pigeon pete
115 posts
Feb 07, 2009
6:12 AM
|
Hi Rod,
You could write a book on rollers and so could I.
Some of our ideas and theories could be diametricaly opposed. 40 years down the line others could be arguing the same points and using our books for verification.lol Books are written by men. Men are not allways wrong but it happens.
You said," 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".
This is the whole bone of contention, that certain 'facts' are often in dispute. If they were unquestionably factual then there would be no discussion. One man sees a fact where another a faleshood.
I find that in many cases where someone else is quoted, or their wtittings are sited as fact, that the relevent quote is taken out of context.
How many times do you see headline quotes from some top politician where he has supposed to have said something shocking or shameful, when in fact if the complete text of the speech or interview was read, then you find that it has a completely different slant.
Not wishing to pick on someone who has had the initiative to write a book on rollers, but if I may use David Kowalski's book as an example of what I mean.
He wrote a section 14 pages long on eye sign, electric eyes and inner circles.
Now if I wanted to verify my ideas about eye sign, inners circles, etc I have 14 pages to select my text from, but to me the most important sentences in the chapter are like this one, Quote: I have found no strong evidence of genetic corrolation between classic eye sign and either breeding or performing excellence:.
and again:There is no correlation between eye colour and performance: and yet again following an extensive chapters on elecric eyes and the inner circle where he descibes builing an eye box and grading the eyes :
--I am finding the stars of the stock loft would be likely stars of a racing homer stock loft (according to Meyers theories)...if they were the right breed.
However I am reluctant to utter even that statement because of the very real temptation to try to turn coincidence into a law of nature.
There is more, but the gist is that David examined the evidence and then at the end made a balanced judgement that there was no proof positive on the subject, but if you just read the bulk of the text you may think that it is evidence to back your own theories on eye sign, (if you were to have any). It IS information that could inspire you to search further in your own study of the breed, but it is proof of nothing.
Pete
|
0221
56 posts
Feb 07, 2009
6:33 AM
|
To all, i'm following along and I have a question. Can someone pick out just 3 things that Bill Pensom said in His writings that are wrong. Then correct them for us. Thank You.
|
George R.
1336 posts
Feb 07, 2009
8:26 AM
|
The twizzler is a Champion.
Maybe in His day but TODAY its a Cull.
"a bird is not a Birmingham roller if it dont spin according to his standard." it is merely a Tumbler.
thats like saying I aint no Mexican because I dont eat Tacos.
Birmingham rollers are a breed and there for if the Bird turns over once or 50 times its still a Birmingham roller.
not all thourobreds race but they are still considred a thourobred.
I have never read the book written by Bill Pensom but Ezeedad said Bill Pensom said that a Twizzler was a Rare champion.
george
Last Edited by on Feb 07, 2009 8:32 AM
|
pigeon pete
117 posts
Feb 07, 2009
8:28 AM
|
Ha Ha, you'll not get me on that one. I suggest you read the book, ignore all the papagraphs that don't seem to contradict them selves, then see how many do, and those are the ones that will keep this thread going forever,lol
|
George R.
1337 posts
Feb 07, 2009
8:35 AM
|
"ignore all the papagraphs that don't seem to contradict them selves"
now why would I ignore certain parts of the book .
"thats called selective reading " Only reading what suites my agenda"
George
Last Edited by on Feb 07, 2009 8:35 AM
|
0221
60 posts
Feb 07, 2009
8:35 AM
|
George, You should read the book because I think you took that out of context. You just responded to that with 2nd hand information. YOU HEARD IT FROM SOMEONE.the book never say's its a rare champion. look book says the bird could also twizzle. I don't want any twizzlers myself. But you see how fast hear say spreads.
|
George R.
1338 posts
Feb 07, 2009
8:39 AM
|
Lets get one thing strait Bill Pensom is one of the best roller men that ever lived.
we here in the USA must be very thankfull for all he did in his Time.
we must never forget him and we must continue to breed the birmingham roller and continue to enjoy our hobby.
George
|
0221
62 posts
Feb 07, 2009
8:52 AM
|
George, I agree, I wasnt trying to be a smart ass. Alot of talk here about Bill Pensom and how the things He wrote are incorrect or how are knowledge has moved past what He wrote. So I just simple ask anyone pick 3 things He wrong about and share it with us.
|
SiDLoVE
362 posts
Feb 07, 2009
10:14 AM
|
Most of us are Competetion Flyers, did Bill ever write a book how to prep and fly competetion? I have not read any of his books.I was told he wrote a book of roller standard didnt know if he flew comp or would win a comp if he flew it like we are doing it now?
