An Open Letter to all the Big Mouths in This Group
Leslie Weinberg
of people are posting on this board. I myself, who had posted some
questions, met with a lot of sarcasm, criticism and just plain
disrespect and lack of courtesy.
It's a darn shame that those of us who wish to pursue a logical and
intelligent discourse and perhaps even gain some wisdom through this
group ( and occasionally get to offer some) have to contend, instead,
with the barbaric behavior of a few people who feel they are elite
enough to rule the world ( and those who think they ARE are usually just
the opposite).
I have learned over the years that those who yell the loudest are the
ones who are insecure, and in most cases, just plain incompetent.
People who are confident in themselves and mature to boot, do not have
to resort to cynicism and name-calling and downright childish and
boorish behavior.
You know the old saying...Let those who are without sin....If those of
you who yell the loudest can back up your statements and show the rest
of us all your educated, brilliant, successful results and your degrees
in veterinary medicine, psychiatry, genetics, and your Nobel Prizes,
please let the rest of us share in it. If you can not do this, then
either tone it down or don't post here.
Granted, it's a free world, and people are entitled to their opinions,
but when you have to step on everyone else's toes to express them,
perhaps it's time to sit back and rethink your approach. I'm long out
of college and grad school, and I feel as though I'm back in the
playground in nursery school. You all know who you are; allow the rest
of us to use this board for the purposes it was meant to serve. Leslie
Chris Kosmakos
: If those of
: you who yell the loudest can back up your statements
Leslie, I have to say that I see what has happened in the 2 marathon
threads you've started differently. You have stated your opinions
repeatedly and clearly. Your response, however, to those who have
disagreed with those opinions has been to simply say "You're wrong"
and repeat your opinion. Many people have backed up their various
arguments with a lot of good information - rescue statistics, kennels
using contract clause you say are rare, current situation in a breed,
etc.. You have never indicated any source for your opinions other
than your bad experience with one breeder and the 3 litters you bred
over 30 years, and haven't added any new justifications to bolster
your arguments.
It is grossly unfair to characterize the discourse as simply a case of
namecalling and rudeness. Frankly, no thread that degenerates to that
level lasts very long. While I don't think you were able to convince
anyone of the correctness of your opinions, I have to say that I think
that is because you were not able to defend them very well, rather
than because people were not willing to discuss them intelligently and
in depth.
Lynn K.
--
chri...@netcom.com
saxon
letter where you clearly attack peoples motives, and state that unless
they have Nobel prizes they should keep their months shut?
If you don't want to read garbage, stop posting it. Unless you are
unclear on the concept- This is off-topic, ad hominum garbage.
Saxon
Leslie Weinberg
backed up with fact. The issue is the inability of a lot of people to
discuss issues without rancor and regressing to the level of a
two-year-old having a tantrum. I'm talking attitude, not opinion.
Second, the fact that a lot of people can point to the number of dogs in
rescue and the number of dogs being bred which have health problems does
not necessarily mean that those doing the posting are the ones who are
the saviors of the breed. Anyone can talk a good game. if someone
criticizes what is going on in dogdom and lauds all of the things he or
she feels is positive and necessary in breeding, it does not mean that
that particular person is actually succeeding in contributing to that
cause.
Opinions and fact aside, there are people on this board who are vulgar,
self-righteous, and downright hostile. Leslie
Chris Kosmakos wrote:
> Leslie Weinberg (l...@bway.net) wrote:
>
> : If those of
> : you who yell the loudest can back up your statements
>
Leslie Weinberg
who can do nothing more than criticize and demean those who are posting
articles. We are supposed to take their word for it that they are the
saviors of their breeds and are producing the only quality pups around. Even
if it were true ( which is open to question), the attitude toward everyone
else is base. All I am asking is that people have a little more respect for
the opinions of others and perhaps try to educate and engage in calm and
intelligent discourse rather than putting everyone down. This does not lead
to give and take, it leads to strife. Leslie
Tanzendog
>criticizes what is going on in dogdom and lauds all of the things he or
>she feels is positive and necessary in breeding, it does not mean that
>that particular person is actually succeeding in contributing to that
>cause.
oh, so you want my resume'...fine.
i have owned and bred miniature poodles for 25 years, starting in high school.
i have finished 9 miniatures poodles of my own, 7 homebred, plus just as many
more for my handling clients. i also have finished 15 standard poodles for
clients as well.
i have put CD's on 5 of my dogs.
i recently put an N.A. on my semi-retired specials bitch, who is also a top
producer.
in the breed ring, Marvelous Macy (the new N.A., T.P.) was ranked in the top 15
nationally for three years straight, in limited local showing (except for 3
treks to the national in Maryland), and an Award of Merit at the national last
year at 5 years of age, with a litter of 12 week old puppies at home.
this year at the national, my Eddie was winners dog from the bred by class
under Frank Sabella to finish his championship.
two weeks ago Macy's daughter finished her championship at our local specialty
from the bred by class, with a five point major.
dogs i have bred compete in virtually every venue available...breed, obedience,
agility, flyball.
i have been involved in poodle rescue for the last 10 years.
i have been a member of my local poodle club for 17 years, serving in all most
all offices over the years, including president.
let me know if this isn't adequete for you purposes...one handed typing is a
drag, but i am sure i could add more.
Candace A. Hume
Tanzen Poodles
For poodle information:
Poodle Club of America www.swdg.com/pca
Versitility in Poodles www.pageweb.com/vipoodle
"When your opinion is worth two cents, I will let you know." Scritto
Chris Kosmakos
:
: the fact that a lot of people can point to the number of dogs in
: rescue and the number of dogs being bred which have health problems does
: the saviors of the breed.
No one ever claimed to be the savior of any breed. Many people disagreed
with you and gave information on why they did so. You've got to realize
that you are proposing something that most people feel is detrimental to
purebred dogs in a forum for people who love and feel strongly about
purebred dogs. People have written hundreds of posts trying to explain
to you why they feel it is detrimental, and the vast majority of those
have not been rude. I've got to wonder what kind of response you expected.
Lynn K.
--
chri...@netcom.com
Elizabeth B. Naime
It is interesting how often "Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone" is interpreted to mean, "don't ever say anyone else is wrong about
anything unless you are perfect, which nobody is so shut up". I don't
think that's the actual point of the story.
> Opinions and fact aside, there are people on this board who are vulgar,
> self-righteous, and downright hostile. Leslie
While we're on the subject of the Bible, ya know the one about the mote
in thy neighbor's eye?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth B. Naime * Email may be forwarded and/or posted
els...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu *
CUR 70 / FUR 212 * * Standard Disclaimers Apply*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Perry
the Subject: of your own thread here. One really would have to question
your own motives, simply based on your choice of words. It's one thing
to be provocative (as in - thought provoking) and another thing to be
provocative (as in - call other people nasty things). The former
furthers the discussion of intellectual ideas. The latter thwarts it.
