
This is a placeholder text
Group text
by beetree on 01 March 2009 - 17:03
Missbeeb and Sue B, hoodlums the both of you! LMFAO
A couple of real scary bitches! ROFLMFAO
A couple of real scary bitches! ROFLMFAO
by Trafalgar on 01 March 2009 - 17:03
I feel it's unfortunate that many people in the dog world act in a tribalistic fashion.
As soon as the Harrison special appeared dog lovers everywhere lined up like schoolchidren about to play dodge ball.
People chose sides, dug in their heels and refused to "see the forest for the trees".
Ad hominem attacks and games of "gotcha" are not only off-point but downright sillly.
It would be hard to dismiss the overarching premise of purebred dog BBC TV special - that inbreeding for extreme uniformity and selecting for super exaggerated physical characteristics have, indeed, led many purebred dog breeds to a precarious place.
My problem with the special was that it probably led the naive to believe that the extreme physical deformities (like bracycephaila or giantism or dwarfism or extreme angulation) are at the root of the problem. While these extreme physical features are, of course, noxious - it is - (drumroll, please) - SHRINKING HETEROZYGOSITY within the breeds that is the root of the problem.
One could breed dogs to look TOTALLY NATURAL, like wolves for instance, and still have a miserably ailing breed - if there was a lack of diversity - genetically.
Most dog lovers don't understand the tremendous paradox implicit in the idea of a "standard of perfection".
"Improving" a breed by eliminating variation so all breed members are more and more like this ideal - inevitably leads to a lack of viability - IF - diversity of ALL non-essential characteristics isn't encouraged & protected simultaneously.
Hard pill to swallow BUT - breeding only the very, very, very best and not breeding the rest - leads to doom.
Careful planning to improve the OVERALL quality of the breed on essential characteristics while rewarding diversity in non-essentials is the way to go.
That is the important message to take from that show.
Not whether someone "caught" the producer in a lie.
The only people who never have lied -
- are liars.
As soon as the Harrison special appeared dog lovers everywhere lined up like schoolchidren about to play dodge ball.
People chose sides, dug in their heels and refused to "see the forest for the trees".
Ad hominem attacks and games of "gotcha" are not only off-point but downright sillly.
It would be hard to dismiss the overarching premise of purebred dog BBC TV special - that inbreeding for extreme uniformity and selecting for super exaggerated physical characteristics have, indeed, led many purebred dog breeds to a precarious place.
My problem with the special was that it probably led the naive to believe that the extreme physical deformities (like bracycephaila or giantism or dwarfism or extreme angulation) are at the root of the problem. While these extreme physical features are, of course, noxious - it is - (drumroll, please) - SHRINKING HETEROZYGOSITY within the breeds that is the root of the problem.
One could breed dogs to look TOTALLY NATURAL, like wolves for instance, and still have a miserably ailing breed - if there was a lack of diversity - genetically.
Most dog lovers don't understand the tremendous paradox implicit in the idea of a "standard of perfection".
"Improving" a breed by eliminating variation so all breed members are more and more like this ideal - inevitably leads to a lack of viability - IF - diversity of ALL non-essential characteristics isn't encouraged & protected simultaneously.
Hard pill to swallow BUT - breeding only the very, very, very best and not breeding the rest - leads to doom.
Careful planning to improve the OVERALL quality of the breed on essential characteristics while rewarding diversity in non-essentials is the way to go.
That is the important message to take from that show.
Not whether someone "caught" the producer in a lie.
The only people who never have lied -
- are liars.

