Big Country Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 My phone plays the Klingon battle theme from Star Trek:The Motion Picture. Geek. My phone is a Klingon D-7 (K'tinga) class battlecruiser. You all can suck my Worf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) Ah yes, sort of like playing the "I was only fishing" card? Go re-read the thread, you proclaim yourself as intelligent, you'll figure it out. And show me once in my 27'000 posts where I said I was only fishing. TIA. Edited February 15, 2008 by Hugh 0ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 Go re-read the thread, you proclaim yourself as intelligent, you'll figure it out. Which thread would that be? The one where you insisted upon misrepresenting my points and then claimed I couldn't be reasoned with or the thread where you referenced the one where you insisted upon misrepresenting my points and then claimed I couldn't be reasoned with. Let me know and I'll get right on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 And show me once in my 27'000 posts where I said I was only fishing. TIA. OK, now you're just being silly. At the risk of being baited by a "fishing trip", I'll break it down for you. Someone says something stupid and gets called on it. They might claim they were only fishing. Someone does a piss poor job of arguing a point, claims the other is making points he's not, and then says he's beyond reasoning with. Then that person has the nerve to make the same poor point again in another thread only to be reminded, once again, that he's talking out of his ass. Dude claims he was just being sarcastic I was simply pointing out the fact that these two things are somewhat the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) Which thread would that be? The one where you insisted upon misrepresenting my points and then claimed I couldn't be reasoned with or the thread where you referenced the one where you insisted upon misrepresenting my points and then claimed I couldn't be reasoned with. Let me know and I'll get right on it. No, the one where you babble on and on about something you know absolutely nothing about. Oh, wait, that would be every thread. Edited February 15, 2008 by Hugh 0ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 OK, now you're just being silly. At the risk of being baited by a "fishing trip", I'll break it down for you. Someone says something stupid and gets called on it. They might claim they were only fishing. Someone does a piss poor job of arguing a point, claims the other is making points he's not, and then says he's beyond reasoning with. Then that person has the nerve to make the same poor point again in another thread only to be reminded, once again, that he's talking out of his ass. Dude claims he was just being sarcastic I was simply pointing out the fact that these two things are somewhat the same. So show me where I've ever claimed I was fishing or being sarcastic, aside from this incident. Since you won't be able to, it kinda makes my point that I was being sarcastic. Can you follow yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 No, the one where you babble on and on about something you know absolutely nothing about. Oh, wait, that would be every thread. I see you are wearing pants today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I see you are wearing pants today more like a suit of armor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 So show me where I've ever claimed I was fishing or being sarcastic, aside from this incident. Since you won't be able to, it kinda makes my point that I was being sarcastic. Can you follow yet? Why do I have to point out that you often claim sarcasm when you've been shown you were wrong in order to say that was the case this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 my phone used to always be on vibrate but the vibrate on my razor sucks. so you have a vibrator that sucks too....and it's a phone? I always say "why would I pay x amount of dollars for this...does it form into a mouth and blow me?".. in this case...it does and I think I am buying a razr... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) They have completly destroyed the English Bulldog to where it can't breed naturally (artificial insemination) can't whelp naturally (Cesarian) has breathing problems, hip problems etc... they have taken a once great working dog and turned it into the worlds greatest couch potato! No, the one where you babble on and on about something you know absolutely nothing about. Oh, wait, that would be every thread. Actually, I was simply claiming that I find things like that posted above to be pretty freaking crazy. Does this mean I don't know what crazy is? Can I assume that since you think feeling this way means I'm "babbling on and on about something I know nothing about" means you are cool with things like that? Edited February 15, 2008 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 My ringtone is raining blood from the great Slayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) Actually, I was simply claiming that I find things like that posted above to be pretty freaking crazy. So can I assume that you are cool with things like that? You said a lot more than that: Let's begin: Face it, 99% of dogs are not chosen because the people are hunters, ranchers, etc. It's because they like the way a certain breed looks. Vanity rules