By your inclusion of the words "Big Mouths" in your subject matter, it is
obvious that you are not interested in intellectual discussion, but
rather attacking others. That is, my dear Leslie, a symptom of somebody
who is under the illusion that status and respect will be derived by the
simple act of belittling others, through name calling, in the expectation
that one's image might be elevated in comparison. Won't work here, as is
evidenced by the hundreds of posts engaging you in discourse, only to be
fleetingly dismissed by you as rantings by big mouths.
- Howard
--
***********************************************
*|-------------------------------------------|*
*| TLS Keeshonden and Australian Cattle Dogs |*
*| "Dishrags of Distinction" |*
*|-------------------------------------------|*
***********************************************
CR E
of these people. I did occassionally check on the discussions, and must
admiit that your angst at someone not wanting to sell you a show quality
puppy is really a simple case of tought shit. Breeders who have spent
20 years planning and working toward the present little bundles of joy
they have do not have to sell any dog to any person if they do not want
to.
Show quality also generally means breeding quality. Those who are
serious about making the world aware of the quality of dog they are
producing want their show quality pups shown---if at maturity they are
of such a quality to do so. Many people give "rebates" for titles
earned, and many others will offer rebates
if a dog bombs out and is not "finishable".
I prefer to keep my show quality, although for the most part the puppies
are so much alike that it is a toss up as to which might be considered
pet quality. I have had a few with underbites and some white marks on
the chest that were sold as pets. The bites cleared up, and the white
marks faded. So go figure!!
But when you are trying to discuss or debate with the ignorant and
uniformed, things eventually will deteriorate to a really low level. I
LAUGHED when I read the ignorant statement that there is no such thing
as "rage syndrome", that it is just a case of ill bred and poorly raised
and trained dogs. Someday needs to acquaint themselves (herself) with a
few long time Spaniel people!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And talk to a few
groomers!!!!!!!!!!!!
And this same person has once again had many disparaging remarks to make
about backyard breeders of Standard Poodles, but I notice that she had
nothing to say about the horrors that can result from breeding black and
white poodles together in the first place!!!!!!!
This was the same brilliant individual who was demanding to see OFA and
CERF on my dogs--------two breeds who DO NOT HAVE HD as a problem in the
breed!!!!! Talk about a joke!! Then had the nerve to try to say that
the Health director of the American Manchester Terrier Club did not know
what she was talking about in regard to another disease occassionally
found in Manchesters----even tho this woman has also been breeding
Manchesters for over 30 years!!!!! They ignorant always know
everything-------otherwise they would realize how much they needed to
learn, and would no longer be ignorant!!
But if you let them prattle on, eventually they will start having their
tantrums and revealing their true natures. And then you get the people
who are basically pet owners, and have no concept of the principles
involved who align themselves with those who have been in a group the
longest, and have the biggest mouths. The pet owners have no way of
knowing that what they are reading is pure ignorance. It sounds
good---and they have nothing with which to compare.
There are a couple people in here who seem to have no life!! I pop back
in here every couple of weeks out of boredom, and see the same shit
being repeated by the same idiots!!!! Nancy once again is trying to
climb to the top of the heap on the back of the Yana's, beating about on
a really OLD issue. Yet as I said, all she has to offer is cracks about
some neighbor whose dogs tails are too long!! Oh, and by the way, there
is NO SUCH THING AS AN OVERSIZED STANDARD POODLE.
The one Dennis McCoy is showing right now is about 31" at the shoulder.
And I believe it is the top winner of the breed ever. Might be wrong on
that----Pat, or Toni do you know?
Anyway, Leslie, if you try to converse with Ann, Tibbi, Terri, Nancy and
several more regulars, you are in danger. They will gang up on you,
they will ridicule you and make total asses of themselves trying to make
you look foolish. Now, I must say that many of the posts I have read
from Ann have been very civilized, and logical.
Much less ridicule and snottiness. But I see Tibbi and Terri have not
learned much. I would have thought that after all of them--including
queen Nancy-- made asses of themselves over the "why should Tibbi get
her bitch x-rayed before it is two years old and can be OFA'd" they
would have learned something!!!! Gee, I always thought that the point
of x-raying a dog's hips was for the good of the dog, so you would know
what you could plan to do with it, as far as obedience, and jumping etc
were concerned. So that if it turned out that the dog was dysplastic
you would know and could let it lead a kind gentle, physically
undemanding life. I never realized that the entire reason for x-ray was
to get a dog OFA'd-----to prove what??
If OFA meant anything there would be no dyplastic puppies coming from
OFA'd clear parents, right?? And why show a dog and finish it UNTIL you
know that it is physically sound?? But that doesn't matter, because you
only x-ray to OFA, right??? Ignorance begetting ignorance. And yet it
does not slow anyone of these fine folks down. They seem to have no
shame when it comes to making fools of themselves!!!
I laughed when I asked several founders of the Manchester breed in this
country why Manchesters are not OFA'd and found out why would you OFA a
breed that does not have hip dysplasia, or elbow dysplasia!!!! Same
with Whippets. Of course the fact that all of my Whippets are spayed
and neutered did not mean anything!! And I should give them all away to
good homes where they would get individual attention!!! I wonder what
it is I do all day every day!! If one of my brats wants attention, they
come over, and they get it. I would say that the six Toy Manchesters at
a time sitting on my lap seem to be pretty happy!!
But these people know everything. They cannot and will not provide
proof of their supposed high esteem in the dog world, but they are
experts!!!! They buy dogs from someone else, and make a champion for
someone else, and that makes them an expert, qualified to judge other
peoples breeding practices. They are fools. But if a fool knew s/he
was a fool, would they not try to correct that situation? But fools
never realize how foolish they are---that is why they say and do foolish
things.
There are many experienced people in this group, but many of them become
so disgusted with the stupidity they see in here that they just stay the
hell away. And there are people who have real lives in the real world,
and do not have to berate and ridicule unknown, invisible people in a
make believe world in order to elevate their own status!!!! The people
in this group who have the MOST TO SAY, have the LEAST TO OFFER!! And
that, they say, is that!!!!!!
BBYYEE
Carole Ernst
Bob & Trish Yana
Howard Perry wrote in message ...
>SNIP<
it is
>obvious that you are not interested in intellectual discussion, but
>rather attacking others. That is, my dear Leslie, a symptom of somebody
>who is under the illusion that status and respect will be derived by the
>simple act of belittling others, through name calling, in the expectation
>SNIP<
Like NANCY you mean?????
Patricia Murk
Fiorillo was as large as any of todays dogs. This was back in the 60s so
the owners name escapes me. Sally was her first name. Tragicly
this dog was put down when his owner was jailed. He was a mutiple group
winner and all breed BIS. His head came to mid chest on me . I was 5'2
at that time. I do not believe that the standard mentions the
largest or, maximum height that a standard can be.
Pat and her Poms Fla
Bob & Trish Yana
Trish
CR E wrote in message <7439-35E...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Holley and Mark
innocent questions- that usually prevents me from posting my question in
the first place.
