Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann
My but we are touchy. I'm not on this site continuously, you know. I've been tired, and grouchy, too, and a little brain-dead for several days. Spending a week in an overheated house in Atlanta will do that to you.
Did you not read all of MY post? And get the point? As I noted with Rahy, while Mumtaz Mahal appears in the pedigrees lots of top stallions (in fact, she may be ubiquitous by now, just like Phalaris, Plucky Liege, and Swynford, and several others of that vintage), she is by no means the only top mare to do so.
You should see my pedigree geek board, where we have people who look for the rare offspring of Queen Mary (1843) or Beeswing (1833) or Alice Hawthorn (1838) in pedigrees to explain successful matings. The glee that greets the sighting of a cross of Nunnykirk (1846) or Fitz James (1875)!
|
Is this your version of ... "Ooops ... sorry I misread your post. What you said about Bull Dog is absolutely correct."?
Hmmm ... I don't seem to see anything like that in there. Would that have been too gracious for a grouch?
And speaking of touchy ... aren't you the same person who went ballistic when a novice poster used the word "sired" in connection with a mare ... instead of "produced" ... even after I already had kindly and gently corrected that person in my earlier response?
Where does grouchy end ... and snotty begin? You're risking your rep on this forum with your lack of graciousness ... or don't you care?