|
The Original All Roller Talk Discussion Board Archive >
"Facts" or fiction
"Facts" or fiction
Page:
1
2
Dave Szab
218 posts
Feb 04, 2009
10:39 AM
|
Lately I have noticed a trend on many roller pigeon lists, especially here, to use quotes or writings from old pigeon books and articles to inject so-called "facts" into discussions to try to somehow "prove" an opinion.
We all know that any writer of any book or article, can and do slant their writings to fit their agendas, even if it means stretching the truth, leaving out facts that disproves their stance, and/or ignorance of the actual facts. This is true today and, with the absence of the vast information resources and technologies that we have today, it was even more true in articles written, 40, 50, 60, or over 100 years ago. Some of us tend to read things written many years ago and think of these writers as if they were living today, in our world, with our knowledge and experiences. When reading these old articles you must take what they say with a grain of salt and put yourself in the writer's day and age, otherwise you can make a BIG mistake when interpruting their writings. Some of these guys were using terminology for colors and performance, that were used in their day, and thought truthful, but are different terminology than what we use. They do not live in our time, and we did not live in theirs.
To use the old writings as "proof" of an opinion that someone is writing today, is easy to do, but not real "proof" because it is based on a "fact" that may or may not be true, and it conviently can not be proved or disproved, unless someone invents a time machine. Many have been doing this lately to validate their opinions. I'm not trying to single out Cliff, although he has been doing it a lot, many Pensom-followers have been doing the same thing for years.
Discussing old books and articles is fine, but using those writings as if they were "facts" out of a text or reference book, does not hold water, and "proves" nothing.
Dave Szabatura
Last Edited by on Feb 05, 2009 7:07 PM
|
spinningdemon
295 posts
Feb 04, 2009
10:58 AM
|
Thanks for your comments Dave. I just love them for the nostalgia aspect just like reading the old pedigrees and things just a bunch of fun info. Some still will hold true today you just have to like you said take in the light of when it was written.
Dave I need to talk to you about some stuff and I do not have your e-mail any more could you send it to me please,
dcurneal@hotmail.com
----------
David Curneal
www.freewebs.com/dcurneal
www.saltcreekcustomstone.com
In the air since 1973
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
151 posts
Feb 04, 2009
11:11 AM
|
Except for William H. Pensom, He did,t slant his writings. JDA
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3061 posts
Feb 04, 2009
11:26 AM
|
Hey Dave, well with what you just said, then no one should ever read or write a non-fiction book, textbook, magazine, article, web page or do a college report because there is an "agenda" or a "hypotheses" behind it.
Pensom should have kept his pen in the inkwell by your way of thinking, but yet his words have given life to the roller hobby 40 years after his death and still causes many among us to strive for the Ideal Birmingham Roller.
==
Dave, it is totally correct and appropriate to develop hypotheses (arguments) to explain the "data" or printed matter. As more becomes known about a topic or subject, the hypotheses stands or falls under the weight of evidence contrary to it.
Cliff presents an argument (hypotheses) in his favor and documents it. This is called "Inductive Reasoning" also called the "scientific method". Using the available information to present his case as it were.
As a matter of fact, Cliff often presents a valid argument and until someone who disagrees with it can point to the same data and come up with a different and reasonable hypotheses, their claims to the contrary are but hot wind.
What's interesting, your initiating post in this thread is a hypotheses that presents no facts or reference material to disprove what he says. You are guilty of the very claim you are making against Cliff or others.
I guess your "argument" to prove your claims here will be forthcoming?
Basically, all informed opinions and arguments (hypotheses) are derived from the facts and published materials.
*"Critical readers, thinkers, and writers get intellectually involved. They recognize that meanings and values are made, not found, so they pose pertinent questions, note significant features, examine relationships, and consider the credibility of what they read, see, and hear..." **Page 21
*, ** My sources: "A Writers Resource - A Handbook for Writing and Research" Chapter 6: Reading, Thinking, Writing: The Critical Connection"
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
Last Edited by on Feb 04, 2009 11:29 AM
|
J_Star
1872 posts
Feb 04, 2009
11:30 AM
|
Dave, that is a way is true and in another is not. It is always good that someone does research to backup their point view and promote meaningful discussion. While the opposition thus far has failed to back their claim with any research, quote to backup their point view.