Holley
Tanzendog
>is NO SUCH THING AS AN OVERSIZED STANDARD POODLE.
>The one Dennis McCoy is showing right now is about 31" at the shoulder.
>And I believe it is the top winner of the breed ever. Might be wrong on
>that----Pat, or Toni do you know?
certainly did not look near that big to me...
and yes, we "poodle folks" think there is such a thing as too big...when the
dog loses the characteristics the breed standard calls for...including "elegant
appearing". the problem is on the "breeders" who breed for size alone without
regard to health and breed type.
Candy (still wondering aboutthe horrors of breeding black to white)
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
:-D
Certainly makes NO sense in terms of what *I* have learned of the breed.
OTOH breeding for size alone in poodles just as you said is an excellent
way to lose track of all the other important things. Its as if someone said
they were breeding especially for 'big hair' - I'd want more than that in
any breeding program!
I'm finding it pretty interesting who is lining up with whom - do you
suppose its true that people with low levels of breeding ethics really are
naturally attracted to each other in this manner like it seems in this
group? Scary thought for the future of dogs.
Nancy
Tanzendog <tanz...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199809030139...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
snip reasonable reply to florid post
Leslie Weinberg
etc. What I object to is the rancor and demeaning attitude of some people
toward others simply because they don't like what someone has written. It
should be possible to disagree as adults and with consideration for the
dignity of others. Leslie
Leslie Weinberg
people in this group toward the opinions of others with whom they disgaree.
it is not necessary. Leslie
Howard Perry wrote:
> Hey! Before accusing folks of being rude and sarcastic, just consider
> the Subject: of your own thread here. One really would have to question
> your own motives, simply based on your choice of words. It's one thing
> to be provocative (as in - thought provoking) and another thing to be
> provocative (as in - call other people nasty things). The former
> furthers the discussion of intellectual ideas. The latter thwarts it.
> By your inclusion of the words "Big Mouths" in your subject matter, it is
> obvious that you are not interested in intellectual discussion, but
> rather attacking others. That is, my dear Leslie, a symptom of somebody
> who is under the illusion that status and respect will be derived by the
> simple act of belittling others, through name calling, in the expectation
Leslie Weinberg
others? Leslie
Bob & Trish Yana wrote:
> Howard Perry wrote in message ...
> >SNIP<
> it is
> >obvious that you are not interested in intellectual discussion, but
> >rather attacking others. That is, my dear Leslie, a symptom of somebody
> >who is under the illusion that status and respect will be derived by the
> >simple act of belittling others, through name calling, in the expectation
Dog Game SuperStar
> Candy (still wondering aboutthe horrors of breeding black to white)
I've done that. It really isn't so bad. You should try it
sometime.
Michael Patton
DOGTV is COMING
Queen of Bitches
http://dogtv.com/queen.gif
Leslie Weinberg
intelligently, do not post here. I'm not trying to argue logic with most
of these people, I know it's a waste of time. As for my own search, I did
get a golden, from a "reputable" ( laugh laugh) breeder, hopefully show
potential, but as you say, who knows?
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. As a matter of fact, Kayce, one
of my last dogs, who died at the age of 10 from hemangiosarcoma ( and no,
there was absolutely no history anywhere), had been x-rayed when his leg
first swelled up, and although nothing was found ( the diagnosis came
later, after several biopsies) the vet showed me that he was actually
somewhat dysplastic. He had never had a symptom, and ran like the wind,
but the hips were certainly not a breeder's dream. No, he was never bred,
but neither was he neutered.
Leslie Weinberg
you with the courtesy you deserve. Leslie
Dog Game SuperStar
>
> 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!
IT SIMPLY DOESN'T GET ANY MORE HANDSOME THAN THIS
Double BOnuS Pure Handsomeness (CHAZZ 16 Weeks)
http://dogtv.com/Handsomeness.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Handsomeness.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Handsomeness.jpg
Mrc5555
(Tanzendog) writes:
>and yes, we "poodle folks" think there is such a thing as too big...when the
>dog loses the characteristics the breed standard calls for...including
>"elegant
>appearing". the problem is on the "breeders" who breed for size alone
>without
>regard to health and breed type.
Candace --
Interesting post and I do agree that in many breeds we are seeing a trend
towards "bigger is better". This is something that is happening in my breed,
the Akita.
One interesting comment which a woman who breeds Standards recently told me
about Standard Poodles, was that if you envision a Doberman (in terms of
propoertion and structure) and then add on the hair, you have a Standard
Poodle.
Any comments on that?
Marc
Bob & Trish Yana
Geographic Nancy!
BTW, interesting analogy...........I say you have "troops" lining up behind
you, and you deny it. Yet, in this post, you straight forwardly accuse
people of "Lining up with others"? HHMMM......the old double standard lives
on, doesn't it? Do as I SAY, not as I DO.
But then that is always your way, isn't it Nancy?
Trish
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin wrote in message
<01bdd6dd$23a9f7e0$47d8...@fmkaffen.ix.netcom.com>...
>Yes I was wondering a bit about that and glad you mentioned it as a puzzle.
>:-D
>Certainly makes NO sense in terms of what *I* have learned of the breed.
>OTOH breeding for size alone in poodles just as you said is an excellent
>way to lose track of all the other important things. Its as if someone said
>they were breeding especially for 'big hair' - I'd want more than that in
>any breeding program!
>I'm finding it pretty interesting who is lining up with whom - do you
>suppose its true that people with low levels of breeding ethics really are
>naturally attracted to each other in this manner like it seems in this
>group? Scary thought for the future of dogs.
>Nancy
>
>Tanzendog <tanz...@aol.com> wrote in article
><199809030139...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>snip reasonable reply to florid post
>> Candy (still wondering aboutthe horrors of breeding black to white)
>>
>>
>>
Bob & Trish Yana
WELCOME to the thread! Stand back people, things should really get
interesting now. I can hardly wait!!!
>VBG<
Dog Game SuperStar wrote in message <35EE4B6F...@earthlink.net>...
>Tanzendog wrote:
>
>> Candy (still wondering aboutthe horrors of breeding black to white)
>
>
>I've done that. It really isn't so bad. You should try it
>sometime.
>
>
>Michael Patton
>DOGTV is COMING
>Queen of Bitches
>http://dogtv.com/queen.gif
>
>
>
Bob & Trish Yana
Trish
Dog Game SuperStar wrote in message <35EE6AFC...@earthlink.net>...
Leslie Weinberg
Tanzendog
>One interesting comment which a woman who breeds Standards recently told me
>about Standard Poodles, was that if you envision a Doberman (in terms of
>propoertion and structure) and then add on the hair, you have a Standard
>Poodle.
In a basic sense, yes. if you have ever seen a really stripped poodle, the
similarities in their outlines are striking. they obviously differ on the
parts and pieces.
Tanzendog
>The one Dennis McCoy is showing right now is about 31" at the shoulder.
