See N Spots wrote:
vixen of doom wrote:
GMAFB, I never said a quarter horse type is better.


No, but every example I've seen you pointing to as being a 'good app' is a spotted Quarter Horse. Every time I bring up that I don't like Quarter Horse-type Appys you seem to assume non-Quarterloosa = badly conformed foundation fugly.

I am not a TB person, I can't get on here and tell you anything about what a TB should or should not look like. Same thing with arabs, standardbreds, morgans, rocky mountain horses and so on. I know quarters and apps and I have never proclaimed to know anything different. If I need to give someone and example of what I believe is a good looking horse, then I am going to dive into my pool of knowledge and pick one from there. That does not however, mean that if your warmblood doesn't look exactly like my quarterhorse that I will think he is lacking somewhere. This has become a discussion between you and I based on your not liking app crosses.

Are you been reading the same conversation as I have? This has been a conversation where I have been talking about how Turning Appaloosas into Quarter Horses is something I disagree with and that you very much like Quarter Horse type Apps. I have said time and time again I LIKE THE IDEA OF USING OTHER BREEDS TO IMPROVE APPALOOSAS, BUT I HATE THAT THEY'RE BEING TURNED INTO SPOTTED QUARTER HORSES Seriously. I've given examples of Appaloosa SPORT Horses that I think have good Appaloosa type, Hell, I KNOW for a fact that at LEAST 2 of my examples for Appy type that I like aren't more than 1/2 Appaloosa. I LIKE APPALOOSA CROSSES used to improve and refine the breed. I just don't like people trying their hardest to erase Appaloosa type.
They're I just said the same thing over and over again, do you understand yet?

vixen of doom wrote:

How many times do I have to say, I HAVE NEVER poopood adding different blood into apps. I have said over and over again that it is not about how much actual appy blood a horse really has, it is about the conformation, and type.
This next quote doesn't sound to me like you don't care how much appy blood a horse has.....
vixen of doom wrote:
An Appaloosa that's built like an Appy (not a QH) is probably going to be better suited to other things than Quarter Horses, because they aren't put together the same. The ApHC has done a terrible job of re-establishing that Appaloosa type. From the looks of it, they've done nothing but encourage the Appaloosa to change from a distinct breed into nothing but a new color pattern for Quarter Horse lovers to play with. And that is just sad.


I just said the same thing in the above quote that I've been saying this entire time. "I LIKE THE IDEA OF USING OTHER BREEDS TO IMPROVE APPALOOSAS, BUT I HATE THAT THEY'RE BEING TURNED INTO SPOTTED QUARTER HORSES"
and here is another...
vixen of doom wrote:
You can't seriously be telling me it's a good thing to breed OUT the toughness and endurance of a breed and instead push towards slow, family-oriented breeding? I don't think it's ever been proven that a horse capable of working high-stress/high-endurance jobs are going to be any less capable to walk around a ring than one that isn't capable of doing those high-stress/high-endurance jobs. Though I do agree in working to keep them marketable, I like the idea of using outside blood to improve on them and add a little more 'pretty' into Appy lines.

Where in that quote does it say I don't like the idea of improving Appys, or that I'm obsessed with using foundation blood? I even bolded out the section where I said, "Though I do agree in working to keep them marketable, I like the idea of using outside blood to improve on them and add a little more 'pretty' into Appy lines."