ccrarabians wrote:
forthefutureofthebreed wrote:
AutumnEffect wrote:
What do you think is the difference between dislike and unqualified criticism? Can you give me examples of hypothetical comment you could consider dislike and one you would consider unqualified criticism? Or does it depend strictly on the source of the comments?


It has nothing to do with the source of the comments. An example of dislike would be, "I don't like the color of that horse", or "I don't like a horse that is put together that way."

An example of an unqualified opinion would be someone who is 17, lives on the east coast, is on their first horse that they keep at a hunter/jumper boarding barn, they ride English exclusively - who is criticizing the breeding quality of a western Paint stock horse.



I understand the point FTF is trying to make. But it would go better with explanations than snark. And then again there will be STILL be many who incorrectly think they're capable of critiquing a breeding program based on one individual, or even one FAULT of one individual.

But it would at least be attempting to be more educational than snarky if it was phrased something like:

It has nothing to do with the source of the comments. An example of dislike would be, "I don't like the color of that horse", or "I don't like a horse that is put together that way."

An example of an unqualified opinion would be someone who is 17, lives on the east coast, is on their first horse that they keep at a hunter/jumper boarding barn, they ride English exclusively has never researched what goes into creating a sustainable look in a breed, never researched how successful operations of the past determined what qualities they wanted and how to get there, never personally seen or talked extensively with multiple who have seen how using "non perfect" stock are an means to an end in every large scale breed/farm/ranch/strain development ever undertaken, never studied with more than one breeder (if any), never tracked conformation and traits and development and progress through 4 or 5 or 6 or more generations, never studied the effects of line breeding both successful and unsuccessful, never truly researched the trends of the breed in question and what has influenced changes in the breed both past and present, never planned for the result they want 3 or 4 generations down the road, (etc etc etc)[/i] - who is criticizing the breeding quality of a western Paint stock horse.

Part of the problem is that FTF has expressed the above thoughts before & just doesn't bother any more because it's never gotten through to anybody. I can't really blame her for that. But FTF doesn't take ownership of any of the ill will that she herself has caused either. So I think we're all years past the point of getting anything educational out of these discussions - they're doomed to descend into "you suck!" "oh yeah, well YOU suck MORE!!".

Just my opinion, based on observing interactions with FTF here, and in doing (a fraction of FTF's) breed AND breeding research myself in Arabs. Not one of the people here who jump all over BC (and I personally don't *like* him that much) would have created the modern QH, or the modern Arabian, or the modern TB, or the modern Friesian etc etc because they'd have said 99% of the breeding stock that got us here was CRAP. And they were. And they were a PLANNED means to a nice end product.

I agree with all of this.

goflippr wrote:

                                      Tal is like the Wizard of Oz.