I would rather hope that you would consider what I have written instead of encourage responses such as the one made to me. No, I am not “kidding.” Whatever someone may or may not know, or whatever regard they may or not be held in by other members of a forum, does not alter basic fundamental rules of the road in posting, in my view. As the old saying goes, “your mileage may vary.” As I said, consider the source of the article that I posted when reading it. I assume people posting here are capable of critical thought and are able to discern for themselves the value in or of information.
I also consider it a basic fundamental rule of the road–but fully appreciate that others may not-- that someone might READ a source before commenting upon it. I mean, how DO you comment on something you haven’t read?
As it stands, in not reading the source, then, for instance, comparisons made between breeding practices of the US and the UK are not seen. Nor of the predominance of a few breeding operations in the UK breeding for a particular racing market. And so on.
Is it possible that the article says things that are less than flattering about racing operations in both countries? Yes. Does it for instance discuss race breakdowns? Yes, it does. Does it discuss the fact many ex-racehorses (and those bred for but who never made it to the track) end up in the slaughterhouse pipeline? Yes, it does. Does it raise some concerns in context of close line breeding? Yes, it does. Now, if the sources, facts and figures that the article uses are in fact ones to be challenged, then, that could be done. THAT could lead to an interesting conversation.
But when discussion of a subject turns to a focus on posters and is made personal, rather than an actual discussion of information in an objective manner–well then perhaps all value of the discussion is lost.
Are you suggesting that I should get approval from some posters before I post a particular source? That this needs pre-approval before being put on the board? Or that my own view and reading of these should not be posted unless pre-approved for holding the correct view? This of course would be absurd.
All I did was post 2 sources that can be looked at in the discussion of close line breeding, which is much of the conversation about the supposition of Rich Strike at stud. If someone disagrees with the information in either source, then please, have a discussion about that. It could be informative and interesting. But to reject a source out of hand without even reading it-- well-- it makes a progresive and informed discussion difficult if not impossible. In my view anyway.
I prefer a discussion about information and data, not a discussion focused on forum personalities.
