Originally Posted by Pinehaven
(Post 3265007)
Evab, you have posted links to the same books written in the 1800's and early 1900's on your anti parti site, that you now say I'm "bullying" by referencing to them in my own post? So which is it, do you want people to read these books or do you not want people to read them? Why post the links on your site, if you are going to discount and discredit what they say here?
(Hi, Let me begin by firstly correcting you, my site is not an anti-parti site, it is a site where I have endeavoured to explain the history of the true Tan dog with the blue saddle a pure bred Yorkshire terrier, no dear I do not accuse you of bullying, the term bulling (no y) in the UK has a different meaning, perhaps the term "talk up, talk down" would be simpler to understand.) However, if the cap fits, this is the definition of bullying:
constantly criticised and subjected to destructive criticism (often euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an oxymoron) - explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed, overruled, dismissed or ignored
forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the triviality is the giveaway)
undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are raised, or doubts are expressed over a person's performance or standard of work - however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable evidence, for they are only the bully's unreliable opinion and are for control and their own agenda.
(Why would I ask people to go to a link and discount what is written, but for one to understand what is written, one must fully understand what the writer is saying. There having been so many enthusiastic writers of this period 1800's discussing many different dog breeds, some linking to others it is easy for a reader to become confused, veer off track, so the researcher must quantify, and be non judgemental without prejudice and to seek the truth, not what one wants to find written within those books as clear authority and indeed justification that a white dog with a black saddle has ever been in the ancestry of a pure bred English Yorkshire Terrier, and now has come to the fore front of that dog)
You say that your countrymen didn't cull dogs or throw dogs/pups off bridges (drowning them), but the same books you've posted, say differently. Doing a quick word search on 3 of the 4 book links on your site, it brought up 7 references to destroying or drowning pups, some based on being an incorrect color.
(exactly my earlier point, again you assume it was the Yorkshire breeder in the UK that did this, and indeed it would seem even after 140 years we still do this today, umm we kill or our white little dogs, do you not see how unsubstantiated this is)
I also think it's interesting that the KC kennel club, registers steel blue dogs with no tan or gold markings ... dogs this color, would be an automatic DQ in the YTCA's eyes, since they are solid colored and lack a saddle. More often than not, solid blue yorkies have health risks associated with their color if they are blue born and this color should be highly discouraged and not promoted. (There are many dogs even bred to true standard with health issues, throughout the world. This is inherrant of bad breeding and bad breeders)(As I am not a vet I cannot tell you if solid blue Yorkies have more health risks then any other badly bred dog of any colour and I have not seen evidence that this is so)
Science and a better understanding of how recessive genes work, has changed since the 1800's when the YT standard was written. If the early genes from the foundation dogs, were still not being passed on in today's dogs, then we'd never see black and gold adults or "solid" steel blue yorkies but these colors still appear today (just like parti, gold and chocolate colors do).
|