>And I believe it is the top winner of the breed ever. Might be wrong on
>that----Pat, or Toni do you know?
>
Tresor (dennis's special) is about 25" at the shoulder. You do realize that
Dennis is not a tall man?
Dogman
03 Sep 1998 03:10:04 -0700, Dog Game SuperStar <zze...@earthlink.net>
says:
[...]
>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.
As usual, pure BULL CA CA.
The more testing that's done, the better chance there *won't* be major
genetic illness in the future.
The human population is one of the most randomly mixed populations on
Earth, and we suffer from great numbers of genetic illnesses.
> 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.
> 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 reasons non SHOW quality pups are culled
> from breeding pool.
Again, you're confusing BAD BREEDING with close-breeding.
And that's why only breeders who have an intimate understanding of
genetics should be breeding dogs in the first place!
Only dogs who are the EXEMPLARS of their breed should *ever* be bred.
Close-breeding works like an AMPLIFIER on your sound system. It
AMPLIFIES not only the "good" notes, but the "bad" ones as well (such
as background "noise").
Then a good mixer (i.e., BREEDER) will "cull" the sound track of all
the "bad" noises until only the "good" notes are remaining.
That's how we make great sounding CDs and that's how we make great
dogs (and horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, corn, wheat, peas, etc.).
> 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.
Only the EXEMPLARS of any breed should ever be bred.
That is, only dogs that are rock-solid healthy (no known serious
genetic defects, sound structure, etc.), exhibit great intelligence
(trainability, memory, proper temperament, etc.), possess great
working ability (i.e., possess the desire, ability, nose, heart,
stamina, strength, etc. to do the job it was bred for), and that look
pretty damn good, to boot, should ever be bred.
In that EXACT order of importance.
And they should have to PROVE their worth by being compared with and
tested against other dogs of the same breed.
> The rigid requirements of the show
> standard, necessitate inbreeding to meet that
> rigid appearance standard.
That's simply not true. Although *too* rigid a standard can, indeed,
be harmful.
On the other hand, close-breeding is GOOD, not bad.
> Inbreeding for one trait results in genetic
> uniformity for many many other traits which
> tag along for the ride.....
But you don't inbreed for "one trait." You inbreed to IDENTIFY the
presence of all "bad" traits (which are then culled) and to "lock in"
the presence of "good" ones.
This is essentially what CLONING does, eh?
That is, you wouldn't want to clone sickly, ugly sheep, eh?
> Genetic uniformity results in high
> concentrations of genetic diseases,
BULLSHIT!
*Only* if the genes were "bad" will there be any concentration of
genetic illnesses!
And close-breeding can squeeze the "bad" genes out (by culling them),
thereby leaving only "good" ones remaining.
Hence, genetic conformity, when brought about as the result of careful
and selective CLOSE BREEDING of EXEMPLAR to EXEMPLAR, results in an
ABSENCE of genetic diseases!
Damn. you get dumber by the post, Patton.
> if they are
> present to begin with (which they always are).
No, in a wisely close-bred population, they are NOT present!
Only in a RANDOMLY bred population are they *always* present.
And you usually don't discover them until it's TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING
ABOUT THEM!
> 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.
Testing does but two things:
It cuts down on the amount of CULLING that's sometimes necessary to
get down to only the "good" genes and "good" combinations.
It can account for the presence of bad MUTATIONS and RECOMBINATIONS.
> Thus, a population rife with disease.
> This is a self perpetuating downward spiral
> virtually every purebreed is caught in.
More BULL CA CA.
It's got absolutely NOTHING (i.e., nada, zilch, zero) to do with close
breeding or pure breeding
It has only to do with BAD BREEDING.
That is, breeding dogs together that are less than EXEMPLARS.
> The Spay/Neuter obsession is simply a
> "control" issue, and has little to do with
> overpopulation.
Oh, my God, how dumb can one human being be?
Neutering prevents to a great extent the breeding together of dogs who
are NOT EXEMPLARS.
> Overpopulation stems from an oversupply of
> humans looking for consumable/disposable
> products.
We don't have an oversupply of humans; we have an oversupply of
DOOFUSES!
Yes, DOOFUSES like *you,* Patton.
> 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.
Unfortunately, you finally got one right.
The demand for QUALITY puppies just cannot be met.
Thus, we end up with suppliers of POOR QUALITY puppies trying to meet
this demand.
And the more DEMAND, the more BAD BREEDING that takes place to fill
the unfulfilled demand.
And the more BAD BREEDING that takes place, the more GENETIC problems
that surface.
:>(
> 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,
"Show" breeders are sometimes the very last people on Earth who should
be making these decisions, granted.
What we need more of are GOOD BREEDERS.
Breeders who understand the importance of breeding for:
HEALTH, INTELLIGENCE, WORKING ABILITY, and APPEARANCE.
And in that EXACT order of importance.
Unfortunately, show breeders and performance breeders *sometimes* get
those priorities confused.
On the other hand, backyard breeders and puppy mills don't even know
what these priorities are -- and couldn't care less.
Doofuses like *you,* Patton.
[And that's why people should run like hell *away* from any breeder
who advertises things like "We breed only CHOCOLATE Labs!"]
> The only way to decrease population
> without decreasing genetic health, is
> to slow breeding of *all* dogs, "pet"
> "show" and "other"
More BULL CA CA!
The only way to increase genetic health is by decreasing the numbers
of BAD BREEDINGS!
[...]
>That will be the end of this lecture.
And not a moment too soon.
Geeeeeeeeeez.
:>(
PS: Go, Big Mac, GO!
59 and counting!!!!!!!!
--
Dogman
dog...@i1.net
New! Dogman's Book Recommendations
http://www.i1.net/~dogman/books.htm
About Hunting Retrievers
http://www.i1.net/~dogman/fieldtrl.htm
About The Finest Sour Mash Whisky Under The Sun
http://www.georgedickel.com
"Violence, when there are alternatives, is immoral.
Violence, when there are no alternatives, is survival."
Dogman
"Do unto others as they do unto you."
Dogman
Mrc5555
(Tanzendog) writes:
>Tresor (dennis's special) is about 25" at the shoulder. You do realize that
>Dennis is not a tall man?
Is that the Finnish import?
Marc
M1stic24
> The more diseases are surely to be found
> rife within that breed,
> hence the need for all the expensive testing.
OK, let's say I breed GSDs. THAT certainly is a breed with its fair share of
problems. I breed these dogs, and I test for CHD, elbow dysplasia, vWD, etc.,
etc., etc. That makes me a responsible breeder. I am trying to clean up the
mess idiots who exploited the breed for money-making purposes created. I am
attempting to improve the breed. Undoubtedly, when you have a breed that
has been extremely popular (hence bred by people with no clue/no ethics),
you'll find a lot of problems. It is the fault of the irresponsible. Breeders
who test their dogs and are trying to improve the population should be
applauded. The statement you made above just confuses me - WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
> 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.