by funky munky on 01 March 2009 - 18:03
Trafalgar, " the only people who never have lied- are liars" that's true, but there are lies and there are LIES!!!!!! liz

by Sue B on 01 March 2009 - 18:03
Well Trafalga you keep on believing sensationalism , bias , unbalanced reporting and a distortion of the truth is the Way to go when sending out an important message, whilst I'l keep on begging to differ. Meanwhile think on this, a lie that does no more damage than help save feelings and prevent hurt is to most acceptable and to some admirable BUT a lie told for the purpose of advancing ones own aims to the detriment and harm of others is downright despicable and devious editing purely devised to distort the truth by misrepresentation and taking 'out of contex' the words of others is downright EVIL , for me there is and can be no excuse for that type of Power without Responsibility.
Beetree, you better believe it !!! And rumour has it we have both (Babs and I) been seen chomping on a sleeve !! lol
All the best
Sue b
Beetree, you better believe it !!! And rumour has it we have both (Babs and I) been seen chomping on a sleeve !! lol
All the best
Sue b

by Sue B on 01 March 2009 - 18:03
And before Jemima goes back on Times online with further revelations of her 'out of contex' insinuations, the comment I made above about Babs and I chomping on a sleeve was A JOKE, It was in no way a suggestion that either of us were in training for an attempt at chomping Jemima's her arm off !! Well it just had to be said, I mean with so much distortion around one can never be too careful these days tha' no's.
Regards
Sue
Regards
Sue

by missbeeb on 01 March 2009 - 19:03
Trafalgar... tribalistic? Really? LOL
No offence, but your post sounds a little superior and pompous.... somebody steal your scone?

I'm going to assume you're on our side!

Beetree, a little decorum, please... I rather fancy myself as a... reprobate!


by justcurious on 01 March 2009 - 19:03
i would then say she's not the only film maker in town so find someone else to show the other side. if she is as you say she is and is not reasonable - why waste your time and energy trying to reason with with her? instead why not simply side step her and find someone interested in the 'whole picture' and not just the ugly underbelly and work with them to get the truth out. if she is creating sensational interest you might find it rather easy to get funding. again just a thought best of luck - susan

by missbeeb on 01 March 2009 - 19:03
Sue, LOL... chomping? Eeeeh a fancy a right good chomp! LOL

by Sophie on 01 March 2009 - 19:03
Oh Trafalgar which planet are you on - your not from Mars or Venus that's for sure.
Breeding dogs is an art wether you like it or not! You only breed from the best the rest should be discarded. According to your ideas- Hard pill to swallow BUT - breeding only the very, very, very best and not breeding the rest - leads to doom.
Careful planning to improve the OVERALL quality of the breed on essential characteristics while rewarding diversity in non-essentials is the way to go.
Why does not breeding the rest lead to doom or more to the point for whom? Backyard breeders please enter now!
Breeding from the rest is why we have the problems we have. Becasue people don't give a dam and only do it for what they can get out of it £££££ MONEY! This is why Jemima Puddleduck did this programe for money and notoriety - if she can't sleep at night for fear of reprisals then by god she got her just desserts.
As for being triablistic we will be. When being attacked the natural element is to stick together. If you and yours were being attacked just what would you do? Run and leave them all to it ! Hope to god your not on our side!
Beetree get back to the other side of the pond and sort out your own problems of which you have many more than us!
Breeding dogs is an art wether you like it or not! You only breed from the best the rest should be discarded. According to your ideas- Hard pill to swallow BUT - breeding only the very, very, very best and not breeding the rest - leads to doom.
Careful planning to improve the OVERALL quality of the breed on essential characteristics while rewarding diversity in non-essentials is the way to go.
Why does not breeding the rest lead to doom or more to the point for whom? Backyard breeders please enter now!
Breeding from the rest is why we have the problems we have. Becasue people don't give a dam and only do it for what they can get out of it £££££ MONEY! This is why Jemima Puddleduck did this programe for money and notoriety - if she can't sleep at night for fear of reprisals then by god she got her just desserts.
As for being triablistic we will be. When being attacked the natural element is to stick together. If you and yours were being attacked just what would you do? Run and leave them all to it ! Hope to god your not on our side!
Beetree get back to the other side of the pond and sort out your own problems of which you have many more than us!

by missbeeb on 01 March 2009 - 19:03
'ow do, Sophie?
Beetree is nice... she's a goody!

Trafalgar IS on our side... he / she just hasn't made it clear... yet!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top