What I suggest is that you ought to, in your posts, encourage the other camp of providing documentation, articles, or nostalgic writing to backup their opposing claims.
Jay
|
Ballrollers
1716 posts
Feb 04, 2009
12:24 PM
|
Thank you for your support and senses of logic, Tony and Jay.
Dave,
I'm afraid that your logic is misplaced and misapplied in this situation. You said, "to use quotes or writings from old pigeon books and articles to inject so-called "facts" into discussions to try to somehow "prove" an opinion."
To begin with, I have not presented anything as "facts"; but merely quoted things that Pensom has written. And I have not attempted to "prove" any points or "interpret" his positions as you suggest. I have quoted these as his articles, not as "facts", and actually asked the readers to draw their own conclusions. When I drew my own conclusions, I stated them as speculation. Did Pensom use breed outcrossing to attempt to improve the performance of his rollers? Absolutely! Fact! He said it plainly and explicitly...not subject to anyone's interpretation. Are any of these outcross genes present in the Pensom birds of today? Conjecture and speculation, purely, on either side of the issue, and I stated it as such. We have not seen any "proof" or even anything that he wrote to validate either point of view on this issue. I could go line item by line item through my posts and the issues presented, but I believe that I have been consistant. After ten years of post-high school Master's and Doctoral education, I believe, that I know when it is inappropriate to take literary license.
I look at the old writings or new writings as more "informational" than facts... but on the other hand, not fiction either. Information is used to form one's opinion. Facts are few and far between when discussing Rollers. Opinions are too numerous to mention. If you have information to share about those issues say your piece.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Feb 04, 2009 1:39 PM
|
Lipper
GOLD MEMBER
251 posts
Feb 04, 2009
12:47 PM
|
----------
Mike Trevis
The Bigger the Dream the Bigger the Leap
The only true way to prove anything beyond a doubt is with empirical evidence...Proven over and over again in a lab type setting..
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3062 posts
Feb 04, 2009
12:54 PM
|
Hey Mike, I hear ya, but can you prove there is "good" or "evil" in a lab type setting? You can't, but who would say there is not good or evil? hmmmm... ;-)
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Lipper
GOLD MEMBER
252 posts
Feb 04, 2009
1:05 PM
|
----------
Mike Trevis
The Bigger the Dream the Bigger the Leap
Actually Tony we are closer to that than a lot may know or care to know, but that is a subject for another time...I have been giving the idea of what methods could be used to prove certain areas in the issues hot at hand..I am getting closer, I will have to see what my peers think.. P.S. I got my pkg. today thank you very much..
|
3757
1168 posts
Feb 04, 2009
1:27 PM
|
Tony and Cliff - You are on the money regarding research. Also, through my interviews and through the written text I have found that Bill was adamant about certain things (Velocity/Style) throughout his career as well as other themes. There is also thematic analysis one can do from someone’s writing word and this is all researched based. One thing that I must add is that Cliff has never stated to my knowledge that a quote was a "fact" but rather for intellectual discussion. I believe intellectual reviews are warranted and necessary. There is a big difference between that and an opinion based comment.
|
Ballrollers
1719 posts
Feb 04, 2009
1:31 PM
|
Thank you LaRon. I take that as a compliment. I am very interested in "thematic analysis of someone's writings". I am not familiar with it at all. But you have peaked my interest and I'll have to do a little research to see what it entails.