Sure, there is no such thing as a perfect dog. But responsible breeders are
always striving for something better. THAT is the only reason to breed. If you
are not trying to preserve your breed in both temperment AND looks, why on
Earth are you breeding anyway?
>Show Idiots believe if they do all the breeding
> that dogs will be healthier.
I REALLY resent the term "show idiot". OF COURSE there are idiots out there
involved in showing purebred dogs and all they care about are wins, wins, and
more wins. They breed thier dogs to conform to the standard in looks only,
don't bother much with preserving the correct temperment, and follow along with
whatever fad is currently fashionable in the ring, no matter HOW detrimental it
is to the breed as a whole. HOWEVER, I do show dogs, plan on breeding in the
future (I am no where near knowledgeable enough about genetics, and such to
start breeding now), and want to contribute to the success of my breeds when I
DO start breeding. I guess I would be
classified as one of your "show idiots". But tell me, how would I be hurting
dogs by breeding dogs according to the following high standards I hold?
*Breed for temperment, health, ability to perform breed-appropriate tasks, and
lastly conformation (according to how the breed should REALLY look, not
according to fads).
*Breed for the following reason only:
To preserve and better the breed. In my mind there is no other reason to
produce dogs. A "breeder" once told me that the only reason she was breeding
was to produce pets.
Why? There are millions of "just pets" (produced by irresponsible people, I
might add), that are euthanized every year. Why would you bring more "just
pets" into the world?
IF only the BEST breeders the human race had to offer were producing dogs, you
would see an amazing decline of health problems, temperment problems, and there
sure would be a LOT less dogs in the shelters. How could you think pet people,
backyard breeders, people with no clue, and inferior dogs all combined could
make the dog world a better place?
Your problem is you lump all purebred dog people into one big "conform,
conform, conform, inbreed, inbreed, inbreed" group.
Sure, too many breeders are helping to ruin purebred dogs. But the GOOD
breeders are producing fantastic dogs, and have every reason to feel that they
are improving purebred dogs. THEY ARE.
Tanzendog
>Is that the Finnish import?
>
>
>Marc
>
>
no, tresor is CH Lakecove's That's my Boy.
i think you are referring to Paul Edward's special.
Dogman
1998 21:35:03 GMT, m1st...@aol.com (M1stic24) says:
[...]
>Your problem is you lump all purebred dog people into one big "conform,
>conform, conform, inbreed, inbreed, inbreed" group.
[...]
No, Mistic, Patton's problem is that he's a DOOFUS.
He knows even *less* about breeding than he does about dog training,
and he knows absolutely NOTHING about dog training.
More and more, I'm convinced he's a TROLL.
No serious dog person could ever be this STUPID about so many
dog-related topics.
:>(
Andrea Stone
>
> 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
I can only speak for myself. I don't have my dogs' hips graded by OFA in an
attempt to say/claim/believe/prove that my dog won't/can't produce hip
dysplasia.
Simply put, I have my dogs screened in order to find out their status. If
the dog's hips are poor or dysplatic, I won't breed the dog. If the results
are good, then I can add other items into the don't breed/breed/breed to
whom equation.
--
Andrea Stone
Saorsa Basenjis + one Ibizan Hound
http://www.premier1.net/~saorsa
CR E
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 told her I would ask. She is a bit shy, and reluctant to get involved
in the goings on in this group. I told her to e-mail you, that I did
not think you would bite!! But she is too shy so could you maybe
mention a couple of your big winners, or at least what lines you go back
to? I was thinking that maybe if you live in like Calif. it could just
be a geographical thing.
Thanks, Carole R. Ernst
Jana
I wonder, is this because people are trying to make "giant" akitas, or
is it just a trend? In rottweilers, the badly bred ones are often
advertised as being "oversized", but in badly bred Labs and Goldens,
they just tend to be huge (saw a 110# yesterday!!). OTOH, I've seen
several ads for "toy shelties".
Jana
Parker (25") & Danni (23")
Shirley Lawler
whether the dog is inbred or linebred, it has to do with inferior species being
bred. I have bred 75 champions, and most of those were either father to
daughter, mother to son or full brother to sister. The genetic faults (and I do
mean life threatening) came from the outcrossing. It isn't the "show breeders"
necessarily at fault it is the people with the money that can promote the show
dog, and breed this top winner to anything to keep the hoards of champions being
produced by this dog going. In short it is a race for the ratings anymore, and
the outstanding dog seems to just be the byproduct of "genetic luck" rather than
careful breeding. Just look at the multitude of dog breeds that have
consistently over the years have gone down the tubes. Such as the Dobe, Cocker,
Great Dane, GSD and others.
Dog Game SuperStar wrote:
--
AKC all breed pedigree service
see us at http://indrio.com
CR E
which I will waste my time responding---and I would love to know what
makes this white trash puppy miller think she would know a reputable
breeder if she met one----but the friend of mine she is libeling is not,
and never has been a "breeder". She does not have time to be bothered.
However she knows more about Poodles than anyone on this list outside
perhaps of Pat M.
As pertains to the size of Ms. Robson's dog, I have had my hands on the
dog, and know he is no where near 25"!! If I ain't 29" he ain't
nothing. I first met Dennis at Marilyn Marchetti's back in 1978 when he
was staying at Marilyn's. Of course someone of Nancy's low class ilk
will have never heard of Marilyn Marchetti, or Merri-Mars Queen Of The
Nile. But Candy MAY have heard of the dog. Depends on how long she has
been involved in Poodles. That is my main curiousity is how long and to
what extent Candy has been involved with Poodles.
I hope that perhaps Candy will share the info~~~~I do not need other
offering ignorant white trash babblings as answers to legitimate
questions.
I tell you now you ignorant bitch, who poses as a member of the human
race and goeth by the name of Nancy Holmes, save your fingertips and
mind your own business. You shall receive no further acknowledgement
from me. You are beneath contempt. You are filth on the face of the
earth. And addressing you is a waste of a person's time. You have not
grown or matured in the month's since I last encountered you. So go
back under your rock, and keep your ignorant babblings to yourself. You
have nothing to offer that would serve to educate or inform anyone. You
are an embarrassment to this group to which you are addicted. Shame on
you for even trying to convince anyone that your are a dog fancier or
reputable breeder. You are not even a reputable human being~~~how can
you pretend to be a reputable dog person??
You Nancy Holmes are a babbling fool.
I revel in your ignorance~~it gives me great delight to watch someone
make a total fool of HERself!!! But I shall have to deny myself the
pleasure, since I do not have time to visit this group too often. I can
make my visits much more pleasant by filtering out anything pertaining
to you!
BBYYEE Nancy!!!!!!!!!
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Nancy
Bob & Trish Yana <gr8d...@midwest.net> wrote in article
<6sm0h4$hss$1...@supernews.com>...
> snip trash from trash
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
think I'd go with what a real poodle person has to say about the size of
specials dog over your vote on the subject. Dog and coat are not the same
thing.
