Hard Culling or Genetic Re-Direction by CA Jack

Somebody’s a little pompous no?

While I am no friend of Jack’s, I do believe the average dog man can learn QUITE a bit from this, and most of his writings.

You on the other hand, are obviously NOT your average dog man, and I tend to think I fall in to that same category…

Now please, you tell me, where are your writings to tell the average dog man, who we BOTH can easily see usually have a hard time understanding simple ENGLISH, how to move forward positively with the dogs. How to utilize stock most would toss to the wayside. I think his descriptions of degrees of gameness, mouth, etc, are valuable descriptions, and can at a minimum, open some close minded individuals’ eyes.

We all know you can ruin just about any dog, so is the average dog man NOT supposed to take into account situations? Does a newbie ruining something I bred take it out of the gene pool for the future? OR, am I intelligent and open minded enough to not care what others say about this dog, and to utilize it in my breeding program?

I don’t think you actually disagree with the “idea” of his writing, your using small area’s you can dissect to disprove each individual piece of the theory.

Sorry, I didn’t see your other writings on the other posts you mentioned, fill me in, put a link up and I’ll take a look. You obviously fancy yourself as a game dog genius; I’d love to see what you wrote.

I have no clue who you are, or what contributions you’ve made to the dogs, so if I’m overstepping, I apologize in advance.


BUT, and here’s the big BUT: YOU show me where you’ve written a more in depth article that the average (YA AVERAGE, not the intellectually gifted such as yourself) dog man can learn and prosper from. Simple writings they can understand and USE. Writings where you don’t “toot your own horn” using “High School” words to talk down on them…

I don’t know where they are… SHOW ME (and I aint from Missouri)

I can’t stand arrogance, and I may not be a Doctor, as you imply you are in EVERY post, but I have the intellect and intelligence to carry on this debate, as long as you don’t keep using those “high school” words…

MinuteMan

 

Somebody’s a little pompous no?

While I am no friend of Jack’s, I do believe the average dog man can learn QUITE a bit from this, and most of his writings.

You on the other hand, are obviously NOT your average dog man, and I tend to think I fall in to that same category…


1st statement: Thank you for joining in on the conversation. Unfortunate you chose to start out with an insult. Don't worry, i wont let it dictate the tone for the duration of the chat......i enjoy a spirited debate too much to let that ruin it.

2nd statement: I would like to agree but i dont know much about gamedogs or his other writings so i'll let more experienced people answer that one.

3rd statement: I am not a dogman; too much of a cur to handle these dogs......

 

Now please, you tell me, where are your writings to tell the average dog man, who we BOTH can easily see usually have a hard time understanding simple ENGLISH, how to move forward positively with the dogs. How to utilize stock most would toss to the wayside.



I have none. Are you implying that in order for me to ask questions i need to have a large body of work?:eek: Non-prolific writers need not participate in conversations regarding gamedogs: CHECK!

 

I don’t think you actually disagree with the “idea” of his writing, your using small area’s you can dissect to disprove each individual piece of the theory.


1st part of your statement: Good for you, most people would not have figured that out. Impressed indeed. Now you have my attention.

2nd part of your statement: Yes, that is what science does. Although there are a number people who fail to appreciate this point: This is a scientific endeavor

 

Sorry, I didn’t see your other writings on the other posts you mentioned, fill me in, put a link up and I’ll take a look. You obviously fancy yourself as a game dog genius; I’d love to see what you wrote.


I would like to but they are of no importance to people who know gamedogs. But if you had, you probably would not have made the "fancy yourself........" statement:rolleyes:

 

I have no clue who you are, or what contributions you’ve made to the dogs, so if I’m overstepping, I apologize in advance.



I am a nobody who hasn't made "contributions" to gamedogs. Too late to "apologize in advance" when you started out with an insult.

 

BUT, and here’s the big BUT: YOU show me where you’ve written a more in depth article that the average (YA AVERAGE, not the intellectually gifted such as yourself) dog man can learn and prosper from. Simple writings they can understand and USE. Writings where you don’t “toot your own horn” using “High School” words to talk down on them…


I think i already addressed the not being an author thing. I find it fascinating that you think i am "intellectually gifted": tells me something about your mental faculties sorta like if i thought gotti blues were the gamest bulldogs would tell you about my lack of knowledge about gamedogs.... And Jack wasn't "talking down.." to the community? Give me a break:rolleyes: You are making yourself look bias (among other things)

 

I can’t stand arrogance, and I may not be a Doctor, as you imply you are in EVERY post, but I have the intellect and intelligence to carry on this debate, as long as you don’t keep using those “high school” words…


I cant stand it either which is why i chose to respond to jack's post AND yours.
"every post":eek:? Please show me where i implied i am a doctor in EVERY post? One post? Are doctors the only ones who have patients?OUCH! There is a reason why adults stay away from ABSOLUTE statements: all it takes is one counter-example to prove it wrong. You are making yourself look desperate now.

In closing, i find interesting that you avoided my questions/responses to jack and changed the subject......

 

Ok,

How's this:

Dear Sir (or Madam I don't know which), I find it highly illogical to disprove small issue's in a large piece of writing, when the overall intent and purpose of the article is just.

The arrogance is ALSO why I dislike Jack, but arrogant or not, the "purpose" of his writing is well and just in my belief. It's a general source of knowledge, which the average dog man can use to better themselves; they're breeding program, and the lives of their animals.

Are his writings 100% correct? No. Now please show me where "science" is EVER 100% correct. Theories change and are amended over time. Long accepted "facts" are disproved, only to in turn be proven again.