the day. Ask every pure bred dog owner here at the huddle why they chose their breed. I'd be shocked it 10% agree with what you claim to be 99%. Yeah, you acknowledged that your percentage might be high, but you never admitted that maybe the statement was just stupid. Considering that the disposition of mutts is often better than that of many pure-breeds, this makes no sense at all. One of the things the AKC does is breed dogs for temperment. The bad temperment in dogs usually comes from inbreeding, which is not something the AKC approves or condones. And just because large groups of jackasses are interested in pit bulls and rottweilers and dobermans and get them to make them fighting dogs, has nothing to do with those dogs having poor temperments. You could just as easliy train your mutt to be a fighting dog by beating the ever living manure out of it and teaching it to fight. You're blaming the breed and the temperment, and that's just not the case. However, if your motivation is to not only want a specific breed for no reason but that you like how that breed looks and then go so far as to be anal about every minute detail regarding that breed, then I do reserve the right to say you're freaking whack job and likely a loser as well Based on what? Someone is a loser because he wants a dog to look the way it has for generations? To uphold the breed standard that was established generations ago? To advance the pure bred dog standards? Listen, if you don't like someone or something, that's fine, but to call someone a loser because they have different interests than you is pretty fokking lame, as H8Tank would say. I think you are associating dog breeding strictly on looks, when there is a lot more reasons that dog breeders are breeding pure beds for. I mean, you own a restaurant, isn't presentation part of your deal? Your food has to be good, good service, clean place, etc, but obviously you want the food to be look good as well as taste good, no? A dogs look is only a portion of what pure bred dog breeding as per the AKC's guidelines is about. Why, for instance are all those dogs on leads? Many of them jerking around while on that lead? Is it not too much to ask of the dogs that have made it to the finals of that thing to be able to behave off leash? They don't judge the hunting dogs by how many birds they can get. They don't judge the working dogs by how many sheep they can corral. No, they judge them on whether or not their jaw is the right shape. What the hell is that? You were already proven 100% wrong on both points in this statement either by sundaynfl or wirehairman, so no need for me to elaborate. Oh, and for the record, answering why they're on lead doesn't really begin to explain the difference between what you all claim to be the primary reason for choosing a breed (temperment) and the fact that the big AKC dog show is all about looks. The AKC promotes breeding for all the reasons I've already mentioned. One of them is looks. The dogs that meet breed standard and look right have a beauty pagent, and yeah, I think it's pretty gay as well. That being said, the dogs were bred not to win the dog show, but to further better the breed, the same reason all legitimate dog breeders raise pure breds. Anywho, that's a start, sorry for not responding to you more thoroughly earlier and just taking shots at you, but I was a bit pressed for time and wanted to get your ire up because I geniunely disagree with a lot of what you were saying. So, your turn. ETA: Should we just merge the two threads? Edited February 15, 2008 by Hugh 0ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 OK, my turn... So, my initial comment was that, through personal experience with a breeder, I wouldn't be so quick to say that PETA is any crazier than some breeders. Once again, the glass house rule. I was also specifically referring to somebody's point that, "If I want a hunting dog, I'm going to get a purebred not a mutt". That's where the bit I said about it's cool that if you want a working/hunting dog, so be it. Both of those points you jumped all over as if, by simply saying I found it ironic that people who associated themselves with the AKC, a body that I know advocates some pretty whacked things were calling PETA crazy, that I was attacking anyone who has or breeds purebreds and that you should only be allowed to have a pure breed for specific reasons. That's when the gloves came off. I still contend that more people than you would like to admit choose a dog on looks rather than temperment (even if it is far less than 99%). My reasoning being that many pure breed rescues are filled with dogs that were too "active" for their owners. Why the hell did this person get an Aussie Shepherd if they didn't want a dog that needed to be run constantly or it would start eating the house? Besides dogs that are simply active and need to be run or worked, there are far too many breeds that have reputaions for being a bit "touched" that I have a hard time believing that anyone would own one besides the fact that they look cool. While I'll accept the argument on leads, I still don't buy the fact that judging a sporting dog by the coat and "otter-like" tail is a very worthwhile endeavor and don't see the very low profile competitions that the AKC holds as evidence that they agree with that take. As Az asked. Are those competitions breed specific? Could I enter a mutt into one of