Nancy
CR E <madamma...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<10694-35...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
snip typical nonsense
Howard Perry
: 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 know someone who you don't who is very famous which makes me very
famous even if I say so myself and he doesn't think you're very famous but
that's okay because by not naming names but rather by spreading gossip I
can give the impression that I am an important person.
Geezus, Madame. Will you stop it already? You're a troll!
Tanzendog
>
>
>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!!
>
>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.
>
>in the goings on in this group. I told her to e-mail you, that I did
>not think you would bite!! But she is too shy so could you maybe
>mention a couple of your big winners, or at least what lines you go back
>to? I was thinking that maybe if you live in like Calif. it could just
>be a geographical thing.
>
>Thanks, Carole R. Ernst
>
gee, carole, i just posted my resume' for leslie at the beginning of this
thread, check there for the info for your friend.
i have minis, but also handle. if your friend was at the last two nationals,
and watched minis, she couldn't have missed me. last year i won winners bitch,
best of winners with a white mini bitch, bred and owned by the milroys. this
year, i finished my black mini from the bred by class under frank sabella. and
if she gets poodle review or poodle variety, i am the handler of the silver
sttreak dog, a top ten ranked silver mini. i live in washington state, and
make the trek to the national in maryland (used to be pennsylvania) every year,
usually with a couple of minis and a couple of standards. this year, 4 dogs
carrying my kennel name competed in the poodle club of america's first ever
agility trial.
i just finished homebred champion number 7. not bad considering i work at a
vet clinic, groom dogs, and play mom to two sons, fitting dog shows into my
spare time.
my guess on tresor's height is based on the opinion of two friends who also
know dennis, are standard breeders, and have had their hands on the dog.
candy
Tanzendog
>Nancy opens her ignorant mouth again. This is the only post of hers to
>which I will waste my time responding---and I would love to know what
>makes this white trash puppy miller think she would know a reputable
>breeder if she met one----but the friend of mine she is libeling is not,
>and never has been a "breeder". She does not have time to be bothered.
>
gee, now if she were a breeder, she might actually know me, wouldn't she?
now i am sorry i wasted my time typing one fingered just to try and answer you!
candy (5 more weeks of cast...)
Tanzendog
>Some people are not worth answering...even with two good hands. How is
>your arm doing? Grooming poodles with one hand must be a really
>interesting experience...
>take care,
>
>Ruth Mays
> Cinnaminson NJ
> I keep hitting the escape key, but I'm still here...
>
>
>
>
>
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. my oldest son is
9, and he has been chief in charge of our six dogs, cleaning runs and crates,
feeding and exercising. he is a great help.
i am planning on going to a couple of shows week after this. my handler pals
are going to run the dogs in the rings for me so the clients aren't out their
entries.
i am going back to work at the vet clinic very part time next week, i'm the
office manager, and no one can find anything without me it seems!!
nice to be needed!
candy (now if hubby would just fold the laundry for me...live would be good)
Chris Kosmakos
: It's a shame that more people like you, who can discuss calmly and
: intelligently, do not post here. I'm not trying to argue logic with most
: of these people, I know it's a waste of time.
Well, Leslie, given the way this thread has degenerated, I'll bet you've
had a chance to regret this compliment you paid to Carole..:-) Not that
she is the only one guilty of the kind of thing you're complaining about,
by any means. By posting a generic complaint about the behavior of
nameless people, you opened the door for those with grudges to disinter
them. It would have been better if you had dealt individually with the
individuals who gave rise to your complaints rather than leave it open to
interpretation like this.
Lynn K.
--
chri...@netcom.com
CR E
Regards,
Carole Ernst
Leslie Weinberg
guilty of a less than hospitable attitude know who they are, and so does
everyone else. Leslie
CR E
Thank you so much for being kind enough to answer my queries. I do not
spend any amount of time anymore in this group~~~plus those of us who
visit here thru WebTV rather than Dejanews do not see the full
compliment of posts. We are limited to 1500, and they do seem to jump
around for no reason (topicwise that is!)
It is as Liz suspected, simply that you are on the other side of the
country, and most likely got involved with poodles about the time she
was slacking off. She mentioned that she did breed one litter of
Poodles--out of a bitch she got from Frank, bred to the number 1 in the
country at the time. She cannot remember the stud's name, but said he
lived in New Orleans. When you get our age, remembering is difficult.
She said that Meisen and Sassafras were big back in her heyday of
interest in Poodles!!
In the midst of revisitning her memories she did mention that Frank was
one of the best looking young men you would ever want to see. Beautiful
was the word she used!! But he went on to bigger and better things and
left the little group!!
What some people in this group who are not as important as they feel
themselves to be, take for "name dropping" is just some of us reminising
(sp) about our old friends! I mean Liz used to hobknob with Mike
Billings in the good old days. Big deal. Unfortunately some of us
cannot give a resume without mentioning some well know names. Back when
we knew them they were not world famous!! Except in my case with the
Butts of Sporting Fields, and Lou Dunson---a name that should ring a
bell with you (Lou-Gin Poodles). He just called me Monday to tell me
that George dropped dead Monday of a massive heart attack--58 years old.
Lou called becaue he knew I would cheer him up a little. I tried, but
what can you say in a case like that?
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?
As she said, she goes back to the days of horsing around with Frank
Sabella before he even BECAME THE Frank Sabella!! One of the advantages
of old age!!
Thanks again for taking the time, and continue the good work helping to
better the breed! Now, if you ever decide you want to "go Naked" there
are a couple top
Toy Manchester people out in your neck of the woods!! <G>
Regards,
Carole E.
Dog Game SuperStar
>
> 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.
============================================
The SuperStar
Double BOnuS Pure Handsomeness (CHAZZ 16 Weeks)
http://dogtv.com/Handsomeness.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Handsomeness.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Handsomeness.jpg
A SAGA OF THREE BITCHES
http://dogtv.com/watercloseup.jpg HOPE & CALLIE
http://dogtv.com/dontbitehope.gif HOPE & CALLIE
http://dogtv.com/queen.gif CALLIE
http://dogtv.com/molly2.jpg MOLLY
=================================================
>
> Dog Game SuperStar wrote in message <35EE4B6F...@earthlink.net>...
> >Tanzendog wrote:
> >
> >> Candy (still wondering aboutthe horrors of breeding black to white)
> >
> >
> >I've done that. It really isn't so bad. You should try it
> >sometime.
> >
> >
> >Michael Patton
> >DOGTV is COMING
> >Queen of Bitches
> >http://dogtv.com/queen.gif
> >
> >
> >
CR E
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.
Regards,
Carole E.
CR E
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??
Ta, Ta,
Carole E.
Dog Game SuperStar
> 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
DISMISSED!