Cliff
|
3757
1170 posts
Feb 04, 2009
1:54 PM
|
A thematic analysis of literature is to "help us, through close reading and through reflection, understand the way ideas and feelings are talked about in our culture or in other times and cultures -- to have a sense both of communities of meaning." Most do not get it Cliff. What I did was using interviews and literature to get a better understanding. I also had a good sample size at the time in the 70's and 80's. I hope this helps.
|
Lipper
GOLD MEMBER
254 posts
Feb 04, 2009
2:20 PM
|
----------
Mike Trevis
The Bigger the Dream the Bigger the Leap
I can understand this analysis giving an understanding of Pensom himself. What I am not understanding is how this analysis of literature can possibly give us an understanding of today's Pensom rollers or Birmingham rollers, or whatever you want to call them. I believe that with the literature available you can ascertain what Bill's birds were in his loft only.
|
3757
1171 posts
Feb 04, 2009
2:39 PM
|
Mike - Bill's writings covered a myriad of subjects within the Birmingham roller world. Do you know it is Bill who introduced the Americans to "turns" judging of competition as well as individual judging of competition. Also, it goes beyond just what he was breeding in my view but I have a different viewpoint based on my knowledge of research than some.
|
Scott
1642 posts
Feb 04, 2009
4:03 PM
|
What Bill gave us was in depth insight on the breed,not on turns,or even ind., but the breed itself.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
pigeon pete
106 posts
Feb 04, 2009
5:34 PM
|
Tony,
A problem that I find with many disscusions is that guys will respond to a post and they seem to know what they are going to say before they have properly red the original thread. They have an agenda and anything they paste in is proof that they are right.
In fact many times I think they haven't read the original post because their reply bears no relation to what they are suposed to be replying to.
They go off on a beam and it's all "yes but, no but" "my dads bigger than yours" mentality, and "so and so said this so it must be that", etc.
For example (if your going to single anyone out it may as well be the moderator,lol) you wrote in reply to Dave :)--
What's interesting, your initiating post in this
thread is a hypotheses that presents no facts or reference material to disprove what he says. You are guilty of the very claim you are making against Cliff or others.
A hypothesis is an just an idea or suggestion that is unproved. in other words an opinion.
That was Daves opinion and he didn't try to prove it with either doggy or respected references to other sources or authors. To have brought material in from another thread to " disprove what he says" would have confused the issue. By 'He'I presume you mean Cliff.
In fact Dave refered to 'Many, then to Ciff, then many Pensom followers, so the whole post was not aimed specificaly at Cliff although he was named as one protagonist.
You say he has presented no facts or reference material, which is true, but then you imediately go on to say he is guilty of doing what he claims Cliff is doing, i.e presenting reference material as facts.
Whaaaaaat? How can you say he is guilty of misrepresentation by using references and then say he didn't use any?
I'm sure Dave has his agenda, but I think his post was well written, with no rants. He uses words like 'slant' and "may or may not be true", where others on the list would not be so diplomatic.
For you to then say words to the effect that we may as well throw all the books away if we are to read Daves post was a bit childish to say the least.
If we ignore any bias or agenda of Daves, then all he is saying is that we should use our critical factors when reading anything.
I may not always agree with What Dave says, but he has the right to his opinion and also has a point. Others have their right to their opinion but all to often it's isn't their opinion. They slavishly follow their gurus whoever they are, which is also their right, but to just repeatedly quote someone elses Ideas and consider it a debate or a sharing of experience or expertise is often not helpfull.
I do agree that there is a trend to avoid the reasoned argument on many pigeon lists. Look at the posts, far too many are not even saying anything or asking anything intelligent. Many don't know the difference between evidence, facts, and proof and don't seem interested in finding out. Others will argue against something they agree with, why? search me maybe they just like agrivation, lol
Pete.
|
Hector Coya
411 posts
Feb 04, 2009
5:58 PM
|
Dave ,What do you think of the BIBLE?
Thats a very old book,,,
Hector Coya_SGVS
----------
The more i know mankind,the more i love my Dog,
|
macsrollers
21 posts
Feb 04, 2009
6:54 PM
|
The idea is to share information so referring to written knowlege is a great way to do so. Pensom's book had little meaning to me at first. A couple times a year I try to go back and re-read it and it is amazing how much more you learn each time as you gain practical experience in the hobby. Not everything that is written should be considered gospel. But legends like Bill Pensom took the time to put their knowledge in writing for the benefit of all that share a common love for the same hobby. The late great Monty Neibel told me once that beginners should keep it simple by mating spinner A to spinner B and so on, then work out of the best from the air. As we gain knowledge we know that there is more to it then that, but what a great basic starting point! The willingness to share our knowledge is the key here, even though we often can put ourselves out on a limb because of the perception(or miss-perception) of our intentions by others!
