Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann
But establishing a lasting sire line is not what is under discussion. Siring a son who can become a decent sire is what we were talking about in relation with Lawyer Ron. His buyers wouldn't care if every one of his good runners was a filly or a gelding, so long as they can sire runners, like many other grandsons of Danzig have. Furthermore, the chef-de-race distinction has nothing to do with establishing a lasting sire line; it has to do with having a lasting effect on the breed, as a sire of sires or a sire of dams, whatever. READ THE CRITERIA, either Varola's or Roman's.
What cutting and pasting are you talking about? I compose on-line using material from my own database and research materials. Write for a pedigree magazine, don't you know.
|
I read Varola, Romans, Rasmussen, Hewitt, and Palmer long before you did ... and understand a lot more about bloodlines than you ever will, honey.
Having access to databases doesn't mean that you understand them ... or understand what's written about them.
I'm still waiting for you to "prove" that the Sir Gallahad line was more influential than the Bull Dog line between 1946 and 1956.
You seem to have no problem pouring out inconsequential reams of useless data ... but the cat seems to have gotten your tongue on that one. When are you going to back up the ludicrously false statement you made about those two Teddy boys?
You're an absolute phony and hypocrite, girly.