As an example, I can sit here with Darwin’s "On the Origin of Species" and nit pick all of the incorrect and inaccurate conclusions he drew... Does that mean that Darwin’s writings and idea's are incorrect OVER ALL?

Is his OVER ALL theory of evolution STILL not accepted? Or did science throw the whole thing to the way side, when they could disprove his original findings on finches in the Galapagos’s?

I do understand the scientific process. Thank you. And again, you can nit pick little parts of my statements to suit your end goal, which appears to be internet superiority, or you can discuss the overall intent and purpose of the article.

May I ask, WHAT is your intent? Your purpose???

Mine is to let everyone on here who may be questioning the article due to your attempts to nit pick small pieces of it know it's quite a good article with a good overall view point. Also, many non-perfect dogs "could" be utilized by people who thought they were doing the right thing in destroying them.

I do also agree Jack comes across as a hypocrite in his writings and an A-HOLE when he bad mouths the men who handed him the lines he works with.

He handed me some of (the best of) mine and I respect the work he put in, and the work of all the men before him.

And I also disagree with some of the things he says in the article, but if I take the time to type out what I DISagree with, I will point out to all those reading what points I DO agree with, as there is some very useful information contained in his writings, which can be utilized by many.

P.S. count again, you throw the "gotta get to the patients" type crap out there more then once.

So long for know, Gotta get to my MENSA meeting! :p (kidding)

MinuteMan

 

I find it highly illogical to disprove small issue's in a large piece of writing, when the overall intent and purpose of the article is just.


:eek:. Youngman, do you realize/understand what you just said? Illogical means senseless. Are you saying that it doesn't make any sense to "disprove" (correct) "small" (?) (what ever that means) issues with a "large" (again, what constitutes....) piece of data on the bases on whether the intent/purpose is just or not? The criterion is the reason for the data?? In other words, don't ask questions? Did i "disprove" something? Wow.

 

Let me tell you a story about how important it is not only to asked questions but to also answer them- some people call it the scientific method:

Recently, there was this very smart man who figured out a long standing problem in science (topology). This man is an recluse who turned down a rather large sum of prize money for figuring out this problem. He even went as far as disassociating himself with a university in which he had long relationship with because he wanted to avoid the media blitz. Yet, this man understood the importance of question asking. So much so that this RECLUSE flew have way around the world to visit a number of universities filled with eager professors/students and media to answer some questions. Not once did he find it "illogical"; neither did the rest of the ADULTS there.

 

Now please show me where "science" is EVER 100% correct.


The operative word there is "EVER". Did i not teach you about talking in absolutes? The moment you added that word to your statement, you added EVERY statement made in science over its long history- a history which is replete with counter-examples:
I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that the gentleman that said that the planets orbit around the sun was 100% right:rolleyes:

 

As an example, I can sit here with Darwin’s "On the Origin of Species" and nit pick all of the incorrect and inaccurate conclusions he drew... Does that mean that Darwin’s writings and idea's are incorrect OVER ALL?


Based on your writings from this thread, i highly doubt you have the capacity to give an exegesis of Darwins work much less understand it. Which is sad because i would love to see that. I think Behe (and the WEDGE institute) would disagree with the last part of your statement. All Behe needs is a better example of irreducible complexity.

 

:thinking:

 

May I ask, WHAT is your intent? Your purpose???


I was hoping to learn more about dogs from an accomplished dogman. I do that by asking questions. Yes, there are some jabs in there but no worst than jack's............

 

And I also disagree with some of the things he says in the article, but if I take the time to type out what I DISagree with, I will point out to all those reading what points I DO agree with, as there is some very useful information contained in his writings, which can be utilized by many.



When my kids would bring home their spelling test, they understood that the words that were not addressed (marked incorrect) were (by default?) correct. I (and they) see no need for the teacher to create a second mark to indicate correctness. Put differently, there are things i agree with (which i already addressed in a previous post to you- please follow discussion) and things i disagree with or don't understand. If it is the latter two, i asked questions, if the former..............

 

P.S. count again, you throw the "gotta get to the patients" type crap out there more then once.


I see you revised your statement. You went from "EVERY post" to "more then once" which can mean a rather large number of post or as little as two- see the discrepancy.
For the record, i said the above quote ONCE and used the word "patients" in another post out of 15 (prior to you joining conversation) post. Glad to see you adding rigor to your thoughts/statements. Even more interesting and fundamental is why is it a problem for you? Why do you think i am a doctor? Can other professions/positions have patients? Are you threatened by receptionist? massage therapist?.......

 

I'm not going to debate with you further, as I had said; you have no true purpose... Well, other then to inflate your self ego.

If anyone ever wishes to discuss Jack's idea's on Genetic Re-direction without spending three weeks Googling and looking up "high school words" in a thesaurus. Feel free.

I'm not here to make myself feel bigger or smarter, but I AM quite happy to help any individuals looking to understand the purpose of using a less then "perfect" dog in a breeding program, as suggested in the original article.

Have a nice day June Bug, tell me what it is you "proved" with the scientific method here, and I shall bow in awe and bask in your glory. How about you go back to talking about some "kid" making phone calls and making a fool of himself, you seem much better at that gossipy stuff.

 

is jack a member of this board
?

 

Preme: If you are suggesting that minuteman is jack i highly doubt it. As i have stated previously, i have interacted with jack before and my impression of him was that he is considerably more intelligent (about dogs and related) than minuteman. Minuteman doesn't know whether he is coming or going BUT he is definetly more even-tempered than jack. Although minuteman's responses (intent/purpose) are clearly based on emotion and devoid of logic and reason which is the reason why he avoiding answering any questions-clear sign of someone who is fading. But i could be wrong..........i usually am.