[evab]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

I whole heartedly agree with Deb that you have shown us little to back up your claims, what I see is your opinion but not actual facts.(That is your opinion, not mine) You avoid answering questions by getting defensive and becoming condescending (I believe i do not avoid answering questions, I ask readers to find their own truths. I am not becomming condescending or defensive, as you continually remark, unlike the rude replies I have recieved on this thread) (and for future reference: in america using the term "dear" when speaking to someone you don't know well, would be considered patronizing by most). (For future reference I shall continue to use an English word as I feel fitting in the context of my writings, if it offends that is not how it was ment to be)
Also, the Stockeeper article you refer to, was from 1887, not 1886 just for clarification. For some reason, spell check just doesn't like the word Stockeeper? (Do you not think you are nitpicking again at a typo error, much like the spell check not knowing the difference between a Shop keeper and Stock keeper.)
There are many articles I ask readers to refer to from many books here is another good read:
JESSE, WALSH AND SHAW
THE first of these is the monumental compilation of George R. Jesse,* Researches into the History of the British Dog (1866). This is the
first work of its kind, and although as in most pioneer works it contains pitfalls for the unwary, it is an extremely useful book, which deals with every facet of the British dog, especially from the historical and
literary viewpoints. The year 1867 saw the publication of the first edition
of The Dogs of the British Islands, an important work on all the better-known breeds, and embodying the views of numerous British breeders. This book, which enjoyed considerable success through several
editions, was edited by " Stonehenge " (J. H. Walsh, then editor of The Field) mainly from articles and letters previously published in his journal. The first edition (1867) contains twenty-nine woodcut engravings of selected dogs of exhibition breeding, and these were increased until the fifth and last edition. I might also add John Henry Walsh was editor for The Field Magazine in 1857, and wrote many articles on British dogs from that time.

You say that your TRADITIONAL YORKSHIRE TERRIER website is not anti parti yorkie, but really a site to tell the truth about the blue and tan Yorkie ... if that is so, why didn't you just call the site "Yorkshire terrier" instead of Parti yorkshire terrier? (That site was originally set up for use by a client, but I decided I myself would add info their, I design and run sites for people, explanation enough)
Also, earlier in the year, you denied that this site was yours, and now you are claiming it is yours? Why lie about it?
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/3019440-post157.html

Replies as above in original quote(That site I believe now holds much better information, and recieves many views, I also prefer not to be called a liar or have my words taken out of context)