Sincerely, Don M. Mac's Rollers
|
0221
42 posts
Feb 04, 2009
8:57 PM
|
Dave I wonder what the BIBLE looks like to You? You have to have an absolute in something or You'll never settle anything in your mind. Don't let this hobby keep You up at night. You will never convince everybody to see everything the way other people do . So I say lets spend more time under our rollers and prove to our selfs what we need to about our family of pigeons.
|
Bill C
213 posts
Feb 04, 2009
11:50 PM
|
Dave I might have missed something here but I can tell you I quote Pensom all the time. Not becaue he is King of rollers past or because it makes me act like I know something. Or becuase I am just trying to win an argument.
Here is why I quote the Man! I had let out some birds after a long lock up this past week. After about five days flying I had a bird that cought my eye. It rolled really fast. Feathers went flying out of it. LOL Really! (could be motlting I guess) It had about five small feathers left in the air rolling down after its roll at about 150 feet up. It rolled 10 - 15 feet and as fast as I get them. Now what do I think is so special. Not that bird but the parrents that bred this bird. They are poving out a good little red check. There is no guarentee that red check will repoduce itself but the stock pair have. Right! That is what Pensom said, he did not want the one that rolled like a champ in the air he wanted the parrents.
I also could tell you how I found out that my late developing staight flyers are turning out to be my best and most stable birds yet. Everyone else wants six month wonders but not me. I value those 1 or 2 year old birds that suddenly come into the roll. Not becuase Pensoms said that which he did, but because I did not cull them and WOW was I surprised when I flew all my birds to make up an A team last year and ALL the birds I had picked out of five at a time flying were all 2 years or older.
Reading or quoting guys who have done well with their birds is getting a birds eye view of the birds in my oppinion. Hope I'm not too far off topic here. Bill C
Last Edited by on Feb 04, 2009 11:53 PM
|
pigeon pete
107 posts
Feb 05, 2009
2:45 AM
|
Hi Tony,
Thanks for taking the time to disect our posts.
I wont comment on what you wrote throughout Daves post, that's up to him if he want's to. I realize you are replying to my post about Daves initial post, but I only have one lifetime,lol
You said,
Expressing an opinion without a good argument and lack of referencing valid sources makes for a weak initial hypotheses or opinion. Some peoples opinions hold more weight than others.
I say so what? If you have an opinion or conviction you are allowed to state it. At least it wasn't a stupid put-down like some one liners we see on this forum.
That is my opinon, take it or leave it, and I don't feel the need to validate it or back it up with quotes from the bill of rights.It is me speaking and if you don't trust or like the souce (me) you are entitled to ignore it. Ditto your next comment, Guys CAN go back and read Cliffs previous posts if they are interested we shouldn't need to continually back up everything we say with 'proof'. If we did that everyones posts would be twice as long as mine!
It looked to you as though Cliff was being singled out.
Yes he was the only one named, but again do you think Dave should have put a long list of names included in the MANY quote and the MANY PENSOM FOLLOWERS quote?
You wrote in bold:
No, what I mean is that Dave, by offering his unsubstantiated opinion, is asking for us to believe that what he is saying is true, simply because he has said it in his post. Cliff at least offers third party historical documentation to make his points.
So you agree that contary to what you said, Dave is not doing exactly whay he Claims cliff is guilty of?
Dave was accusing Cliff and others of using data of variable validity to 'prove' their points.
While Dave himself just stated his opinon with no back up, and as you say, just asking us to believe it. So he WASN'T doing what he has accused Cliff of, was he?
You Wrote,
Pete, its called sarcasm…
At least we are in agreement there then.
Tony, I feel that we agree on more things than we disagree on when we want to, but one statement of yours betrays your bias against Dave. That's just my gut feeling from reading your post I can't prove it,lol
You Wrote,
As a matter of fact, Cliff often presents a valid argument and until someone who disagrees with it can point to the same data and come up with a different and reasonable hypotheses, their claims to the contrary are but hot wind.
