knowledge, but to find out if she has been involved in dogs to the extent that she would even WANT to know about their history, from someone who was there, and if she would recognize some of the names that might be mentioned, etc.
It is a ritual!! "Do you know so-and-so?" "Have you ever heard of So-and-so?" are ways of finding out if two dog folks have a common thread between them. It gives them a way to begin conversing.
Ain't I right Candy!!!!!!<G> Stick up for me here now!!!!!
In article <1998090405243000.BAA09...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
tanzen...@aol.com (Tanzendog) wrote: > needless to say, the grooming isn't happening at this point! fortunately, i > don't have any clients' show dogs at the house right now, and a very dear > friend has been coming over and keeping up my 3 dogs in coat.
Cripes, posts like this make me *sooo* glad I own short haired breeds! Hope you're better soon. BTW, for some one who is "unknown" in poodles <vbg>, you manage to be known in Canada - the handlers I use in Canada knew who you were as soon as I asked them - and I use Will and Allison Alexander.
Carol -- French Bulldog Central - www.frenchbulldog DOT org Email me at bullmarket AT frenchbulldog DOT org
French Bulldog Mail List - www.frenchbulldog DOT org/Frenchie-L.html
What a wonderful name... I can think of about three pups in my new litter who would fit it to a "T".
Carol, mulling over name choices as we speak....3 girls, one boy. Any ideas welcome... -- French Bulldog Central - www.frenchbulldog DOT org Email me at bullmarket AT frenchbulldog DOT org
French Bulldog Mail List - www.frenchbulldog DOT org/Frenchie-L.html
Upon my taking a break from listening to the Walter Trout Band, 4 Sep 1998 23:32:43 GMT, seane...@aol.com (SeanEMac) says:
>Dogman wrote >>DOOFUSES are *always* more concerned with STYLE than with SUBSTANCE.
>and I've done what to show I was concerned with style???
By apparently being more concerned with HOW someone says something than with WHAT they say.
You're the prototypical hall monitor. A control-freak. A schmuck.
>[Although I'd be happy if you were just a little concerned with, say, >spelling. Another Outcomes-based education, eh?]
>Ahh yeah that's it, or maybe I was typing in a hurry, and had no time or need >to spell check, I'm quite sure that you knew exactly what I was saying.
Yeah, I know exactly what you're saying, and you're saying it just like an ignorant teenager would.
>>If people like Patton cause people like you to "think," our schools >>are in even more trouble than I feared.
>Why, he's caused you quite an obsession...
No obsession, he just pisses me off.
He makes people here have to do double the work, by always having to *correct* the absolutely silly and often dangerous "advice" he gives here in a pitiful and pathetic attempt to draw attention to himself.
If you weren't such a doofus yourself, you'd know that.
In case you haven't noticed, people here care deeply about dogs. They don't like to see doofuses espousing doofusness.
>>Without all his incessant babbling about farting, the size of women's >>breasts, whether they have ever had sex with animals, etc., our >>consciousness would have been, what, lacking?
>Exactly
What in the hell does "exactly" mean?????????
We need people like Howard Stern like we need another asshole.
But that you're one of his fans doesn't surprise me.
>Geeeeeeeez. You graduated from the School of Relativity, eh? Where >everyone's opinions and view points are equal, is that right?>Geeeeeeeez. You >graduated from the School of Relativity, eh? Where >everyone's opinions and view points are equal, is that right?
>Well, no, but an opposing view is certainly stimulating, and does cause people >to stop and think...
This is *not* about opposing views.
This is about always having to correct the absolutely silly, ignorant, and often dangerous information espoused here by a know-nothing dog-trainer wannabe SOB who probably comes here only to stir up trouble. That is, he's a TROLL.
>>[Is there any wonder why S.A.T. scores have to be "adjusted" every few >>years?]
>1410, ten years ago, additionally I was a national merit scholar.
I believe that like I believe Bill Clinton didn't inhale.
Anyone who spells that poorly, and who thinks that uncritically, couldn't possibly have gotten 1410 on *any* test.
Unless maybe you took it seven times and added up *all* your scores?
That is, I think you're full of shit.
>>Hear this, asshole, no one here gives a rat's ass about what you >>"think."
>Never said they did...
But they *might* have, had you taken the time to figure out what goes on around here and why Patton is Public Enemy Number One.
And had you taken the time to show people here why they *should* care about what you have to say.
>>What in the f*** are you trying to say here? That you KNOW Patton is >>a DOOFUS -- but you still think his opinions have merit?
>No, I'm saying I disagree with him, but still respect his right to have an >opinion, and IF I choose todiscuss my difference of opinion with him, I will do >it lik a grown up, and avoid terms like DOOFUS.
He has a right to offer his opinion, granted, but if the opinions he ALWAYS offer here are ALWAYS a bunch of BUNKUM and FLAPDOODLE, and often even DANGEROUS, you'd be just as pissed off as a lot of folks here (particularly me) are about always having to CORRECT his DOOFUSNESS lest someone even more ignorant than he is take him seriously.
That is, he does this shit simply to draw attention to himself.
Patton is to narcissism what Monica Lewinsky is to BJs.
>>and until you stick around long >>enough to LEARN something about the DUMB SCHMUCK that you're trying to >>defend, you'd be smart to keep your freakin' trap shut. >I'm not defending anyone I'm attacking you for acting like a child who has had >his sandbox invaded!
Listen up, asshole. This is an UNMODERATED newsgroup.
And you're not the freakin' HALL MONITOR!
So MIND YOUR OWN FREAKIN' BUSINESS.
Otherwise, you'd be wise to pack a lunch, because you and me are going to *really* get to know each other.
>Patton doesn't need me to defend him, he makes you look >like a jackass everyday without any need for my help.
Well, if that's what you think, asshole, you're just as stupid as he is, so go suck a Schwinn.
>>Fuck you, Sean.
>>And fuck the bicycle you rode in on, Zendoofus.
>>You can't fool anyone here. >Fool anyone about what???
CR E <madammanches...@webtv.net> wrote in article <25794-35EF6157-...@newsd-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> snip typical trashy talk from that trailer park
I see you are off your meds again - only reason I can see for such a lousy set of manners and such a trashy mouth - but then you are trying hard to fit that trailer resident image. Funny the information I got on you (volunteered definitely not asked for as I am just not interested in your type) is 'who?' and 'oh her she's like that in person - nuts' Nancy