those competiions even if she could blow doors on the rest of the dogs despite the fact that, in theory, she lacked the perfect physical elements of a sporting dog? In humans, we champion those who excel despite not being perfect physically and almost villify those who are, secretly hoping that the Doug Fluties do better than the "can't miss blue chips". In dogs, that doesn't seem to be the case. Now, as to my rather extreme view of those who get really hung up on "advancing the breed", that is because you are really only "advancing it" in ways that interest you to, as you put it, insure that it looks as it has for generation. However, nature has shown that you're not really advancing the breed in many important ways. I went to a site that discussed very fairly the advantages of both mutts and pure breeds. In terms of health issues, the best they could come with mutts is, you never know because you don't know the parents. With pure breeds, they listed an endless string of things that one might have to conted with by disregarding the basic tennets of nature. So, yes I have major issues with that somebody who basically violates nature to make sure that their dog's ears are the "right" shape. The best you can offer here is that you are going against nature for a good reason. Temperment could be a good reason. Appearance? That's going to be a hard one to sell. None the less, you failed to point out the many times where I was, again, not claiming that each and every pure breed enthusiast was a tool or evil. That over and over again, I was simply saying there's a large enough batch of crazies in that world that they had no room to get bent about PETA. See my last post in the orignal thread for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNasty Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 This is better bald-on-bald action than when Telly Savalas squeezed Yul Brenner's wife's boob at the Tony Awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 This is better bald-on-bald action than when Telly Savalas squeezed Yul Brenner's wife's boob at the Tony Awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I'm actually thinking about getting a bulldog because it is a couch potato. Wait, what was the question now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I still contend that more people than you would like to admit choose a dog on looks rather than temperment (even if it is far less than 99%). My reasoning being that many pure breed rescues are filled with dogs that were too "active" for their owners. Why the hell did this person get an Aussie Shepherd if they didn't want a dog that needed to be run constantly or it would start eating the house? Besides dogs that are simply active and need to be run or worked, there are far too many breeds that have reputaions for being a bit "touched" that I have a hard time believing that anyone would own one besides the fact that they look cool. Doesn't that go back to people being f*cking morans as opposed to having anything to do with problems with pure breds? While I'll accept the argument on leads, I still don't buy the fact that judging a sporting dog by the coat and "otter-like" tail You have to remember, in most breeds, the traits they are judged on is what makes the breed unique and able to complete the job it was bred for. Weims get their tails cropped for hunting so they can be pulled out of a fox hole without injuring the dog. Cheasapeake Bay Retrievers have that thick coat to protect them from the elements when they're working, coats and tails are very important. Sure, those characteristics are turned into a beauty pageant, but they're not bred for a beauty pageant. If that makes sense. None the less, you failed to point out the many times where I was, again, not claiming that each and every pure breed enthusiast was a tool or evil. What's the fun in pointing out the things we agree on? I think technically we're not too far apart on most of this. I was short and antagonistic, you perhaps a bit rude, and then it got a bit confrontational. Great way to pass a Friday afternoon though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 This is better bald-on-bald action than when Telly Savalas squeezed Yul Brenner's wife's boob at the Tony Awards. Link? :pantstight: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 This is better bald-on-bald action than when Jenna Jameson squeezed Jenna HAze's boob at the AVN Awards. FYP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 This is better bald-on-bald action than when Telly Savalas squeezed Yul Brenner's wife's boob at the Tony Awards. And McNasty is bald by choice himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McNasty Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Link? :pantstight: Who loves you, baby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I think technically we're not too far apart on most of this. I was short and antagonistic, you perhaps a bit rude, and then it got a bit confrontational. Great way to pass a Friday afternoon though. And with that, Hugh turns into a gaping gash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Who loves you, baby? McNasty, R.N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 And with that, Hugh turns into a gaping gash. I disagree I think Hugh shows a softer side ...His pure bred dog would be proud of him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.