Quote:
And where do you get that from? I think you're projecting your on prejudice on me, because I'm sure as hell I've never said such thing.


First of all, my comments were not directed at you; they were comments made in general in response to the many opinions stated on this and other threads.

Quote:
No, in order to breed a decent working horse you have to be aware that there are more attributes than looks and if the horse looks good but can't work is completely worthless


I'm not talking about horses that look good but can't work. You're grabbing for the extreme end of scale to make your point. I don't care for horses that look good and can't perform, either.

Quote:
Again, you got it backwards, if you get an outstanding performer you can't just dismiss it because it's not pretty, the horse is supposed to be a performer first.


No, I do not. I stated that there was no reason to sacrifice eye appeal for performance ability - and it's obvious to me that is what people are doing.

Quote:
I think I've figured out what's wrong with your way of thinking. You emphasize looks so much you assume that if a top performer doesn't have all the qualities mentioned above that's exactly the reason for it's success, it won because it has bad conformation. You don't realize that a horse can have other qualities that make it overcome its own flaws.


Oh, I realize that horses with bad conformation can overcome it with heart and training. BLM mustangs that have been trained to be winning working cowhorses proves that one. I emphasize eye appeal because I believe there's no reason to sacrifice it in favor of performance ability. It's possible to have both. I can show you examples of top performance horses with flawed conformation that allow them to win, if you'd like.