So why is any hypothesis of Cliff's so sacrosanct, and why must anyone who disagrees with it be only allowed make a counter point by disproving the evidence Cliff used to validate his theory?
Surely if we are to have open debate about any subject, we cannot restrict the evidence to that put forward by the proposer of the hypothesis, and any other evidence to the contrary is to be regarded as HOT WIND?
As being as WH Pensom has been dragged into this thread by Dave, and others, lets Say one guy backs his opinion up by stating that "Pensom says it is so on Page ## of his book so it must be right"
Are you seriously suggesting that if I disagree I must disprove what Pensom said on that page without reference to any other writtings by Pensom or anyone else?
If I could use that as a rule of debate I would win every argument I ever started no matter how stupid it was.
Example
"No, I just read that you no longer beat your wife,so unless you can disprove the data I have referenced" you are just spouting hot air",lol
I have replied enough to this thread so, as always, I will let anyone who disagrees with me have the last word. Pete.
|
pigeon pete
108 posts
Feb 05, 2009
3:15 AM
|
Hi
Bill,
I kinda missed your replies as I got into a side issue with Tony, Sorry about that.
I can see both sides of this issue.
For some, Pensoms book and writings are like their Bible that they keep going back to as a valuable reference, while other find too many contradictions to be able to get any useful guidance, and that's OK too.
We all work differently. It can be tiresome to have his words quoted at you ad nauseum (sp) especially as we knoe much of it off by heart.
If you have years of experience with rollers, and it sounds like you do, I think it is more valuable if you share what You have found to be true from your own experience. We can all read Pensoms works at our own leisure and draw from them what we will.
Any experienced breeder of stock will know that a proven pair that have bred good stock in the past, are more likely to breed more good stock than an unproven single bird. The youngster, no matter how prolific in performance, is an unknown quantity as far as breeding is concerned. We will know this wether or not we have read WHP's book, it is just common sense.
Likewise your quote about late developing straight flyers (I presume you mean late developing rollers?)
You have found this out through your own experience, maybe it validated what Pensom wrote, but you didn't just presume that late developers would be stable because WHP says so, you actually proved it in your stock by flying them out for long enough to find out, and then making the obsevation. We all need a bit of advice and direction Hell I know I could when I first started with pigeons, ignorance isn't always bliss, but I think we need to decide that what we do and learn for ourselves is valid, and that our experiences are helping us to move forward.
BTW, EVERYONE else doesn't want six month wonders in fact I don't know ANYONE that does.
I know I suggest that we all gain the confidence to use our own personal databases as reference, but to state that everyone else is wrong and I am right (although I have recently said something similar,lol) is maybe going a little too far.
Pete,
P.S Dave, you will have to get used to it,lol
Last Edited by on Feb 05, 2009 3:24 AM
|
Dave Szab
219 posts
Feb 05, 2009
5:03 AM
|
Pete,
You pretty much summed up what I was going to say in my response, thanks for saving me a lot of writing! LOL. At least someone took the time to actually read what I wrote with an open mind, and comprehend it, before spouting back with a response. Like you said, I often wonder if some read the posts that they respond to, because they respond to something that wasn't in the post or even implied by the post. Anyone can read, but just as important as being able to read the words is the comprehension of what has been written.
Dave
|
Dave Szab
220 posts
Feb 05, 2009
5:05 AM
|
David Curneal,
My e-mail address is dszab@aol.com if you need to reach me.
Dave
|
Dave Szab
221 posts
Feb 05, 2009
5:12 AM
|
Hey Cliff,
I love you bud, but you should have been a lawyer instead of a Dentist! LOL. You can dance and weave with the best of them. Don't make me bring out my Cliff the "dancing machine" picture again! LOL.
I really did not have an agenda, behind my post, to side with either side in any of the arguements that have been going on. I only mentioned your name because you had been doing it the most, and I thought that would give a good example of what I was referring to.
Keep up the good fight Cliff!
Dave
|
Dave Szab
222 posts
Feb 05, 2009
5:40 AM
|
Tony,
I won't bother responding line by line to your posts, because it is obvious by their tone that you have a personal problem with me, so it would do nothing but flame into a heated arguement.