The SuperStar
Pressuring and Forcing the Cameraman into a Bad Shot
(heh, not hard to do)
http://dogtv.com/Image35.jpg
The Hapless Cameraman, trying to think of a way to
stop me
http://dogtv.com/Image9.jpg
Blowing by the Hapless Cameraman with the Left Hand
(setting it up with a between the legs dribble)
http://dogtv.com/Image40.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Image38.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Image41.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Image15.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Image19.jpg
Blowing by the Hapless Cameraman with the Right Hand
http://dogtv.com/Image1.jpg
Cameraman Can't Stop the Rain
http://dogtv.com/Image43.jpg
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!
============================================
VETMEL1300
>> 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?
Mrc5555
> 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.
Marc
Sudhir B Nayak
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.
VETMEL1300 (vetme...@aol.com) 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...
: >
: 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
.^. .^.
/ \ / \
__--^^^--__ ,' \/ `-.
,. _-^ @@@@@@@/ ^-_.' \
/ \ ,' \@@@@,' | ,---.___. \
\ `' `--' /~~\ | \ `. |
`. | , | \ \ !
`. `.| | | | i
\ `'. | # |# | !
\ \ \ / / i
\ \ `. `._.'__.' |
`| | `. \
/ / `. /%%%%%%\ | ARF!
| / ^--__ /\ |%%%%%%% | | ARF!
| | | |^-.| |. .| | \ \%%%%%_/ /
| | | | | | `^' | | `. ,'
( ) ( ) | | | | `-____-^
`-' `-' | | | |
( ) ( )
`-' `-'
Tanzendog
>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.
candy
Bob & Trish Yana
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$b78$1...@supernews.com>...
>AMEN Brother Michael........tell it like it is!!
>Trish
>
>
>Dog Game SuperStar wrote in message <35EE6AFC...@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!
>>
>>IT SIMPLY DOESN'T GET ANY MORE HANDSOME THAN THIS
Dogman
04 Sep 1998 02:27:58 -0700, Dog Game SuperStar <zze...@earthlink.net>
says:
[...]
>I don't want to risk "overexposure."
[...]
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Patton, you are to overexposed what Stalin was to purge.
Dogman
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.
Which is always what you'll be most notable for:
being a DUMB PUSSY.
:>(
seanmc...@my-dejanews.com
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
Patricia Murk
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.
Pat and her Poms Fla
Dogman
>> 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.
Yup. You *are* Zendoofus using an alias.
This is no coincidence.
You REEK of Zendoofusness.
>Grow up Dogman
Fuck you, Sean.
And fuck the bicycle you rode in on, Zendoofus.
You can't fool anyone here.
You're too freakin' STUPID to do that.
Now go stick it in your ear.
Patricia Murk
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.
Andrea Stone
>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.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carole,
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.
--
Andrea Stone
Saorsa Basenjis + one Ibizan Hound
http://www.premier1.net/~saorsa
CR E
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!!
TTYL
Carole R. E.
SeanEMac
>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"
Golda Meir
Tanzendog
>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.
Patricia Murk
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!
CR E
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!!!!!
Best,
Carole E.
Bullmarket
tanz...@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
Bullmarket
paw...@webtv.net (Patricia Murk) wrote:
Ch CACIB Pravers Miss
> Conduct.
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...
Dogman
1998 23:32:43 GMT, sean...@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???
I think you might be Patton.
>Love and kisses SeanEMac
Kiss THIS, you little carp-sucker.
And then stick it in your ear.
Nancy E.Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
CR E <madamma...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<25794-35E...@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
Tanzendog
i don't think mannix finished. at least the certified pedigrees i got later
never showed him as a champion.
Ladd Christensen
Leslie Weinberg wrote:
> This has nothing to do with motives or opinions. This has to do with people
> who can do nothing more than criticize and demean those who are posting
> articles.
What do you think you are doing?? All I've heard is you "criticize and demean"
everyone who has posted an article so far!! -Amy
>
>
> >
Robert Carr
others. In fact, I think the perspective different opinions/views bring
to the table represent some of the best that news groups have to offer.
But it all comes down to the "water cooler" principle. While standing
around the water cooler at work discussing whatever, how would you
repond to someone whose opinion is different from yours? With respect?
Robert
Andrea Stone
cyberspace.
One big mouth to another, that is! <g>
(posted & mailed)
--
Andrea Stone
Saorsa Basenjis + one Ibizan Hound
http://www.premier1.net/~saorsa
CR E wrote in message <29336-35...@newsd-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Bullmarket
>
> I wonder, is this because people are trying to make "giant" akitas, or
> is it just a trend? In rottweilers, the badly bred ones are often
> advertised as being "oversized", but in badly bred Labs and Goldens,
> they just tend to be huge (saw a 110# yesterday!!). OTOH, I've seen
> several ads for "toy shelties".
Well, I don't think it's all a puppy mill type situation - I think the
show ring can do it's fair share of pushing people towards the
bigger/better smaller/better thing. I've heard everything from "Judges
like bigger dogs - they look more imposing" to "bigger dogs stand out in
the ring more - they look more mature". In my breed, the weight limit
allows for dogs up to 28 lbs, but in some areas you'd have a hard time
winning with a 28# dog, as it will look oversized compared to the majority
of competitors.
Carol
Chris Kosmakos
: I guess I just put the wrong tone to your questions. Easy to do in
: cyberspace.
Carole, I have to admit that, like Andrea, I questioned the tone of
your questions. You're right, we all go through the "who are your dogs
from and what have they done" dance, but it is a little different in
real conversation than it is virtually. When we're talking F2F, we're
engaged in the topic of the moment and it is easier to place comments
directly in that context. When reading a newsgroup we read a post from
someone on one topic, then may read another on a totally different topic,
and they kind of blend together. So, when I read a post of yours that
began with something like "let me give a hint to those all of you people
here who don't even show or breed", then immediately afterwards read a
different one where you were asking someone where they got their dogs,
how long they had been in dogs, and who they knew, I assumed your intention
was to qualify that person, not to get to know them. I apologize if that
was a wrong assumption, but I think you can see why I leapt to that
conclusion.
Lynn K.
--
chri...@netcom.com
Tanzendog
>Carole, I have to admit that, like Andrea, I questioned the tone of
>your questions. You're right, we all go through the "who are your dogs
>from and what have they done" dance, but it is a little different in
>real conversation than it is virtually. When we're talking F2F, we're
>engaged in the topic of the moment and it is easier to place comments
>directly in that context. When reading a newsgroup we read a post from
>someone on one topic, then may read another on a totally different topic,
>and they kind of blend together. So, when I read a post of yours that
>began with something like "let me give a hint to those all of you people
>here who don't even show or breed", then immediately afterwards read a
>different one where you were asking someone where they got their dogs,
>how long they had been in dogs, and who they knew, I assumed your intention
>was to qualify that person, not to get to know them. I apologize if that
>was a wrong assumption, but I think you can see why I leapt to that
>conclusion.
>
>Lynn K.
>--
lynn, i took the questions the same way you did, i continued to answer because
I was quite interested in the response. i certainly didn't get a warm fuzzy
feeling from the questions, more like up against the wall, bright lights in my
eyes.... not exactly how i talk to my fellow breeders.
