I just realized I did not give Andrea the courtesy of a reply. Sorry.
@Quercus:
I have met you more than twice, but I don't really care if you confuse me with Brenda, because she is one of the most awesome people I know.
She is pretty cool from what I can gather. Glad it was not someone you did not like. :O) Any chance you could refresh my memory on when we have met. I feel at a disadvantage now. :O) Privately is fine.
@Quercus:
Your posts don't piss me offβ¦but surely you recognize that you spark people's angry responses? Maybe you don't.
Actually I don't. Not because I am obtuse (quit laughing people!) and don't recognize what anger looks like but mostly because if someone gets pissed off at another's direct question - especially a benign or mundane question - I am turning my head to the side more at the pissed off person trying to figure out what it is they did not like vs looking at the person who actually asked the direct question. IOW, I am wondering - is it a case of the truth hurts, a misunderstanding, personal baggage, one-upmanship, redirection (displaced aggression in some circles) to avoid answering, ???? I would be trying to decide if the response matched the query and if it did not, why not.
Kind of like when I used to ask breeder A and C about breeder B when I was a newbie. I was more willing to accept and believe breeder A's negative critiques of breeder B since they answered matter of fact, tempered it with positives and threw in a few negative things about their own breedings as an example of how common it might be (a balanced response) vs accepting/believing breeder C's who negative critique is all she shares (nothing positive) on the tail end of why breeder C feels she, herself, is awesome and matter of fact - according to her - she is the ONLY awesome breeder out there (believe me - I have met these people!). If that makes a lick of sense. I guess in the end, for me, it is all about trying to look at all sides and motivations et al (if possible) before coming to any conclusions. Sometimes I am right on the money, sometimes close by and sometimes out of the ballpark (and I do not mean home run!).
@Quercus:
I do find you rather argumentative, but that is not a character flaw in my book β¦. I don't know, since I don't know really know you, as you pointed out.
I would disagree with your assessment that I am argumentative. To me that means to argue just for the sake of arguing and believe me - I have better things to do then argue just for the sake of hearing my own voice or seeing my written words. I would like to think I am a truth seeker (I know - sappy - but I can not think of anything better at this time and butthead is not 100% correct either:), not caring what people do or say in the world as long as they are straight forward, honest and not overly offense (no racist/sexist/gay slurs for me) and without bullying. Only thing I dislike more than bullies are dishonest, underhanded and manipulative bullies. But I digress.
Anyways - thanks for answering my queries.
@DebraDownSouth:
One of 2 things should happen⦠either the people who have pretty much flat out accused you of this apologize or they show you are lying, because to date now 3 times it has been said you did do this.
Just want to say thanks for sticking up for me Debra. Since you and I are total strangers, I do appreciate it. Your candor is jaw dropping and inspiring at the same time
.