My posts are based on my personal observations and opinions, which are based on 35+ years of working with rollers. It doesn't matter to me whether you value my opinion or not, but it is MY opinion and I will continue to voice it.
I will point out one statement from your post. You refer to "scientific method". Copied below is a good definition of scientific method.
*******************************************************
"1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made."
*******************************************************
Observe, form a hypothesis, then test, test, test, test, test, test, test, and test somemore until you get enough consistentcy in those tests to make your hypothesis into a theory. That is not what is being done when these guys post quotes from old pigeon writings, and use them as "facts" to prove their opinions.
Just my opinion
Dave
P.S. Sorry Scott, I just had to steal your sign-off, it just felt right! LOL.
|
Ballrollers
1720 posts
Feb 05, 2009
7:19 AM
|
Dave,
Please spare us the dreaded Michael Jackson dance photo! LOL! I saw no agenda in your post,and I did not take it personally. I just thought it was off the mark because I presented no hypothesis and was not attempting to use the "old literature" to support one. Though I did speculate, I was primarily posting the old literature to show that, even one of the greatest roller men, engaged in breed outcrossing to improve the BR;.....to show how Pensom defined the true BR based on performance alone, even to the point of calling nestmates by the name of "Tumbler" and Birmingham Roller based on their performance;.....and to show his early concerns about turn competition and its potential impact on the breed vs. his respect for the deep individual performer. I think you will agree that all of these issues are relevant passionate topics for discussion in the hobby, even today. As I provide additional articles that he wrote in his later, we will undoubtedly see some changes in his opinions.
Thanks,
Cliff
|
3757
1172 posts
Feb 05, 2009
7:26 AM
|
Cliff - That was an excellent explanation. I noticed very few understand what scholarly research is all about and it is not just quoting from a book as many believe but I will not give a college lecture here. Cliff e-mail me as I want to give you some information about Harry Young’s line of birds and what lines are down from his if you are interested.
|
Otis
176 posts
Feb 05, 2009
7:37 AM
|
Gentlemen, I tried to avoid responding but, couldn't resist! My observations of this discussion and my opinion of the tenor of Dave's original post is that we all tend to over-complicate and infuse others words in response to the written word in an attempt provide an informed answer to a question concerning this breed we have chosen to perfect. There are those of us here who have decades of experience with these creatures and should have as of now learned that the best educators are the birds and our varied experiences with them that we can document with our memories and records based on the obstacles that persist in our time. I have found that Pensom and other gurus readings have assisted and taken me to a certain level and then one must field test that basic info and adapt the old(teachings/readings) and new(experiences) to fit the real world conditions we wish to thrive in. Most of us if not all of us will someday be able to write our own thesis' based on our experiences with rollers that may contain a footnote paying homage to those who came before us. The evolution and perfection of the roller will beg for those who choose to expect, write and know even more than Pensom and we have to let it happen. Question I always wanted to ask. Do you think Pensom could fly a better kit than Monty? I for one am of of the opinion that just when we think they can't get any better is the day complacency and reliance on a book or a spoken word robbed us of the chance to see the very best! Otis
Last Edited by on Feb 05, 2009 8:16 AM
|
J_Star
1874 posts
Feb 05, 2009
7:42 AM
|
If RPDC was a court room, I want Cliff Ball be my attorney....hands down.
Jay
Last Edited by on Feb 05, 2009 8:10 AM
|
pigeon pete
111 posts
Feb 05, 2009
8:49 AM
|
Otis,
I love your post, never resist posting.
Next time I want to make a deal, I will ask you to write the small print :)
Pete
|
maxspin
351 posts
Feb 05, 2009
8:55 AM
|
Cliff,
What I find interesting is that you and I read the quote "I have crossed Rollers with "Wests" and the result was vigorous flyers..." and can come up with such different interpretation.
When I read "vigorous flyers", I picture birds racing about the sky, but not rolling. Nothing that would make the breeder loft.