CR E
Those people who post to this group and are more heavily involved in
dogs than the average pet owner, need to remember that many times these
folk may not have any idea of the politics of dog showing, or the
terminology involved, I do not feel it is polite to conduct a
conversation that may just leave other scratching their heads and
wondering what on earth is being said.
There are also things that go on that may sound impressive to someone
who just happens to be an animal lover who knows nothing about SAR,
conformation, obedience, hunting trials, etc. There are some people who
own pets, and who think they know enough to give advice to others, and
yet have no clue what they are talking about. Just because someone as a
kennel name following his/her signature does not mean someone whose
statements should be given any weight.
It is a clumbsy process to "get to know someone", or acquainting
yourself with someone via a newsgroup, and the written word. And you
must bear in mind that I also have to contend on occassion with ignorant
side comments from certain people who feel compelled to make snide,
malicious comments to any of my posts.
So I may be a bit more brash than I would otherwise be.
What you see written by me is EXACTLY what I mean. Now I admit that
when indirectly answering a comment made by the obnoxious "one" I may
make use of double entendre, but that would be the only time!!
I ain't anybody famous, and my dogs will never be top 10 dogs, 'cause
showing is not that important to me. When my bitch Kelly ended up the
#5 Top Toy, in Feb. of 1996, I did not even know it!! I had called a
friend to ask her a question, and she congradulated me----I thought she
meant about Kelly finishing her champsionship.
Linda said "Nooo!! Your bitch is ranked---didn't you know???" So I
found out Kelly was #5 all breed, and #5 Toy Manchester!! Must admit,
it did go to my head, and it does sound good. But really does not mean
squat, in the long run.
And since my buddy Liz is still reluctant to start posting in
here----you know, shy about taking that first step<G>---I was asking
questions for HER, which may have sounded a bit stilted!!
So no, I was not in any way trying to be snide. And I still feel that
those of us who are way OVERinvolved with dogs should try to include
those who just have dogs they love, in our conversations, and make an
effort to explain things to them!! If I think someone is an ass, or
take exception to what someone says, no one will have to "wonder" what I
really mean!!!<G>
Regards,
Carole
CR E
Read my response to Lynn!! As I said, I was not asking these questions
on my own behalf, but for Liz. So I guess they did sound a bit stiff
and stilted. I know squat about Poodles, which is all I want to know!!
I cannot stand hairy dogs!!
And just how do you ask someone the extent of their involvement with
dogs without it possibly sounding harsher than it should!!
Liz mentioned that she had e-mailed you privately, so now you and she
can take over the introducions and conversation if you so desire! Oh,
by the by---would you happen to have any books that mention Cleo, and
state the name of her sire? Liz is going nuts, and has a couple of
other people racking their brains. She thinks Aristocrat was the
sire.........maybe. Old age is a real pain when it comes to trying to
remember names and dates!!! You will find out a few decades down the
road!!!
Anyway, you were never up against a wall,
and your kindness in answering was very much appreciated. It is quicker
to sometimes ask direct questions rather than to try to go through the
"grapevine"--
as you know!!
Once again thank you! I am now out of your hair, and you can avail
yourself of what little memory Liz has left about the dogs in you
foundation if you so choose!!
Many thanks and regards,
Carole E.
Tanzendog
>Liz mentioned that she had e-mailed you privately, so now you and she
>can take over the introducions and conversation if you so desire! Oh,
>by the by---would you happen to have any books that mention Cleo, and
>state the name of her sire? Liz is going nuts, and has a couple of
>other people racking their brains. She thinks Aristocrat was the
>sire.........maybe. Old age is a real pain when it comes to trying to
>remember names and dates!!! You will find out a few decades down the
>road!!!
>
the sire of ch merrimar's queen of the nile was ch aizbel the imperialist,
according to poodles in america, vol v.
>Once again thank you! I am now out of your hair, and you can avail
>yourself of what little memory Liz has left about the dogs in you
>foundation if you so choose!!
>
unforunately, the info liz has to offer is on a very small part of my
foundation, from over 20 years ago.
Tanzendog
>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
>--
thanks, carol!! i troop up to canada a few times a year. allison is a very
nice lady, i always enjoy running into her! (she and will were at pca this
year, too)
Dog Game SuperStar
>
> AMEN Brother Michael........tell it like it is!!
> Trish
That's the only way I do it, Trish. I don't know what's
sweeter, my game on the court, or my game on the group.
========================================================
The SuperStar
He Got Game
Pressuring and Forcing the Cameraman into a Bad Shot
(heh, not hard to do)
http://dogtv.com/Image35.jpg
The Hapless Cameraman, trying to think of a way to
stop me
http://dogtv.com/Image9.jpg
Blowing by the Hapless Cameraman with the Left Hand
(setting it up with a between the legs dribble)
http://dogtv.com/Image40.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Image38.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Image41.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Image15.jpg
http://dogtv.com/Image19.jpg
Blowing by the Hapless Cameraman with the Right Hand
http://dogtv.com/Image1.jpg
Cameraman Can't Stop the Rain
http://dogtv.com/Image43.jpg
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
=========================================================
MSchaef504
>you'll have to wait for my book.
And then I'll hold MY PARTY.
> fling my arm back
>into the quiver, and with skill dripping from my pores, I
Ay.Ay.Ay.
Ah,is that what's dripping......hmmm-doesn't smell like teen spirit......
>he same ol' same
>ol' drunk ass blabber and wail
Nobody would accuse you of being drunk,Stuporstar-insane and/or drugged-YES.
Dog Game SuperStar
purpose idiot, but that's not important right now.
You're probably a good breeder as far as breeders go. But
you're a specialist. You are breeding dogs for a distinct
working purpose, you are breeding retrievers. You are
breeding in a breed which isn't crippled with genetic
sameness and disease, at least, compared to many others.
And if you don't have any disease in your "lines" and you
want to keep getting those champion retrievers, then it's
probably a good idea.
If your primary goal is dogs who will want to retrieve like
they want to breathe, then inbreeding is probably a good way
to go. Retrieving is a specialized trait, and if you stop
breeding for it, you will probably lose it, or at least it
will decrease in your "lines."
As for educating you on all your misconceptions below, well,
you're not worth the time. Run along now.
Dogman wrote:
>
> Upon my taking a break from listening to the Walter Trout Band, Fri,
> 04 Sep 1998 05:54:22 -0700, Dog Game SuperStar <zze...@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.
>
> Which is always what you'll be most notable for:
>
> being a DUMB PUSSY.
>
> :>(
Bob & Trish Yana
Jordan+Rodman+Pippen!!
As a Bulls fan, that is the biggest compliment I can pay someone!! :)
Trish
Dog Game SuperStar wrote in message <35F336F2...@earthlink.net>...
>Bob & Trish Yana wrote:
>>
>> AMEN Brother Michael........tell it like it is!!
>> Trish
>
>
>That's the only way I do it, Trish. I don't know what's
>sweeter, my game on the court, or my game on the group.
>
>