tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738086884148295840.post7345072991135070775..comments2023-11-12T01:10:50.768-08:00Comments on Life With Big Dogs!: Read CriticallyLindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13563249254172457715noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738086884148295840.post-57835025972793624132011-08-06T12:03:17.673-07:002011-08-06T12:03:17.673-07:00> Mantles are an acceptable color. You still ha...> Mantles are an acceptable color. You still have them listed as undesireable. That is still incorrect. <br /><br />Read my words carefully. I did *not* make any statements about what is allowable in the show ring or in the breed standard. This is what I said:<br /><br />"That means that if we really really want Harlequins, the best we’re going to get is 25% of potential puppies and less than half of the otherwise healthy ones that are born matching their parents in phenotype."<br /><br />I listed merle and black (in this case mantle images were used because the Irish white is common in the harlequins too, also desirable for show markings) as undesirable because I stated the goal was to produce Harlequins and they are not Harlequin. <br /><br />If you want to talk about what's on the breed standard, what is allowed in the ring, and what wins in the ring as our basis for "desirable" then we'd have a very different post.<br /><br />From my observation it seems like Fawn is by far the most popular color in the show ring, it seems to win the most and more of the top winning dogs are Fawn than any other color.<br /><br />Also, it wasn't THAT long ago that Mantle wasn't even allowed in the show ring! Why Mantle is now allowed and Merle is not is a mystery to me. If you're going to produce more merle and black (mantle) dogs (combind) than you are Harlequin when you breed for it, why would you not allow those dogs to be evaluated and used in breeding programs? Seems silly.<br /><br />But again, that wasn't my point.<br /><br />You criticize my understanding of the genetics and then wish for more detail, but you provide no specifics in your criticism. My chart is accurate and yet you state that it's not, but again, provide no detail or explanation.<br /><br />I don't have any problem admitting and correcting mistakes, but you give me nothing to go on except vague blanket criticisms.<br /><br />You also spend a great deal of time with the logical fallacies of appealing to common practice, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, etc. If you have "experience with the breed" and know the "secret facts" ... then use them to form a logical argument. I'm not going to just take your word that my science is wrong because you own Dane.<br /><br />And I'm the one who posted the link back here in my comments. Blogger does not send correct pingbacks that get recognized by Wordpress and there's no way to just add a pingback so I add them as comments.<br /><br />And why wouldn't you comment on my post? If I'm factually wrong about an issue, shouldn't my readers get the chance to weight your argument against mine?BorderWarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09410343987050560739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738086884148295840.post-67337292346311317972011-08-06T09:22:36.612-07:002011-08-06T09:22:36.612-07:00I just glanced through the more recent comments on...I just glanced through the more recent comments on your post and for the record, I was not the one who used the identifying name Life With Big Dogs and then posted a link to my post. I have a pretty good idea of who did that, but if I felt like actually commenting on your post I would have with my actual information.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13563249254172457715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738086884148295840.post-10693212721114379842011-08-06T09:17:05.848-07:002011-08-06T09:17:05.848-07:00There was more that I could have criticized in you...There was more that I could have criticized in your post and I could continue to if you wish it. Your understanding of what goes on in the breed is not complete and I think that is expressed in your post. <br /><br />Mantles are an acceptable color. You still have them listed as undesireable. That is still incorrect. <br /><br />I still stand by what I have said so far in my post. As far as addressing harl x harl breeding, this topic does get routinely discussed, but usually amongst those with an actual background in the breed and a better handle on the genetics. <br /><br />You are very obviously set in your opinion and not much is going to change that. Continuing to argue over this is pointless. If you really honestly want to learn more about this from people who have spent decades of their lives involved in this, then you need an actual harlequin great dane mentor. Period.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13563249254172457715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4738086884148295840.post-25745748076872197622011-08-05T17:16:55.880-07:002011-08-05T17:16:55.880-07:00Wow, you clearly missed the point of my post and y...Wow, you clearly missed the point of my post and your critiques are rather baseless as well.<br /><br />The one criticism that you are correct on is that I mistakenly included "and Merle" in one sentence. That has been removed and listed as a correction. <br /><br />Everything else? Rather off topic.<br /><br />Harlequin x Harlequin breedings are allowed and encouraged by the GDCA and done at all levels in the community from the BYB right up to the top winning show dogs.<br /><br />This breeding strategy produces blind and deaf dogs (among other problems) that don't need to be produced at all to have Harlequin Danes.<br /><br />Why does no one in your community have the balls to address this issue? Why haven't you?BorderWarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09410343987050560739noreply@blogger.com