Keith
Vigorous flyers… hmmmmm I might describe my birds that way. LOL
|
3757
1173 posts
Feb 05, 2009
9:12 AM
|
Otis - The only person that I believe that could truly answer that question is Bruce Cooper (who was very close to Monty and Bill). Bruce has stated many times that Monty flew the best kit he ever seen and Bill flew the fastest birds he ever seen. I am going to e-mail him now to post the question again as Bruce is an honest man.
|
Ballrollers
1722 posts
Feb 05, 2009
9:39 AM
|
Otis,
Now you are entering a different topic...how do we, today, "apply" the information that we glean from the information written about these birds many years ago?.... some would say it is irrelevant...some would say directly relevant. I think I heard you saying that we each need to apply it and judge the results from our experience.
Jay,
If I didn't hate attorneys so much I would take that as a compliment! LOL!
Keith,
That is as valid a speculation as anyone else's. We don't really know....
LaRon,
You can expect a private e-mail from me. I am interested to hear about them.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Feb 05, 2009 9:40 AM
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
153 posts
Feb 05, 2009
10:33 AM
|
Bill C- In the 80s I had judges from England and top fliers from all over the US at my place for a NBRC fly and they were talking about the speed my birds had over the other kits they have been judging, They were all old birds that did not come in till about one year or so.Pensom in my book knew what he was talking about. JDA
|
Otis
177 posts
Feb 05, 2009
10:48 AM
|
Pete, It's a deal if I can share in the profits!
La Ron, Thanks in advance for posing that question to Bruce! Otis
|
Otis
178 posts
Feb 05, 2009
10:58 AM
|
Cliff, True, and I concur that seemed to be the theme Dave offered, we must move on, discuss and prove "in our own words and experiences" -that's all!
"Lately I have noticed a trend on many roller pigeon lists, especially here, to use quotes or writings from old pigeon books and articles to inject so-called "facts" into discussions to try to somehow "prove" an opinion."
|
pigeon pete
112 posts
Feb 05, 2009
11:55 AM
|
Sorry Otis but,
I registered myself as a 'not for profit organisation'.lol
|
Ballrollers
1723 posts
Feb 05, 2009
1:24 PM
|
Otis,
For Me, I use the old quotes as a basis to form my opinions. I have no facts to prove. As my experience grows, the basis for my opinions could change to match my experience. My crystal ball is just as cloudy as everyone else's when it comes to Rollers (or anything else for that matter). :) But I do have a basis, grounded in the written word, for a starting place; something to begin with. I think Tony put it better than I have here. Everyone starts this journey somewhere. It can be different with each person; but the journey, not the destination, is where joy is most abundant.
Cliff
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
270 posts
Feb 05, 2009
4:44 PM
|
Hey Jay, you wouldn't need an attorney, every case results in a hung jury!!
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
RodSD
166 posts
Feb 06, 2009
12:18 AM
|
You should also consider the source of the info. If Scott wrote a book about rollers and I wrote one, too, you better believe what Scott says more than I do because I don't have rollers. If you can verify claims, then usually it may be factual as well. In science, if you can verify what people claim as in repeat experiments, then usually it is believable.
|
J_Star
1875 posts
Feb 06, 2009
5:18 AM
|
Those nostalgic books and the authors were respected men from the past that we still refer to their names often and lookup to. If we say that we can not reference things from their history, then what gives!!! Go figure.
How many times on this web site we referenced Pensom said this and that!!! When John from England posted couple of articles from the past, everybody praised him for that piece of history…but again why should we read it if we can not use it for our expanding knowledge.
Jay
|
Ballrollers
1725 posts
Feb 06, 2009
7:11 AM
|
Rod,
I didn't quote just any old roller guys like you and Scott, as you said,...I used Bill Pensom's articles.
Cliff
|
Scott
1654 posts
Feb 06, 2009
2:57 PM
|
But you also read into what you wanted Cliff,along with speculation that made no sence.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
kcfirl
559 posts
Feb 06, 2009
3:01 PM
|
Hi Cliff,
I think what Scott is saying is that although you are using specific quotes from Pensom, your argument seems to be that Pensom was ok with crossbreeding as a way to move the breed forward.
