Famous Dogs That Quit

[Officially Retired]

I don't disagree with your cold/heat facts. I simply don't look at it as degrees of gameness or degrees of cur. That's why I said it was all semantics to some degree.

Why don't you look at it as degrees of gameness?

If you use the phrases "Pretty Game," "Fairly Game," "Deep Game," or "Dead Game," then in point of fact you do look at gameness in degrees ... as that is what these phrases directly imply: that there are degrees of gameness.

It is not semantics, it is using words/phrases in the attempt to understand/describe a concept.

Any dog that quits is of no consequence to me. So whether it has degrees of gameness or degrees of cur, whichever hypothesis one subscribes to, doesn't change my view. A dog that is stopped? That, in of itself, is enough to give me pause and to seriously consider the entire picture of what was witnessed versus what actually happened.

I absolutely agree here. This is why I believe just throwing out the word "cur" gets in the way of trying to understand what actually happened. The word "cur" is essentially an insult; it implies cowardice, being afraid, whereas not every dog that stops does so in a cowardly fashion. Some dogs have "had enough" but they don't disgrace themselves by their behavior, they just stand there. Some dogs have no idea where they are. Etc. This is why, by using the word "stopped," we can attempt (without negative labels) to understand what happened in that particular dog.

He can't just take the word of a witness unless the witness has the ability to recognize the truth of the situation. Unfortunately, there are many men that "saw" things, only not to realize the truth of what actually happened.

I agree.

I wholeheartedly agree that some dogs are too valuable to match.

Yep.



Jack

[prairiedog]

I had a long blistering response typed out but came to the determination it not worth posting. When a man can't have his own opinion, choose his own words; when he's subject to the whims of the bureaucracy of censorship, why speak at all? No thanks, I'll bite down firmly on my tongue and keep my $30. Until next time....

[Officially Retired]

I had a long blistering response typed out but came to the determination it not worth posting. When a man can't have his own opinion, choose his own words; when he's subject to the whims of the bureaucracy of censorship, why speak at all? No thanks, I'll bite down firmly on my tongue and keep my $30. Until next time....

Why all the anger? I merely changed your title from "cur" to "dogs that quit."

Is that really something to get upset about? I did not change your meaning or intent at all. Lots of times, I likewise remove the word f*** from people's posts too. This is to keep the content here reasoned and civil, not to "censor" ideas or free thought.

It's not a whim. The idea here is to speak about dogs intelligently, and the simple fact is inflammatory words sometimes make this impossible. I believe the word "cur" is now basically an insult word in this game. "That dog's a cur!", and as such I believe it discourages thought in a discussion, because it is used as more of a pejorative than as an attempt to understand what we're talking about.

I am sorry you are upset by the very minor change I made to your post. You are actually more than welcome to voice your displeasure at any of my decisions, so long as you do it in a respectful way. So it is good that you "bit your tongue," and didn't "blast" me, as my decision to amend your word choice was not an insult to you in any way. The very fact you felt like "blasting" me over this minor change *is* the problem. It is precisely this "blast" mentality that you keep wanting to introduce which I am trying to keep out of here. At the end of the day it is unfriendly and immature.

This is why I merely replaced your over-use of the word "cur" with "dogs that stopped/quit," so as to enable the discussion to be more dispassionate and mature. You might want to think about your own attitude for a minute, as as it is not constructive at all. Replacing inflammatory or vulgar words with better choices is not "censorship," what it is called is keeping it clean, as again I would never change the meaning or intent of a person's post.

So the real question isn't, "Why speak at all?" ... the real question is, "Why not learn to speak more reasonably and intelligently?" ... as the latter is what creates a better climate for healthy discussion.

Jack

[skipper]

Scenario: A dog takes a good beating, around 30 mins the other side starts betting that he will quit at next handle. when handle is made he flies over. This is repeated several times with offers of bets every time. Finally the dog had enough at around 1 hour, completely disoriented and going into chock. IF there are no degrees of gameness this dog is a cur. When the other side was so certain that he would quit that they were ready to bet pretty high stakes of money on it already at 30 mins. To me that dog isn't the gamest dog I've seen, but he is in no way without gameness. You guys that thinks gameness is either black or white. Is this a cur?

[FrostyPaws]

If a dog is in shock and stands, that is a dog being stopped. There is a big difference in being stopped and just quitting. Gameness is a lot of grey area. There is a little black and a little white and mostly grey. That is exactly why I try not to use phrases like Jack mentioned in "Pretty Game," "Fairly Game," "Deep Game," or "Dead Game" any longer, and it's not an easy thing to do either! I will admit I use similar terminology at times, and it's only because I've yet to figure out another way for anyone to grasp the situation without using it. *sigh* But such terminology is open to too much interpretation by each individual unless they have the same viewpoint on such things as the individual using those terms.

When a dog goes into shock, it's purely a subjective judgement call by the owner. I've seen dogs proclaimed to be in shock when they weren't, but since it's not my dog, my place isn't to say otherwise. I've seen dogs who were in shock, put down due to owner ignorance. And I've seen owners recognize their dog was in legitimate shock. Some of them picked the dog up; some of them put the dog down, but neither group were under any illusions about what was ACTUALLY happening as they had the knowledge and experience to know what they were witnessing.

Shock just opens a completely different can of worms that most people don't recognize for what it is.

[Abe]

Great read !

[skipper]

Well put. To make it easy I usually use the term "Game enough". A dog is either game enough for your standards or he isn't. After all it's you who decides to keep, feed and house that dog. What others consider game enough isn't relevant. Unless you buy your dogs from someone else.