This is a placeholder text
Group text
by bazza on 05 April 2010 - 15:04
by GSDtravels on 05 April 2010 - 15:04
The POINT is, she is still claiming HIT out of 112 dogs at the trial. NOT the case, NOT the truth!
by TessJ10 on 05 April 2010 - 15:04
Of course it is. The whole beginning of this thread is everyone congratulating WP on the HIT, then realizing it wasn't quite a HIT, but still most people saying "Good for you" for the achievement, anyway. I congratulated her heartily and asked, because I was confused by her post, if it was HIT overall or HIT Trial A Classes, and Windy Pool herself posted: "The high in trial was overall high for the day."
Go look; Windy Pool's post is on p. 1 of this thread, but look quick because she'll probably edit it.
And then she posted the stud dog ad for "HIGH IN TRIAL with 112 dogs" and that really turned the tide, but again, people, Maggie only posts to get people to talk to her - she constantly gets stuff wrong, but you all fall for it every time and give her attention by responding to her when she yanks your chain. She either 1) knows perfectly well that she is misrepresenting, but she wants people to talk to her, and you do, or 2) she is truly lacking in comprehension.
One example (of dozens): she's posted that the WP thread is people bashing people "at the top" of the sport. Say WHAT? LOL. So, either MaggieMae thinks that getting a CD is "top of the sport" - but only if you're Windy Pool, for the rest of us it has to be winning at a Sieger Show in Germany with a dog you trained and showed yourself, or else she is outright lying (again) about what people have said, as there was absolutely no bashing at all of anyone at the top of the sport.
by Micky D on 05 April 2010 - 15:04
There has not been one person I've seen who doesn't agree, now that the premium list is available, that there was a special award offered at this trial. "Special" means such awards are not recorded nor counted toward AKC Obedience Trial Championship points as far as AKC is concerned.
Kudos to whoever donated that award. It's nice to see efforts in AKC sponsored activities geared toward encouraging new exhibitors. That said, there are still places on the database where this award is referred to as "High In Trial", without a disclaimer that the award is very different from AKC's interpretation of that term.
Congratulations to the trainer of the High in Trial Shetland Sheepdog on a very nice win and only 2 points lost, with a score of 198 out of a possible 200 perfect score. And, congratulations to the little toy Pomeranian that qualified in both Open B and Utility B with the highest points from his 2 separate scores for Highest Combined Score in trial.
by MaggieMae on 05 April 2010 - 15:04
by TessJ10 on 05 April 2010 - 15:04
No, it hasn't. What is "truthful" about you stating that people on these threads about WP are "bashing people at the top of the sport"? There's nothing truthful in that. What's truthful about you defending the business practices of a woman who is advertising a stud dog and his progeny, thereby asking people to PAY MONEY, by falsely advertising that he was "HIGH IN TRIAL in 112 working dogs"? She does this and other falsehoods and you defend her and think that when people say, don't do that, it's false advertising, you disagree and say that it's "bashing."
What is "truthful" about your constant claims that posters on this board are the same person using this screen name and that screen name? Those things are simply not true. But you say they are.
by MaggieMae on 05 April 2010 - 16:04
by Mystere on 05 April 2010 - 16:04
Why do you bother???? MaggieMae has demonstrated her lack of character repeatedly on this thread (not to mention others) and continues to defend the indefensible. What would you expect of someone who knows so little of what she rants on about that she does not even know what a "fursaver" is?
She condones and supports disingenuousness, to put it mildly and charitably. But, you are probably correct: noting when she appears on threads, it is for attention and to get someone to talk to her. That is precisely why I largely ignore her posts, unless I am in the mood to be entertained by a bit of inane bluster .
by MaggieMae on 05 April 2010 - 16:04
by TessJ10 on 05 April 2010 - 16:04
Exactly. LOL, see - she doesn't answer the questions, she talks about a "bully clique" - totally ignoring the falsehoods, trying to change the subject. I directly quoted her, DIRECTLY quoted her, and she says I twisted her words. She jumped in on the WP threads for attention and dug herself in really deep this time because Windy's lies were BIG ones and poor MaggieMae was left all alone defending really obvious falsehoods. Oh, well (LOL). Can you imagine, Mystere, if YOU'D posted any ads like Windy Pool's lying Magic Meadows, the vitriol MaggieMae would be spewing at you????
HEY - I just realized something! The "Magic" in Magic Meadows must be the titles and awards - they appear by "Magic" instead of being real! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. "Magic" Meadows, indeed.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