I have to agree with him that this seems completely ridiculous when the body of his writing is weighed in it's entirety.
But, as always, I love your contrarian thinking and I love your use of previous writings to try to make your point. I may not agree, but I respect your argument and your right to your opinion.
Best Regards,
Ken
|
Ballrollers
1730 posts
Feb 06, 2009
8:12 PM
|
Ken,
No, I don't think I ever said anything like that, nor was that my intention. Let me clarify for you. I think there is sufficient factual Pensom quotes to indicate WHP did "TRY" to improve "HIS BIRDS" by crossing with the oriental roller and the West of England Tumbler. It may be, that his experiment did not work and the resulting birds were not to be found in his loft any longer. We have no evidence either way at this point. So, far this brief period in his life, it was OK with him. As he gained experience, he found other methods to improve his birds and came to believe, according to the articles that he wrote, that inbreeding and not breed outcrossing was the better way to go. I thought that I stated that clearly, but I'm sorry if I left the impression that WHP committed wholesale crossbreeding. That was not my intention. The point is that he "TRIED IT." By finding out what didn't work, he moved forward. It is a method many use. We learn from our mistakes. Or at least I hope we do. James Turner tried a similar experiment, it failed too, and so he culled them. He then, bred only Roller to Roller to develope his family with performance as his goal. The colors modifers were a personal goal, just to see if it could be done. From what I have seen, I know that he was successful, just as Pensom was. The two men were equally committed to performance, speed, and quality. Both atempted breed outcrossing in their quest. And both ultimately came to the decision that intensive line-breeding within a family is the best road to success. I hope this clears up where I was coming from.
Cliff
PS You should know Scott, by now. He has a history of inventing whatever vague generalities and criticisms he wishes in order to support his disagreements with me....whether I actually said them or not. Do you notice the difficulty he has with offering a basis or being specific about ANY issue or disagreement that he has? But I thank you for being specific and for giving me the opportunity to clear up my meaning for you and for the readers.
Last Edited by on Feb 06, 2009 8:19 PM
|
George R.
1332 posts
Feb 06, 2009
8:20 PM
|
Cliff correct me if I am wrong but are you saying James Turner and Bill Pensom are equals when it comes to knowledge about the Birmingham Roller ?
|
Scott
1660 posts
Feb 06, 2009
9:14 PM
|
(and so he culled them.)
Culled them to where,other peoples lofts ? you know as well as I do that many are breeding out of those goofball experments and selling them as something that they aren't.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 06, 2009 9:25 PM
|
3757
1180 posts
Feb 07, 2009
12:23 AM
|
"We have no evidence either way at this point"
Cliff - This one statement I cannot consider. The reason is twofold. First, he said himself that nothing comes from crossbred birds and he explained why. Secondly, his record books clearly shows the birds originating from Bellfield, Richards, Skidmore (off of Bill's stock and Bellfield/Richards) Thompson (Richards caught) all back to Harry Young.
Now, basically if we say we will never know we are saying he was lying and deceitful and I cannot believe this one. He was and is the greatest contributor to the Birmingham roller on a worldwide level and especially in The United States of America. Thirdly, the photo album that McCully had and was willed to Herb Sparkes has every old bird that went into his family even before rings were invented.
Last Edited by on Feb 07, 2009 12:24 AM
|
RodSD
168 posts
Feb 07, 2009
4:08 AM
|
"Discussing old books and articles is fine, but using those writings as if they were "facts" out of a text or reference book, does not hold water, and "proves" nothing."
I have a problem with that statement because it seems to discredit what came before us. I think it is ok to use them as facts as long as whatever claim put in those books are actually still true as today. It should be obvious as well that not all writings of the past are now true because of new knowledge discovered. It is a matter of verification. To just discredit them because they are old books/articles is just not right.
The people that wrote books/articles on pigeons used their experience as sort of data. I must admit that is not as comprehensive as a real scientific literature with quantitative data that we can verify. So all we can do is to verify their claims on our own to see whether it applies to us as well. We can't just say the y are all wrong because they are old books/articles.
Last Edited by on Feb 07, 2009 4:11 AM
|
Post a Message
|
|
|