From Bills time to now things have evolutionized to the present age rollers.After 3 generations the birds are yours and Pensom has been gone for 30 plus years .I highly Respect Pensom and most all us U.S guys flies his birds.
Eveything i have learned has been threw Mentors who are wining and doing it now and Scott C,Ken Billing,Joe Emberton,Higgins, Decker,Don O,Heine, etc,etc is one of those Great Mentors! Who is your Mentor? I was told once you can bring good birds home but you cant bring the handler home with you. Each family is feed and flown diffrently. What one has written of there family might not work for everyone. One must get and figure your own birds out and see what works for you. Thats what counts what works for you! my view on things<<
djsid
Thunderbirds
|
nicksiders
3245 posts
Feb 07, 2009
11:12 AM
|
Intellectual thought can still be wrong no matter how intellectual the thought can become. Too many are taking little tid-bits out of context just to support their own beliefs that has nothing to do with actuallity....intellectually speaking.
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
Lipper
GOLD MEMBER
271 posts
Feb 07, 2009
11:20 AM
|
----------
Mike Trevis
The Bigger the Dream the Bigger the Leap
I like that post Nick..I have never read a book that I agreed 100% with the author. I know for a fact that not everyone agrees with my writing..LOL I feel all things need to be proven in the backyard and then again in competition. Until then it is all ideas and opinion..
|
nicksiders
3247 posts
Feb 07, 2009
11:30 AM
|
I have used Pensom in the past to support my own ideas or agenda even when I knew I did not agree with everything Pensom said or did. It is still going on and will be going on for ever, probably. What is funny, I have read where some anti color breeders used his writing to substantiate thier point and view and then to read where people who have rare colors in thier lofts are using it to substantiate thier point of view. Both sides usually taking things out of context to do so. It is a silly world sometimes, ain't it?
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
nicksiders
3248 posts
Feb 07, 2009
11:32 AM
|
Intellect.......LOL
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
nicksiders
3249 posts
Feb 07, 2009
11:33 AM
|
Now that is funny
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
Lipper
GOLD MEMBER
272 posts
Feb 07, 2009
11:41 AM
|
----------
Mike Trevis
The Bigger the Dream the Bigger the Leap
Yes Sir, it is a silly world...We let 14% of the population tell us how we are going to live and act..Silly indeed..
Three years ago I came up with a concept to clean both waste water and drinking water...I was laughed at, at told it could never work...Now I have the top expert in the field in my organization and the concept works...He told me that man fears change more than anything...Man does not like change for the most part..Computors got a hell of a reception from the old timers at first, remember that? Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die..LOL
|
pigeon pete
121 posts
Feb 08, 2009
3:34 AM
|
George,
For gods sake man, read the context!! it was in reply to a question froma 0221 about listing things that are wrong in the book. If you think I was reccomending someone to read a book but leave out certain chapters then you are a very confused man. Tell me George, How the hell would a man know which chapters to leave out of the equasion until he has read them all???
Your post is the sort of one-line unthinking remark that goes a long way to destroying sensible debate. Go to the top of the page and find out what the thread is about.
Fact or fiction.
Well, for all you that are too lazy to bother with such
fripparies as facts, but would prefer to argue about something they think they read 20 years or more ago, I've written out the section from Bills book that some of you are arguing about.
It's from page 12 of the Birmingham Roller Pigeon by WH Pensom. Chapter 2. Performances.
Paragraph header:- The twizzler, (sounds like an arch enemy of Batman to me,lol)
Quotes taken from the paragraph but is not out of context IMO.-----
" The Twizzler. This title is given to that polished individual who is capable of rotating in a plate-like fashion at the end of a first class spin at very high speed".
(I included the above to explain what Bill meant by twizzler )
and the relevant quote from the same section is ---
"There is a maximum limit to the performance of a champion roller. This limited high grade quality performance would consisit of a solid spin, continued by an exhibition of twizzling plus a series of 'mad' tumbles or detached backward somersaults thrown in to complete the show.
Of all the famous breeders I knew, I did not discover one who did not mate his birds to meet that ideal."
I haven't copied that out to partly try and answer 0221's question or for any other reason but to set the record straight for those who perhaps haven't had the chance to read the book yet.
Bill himself wrote a telling little sentence that I think is quite pertinent to the present debate, but by quoting it, I am destroying any hope of using it to back up my point,LOL. please read and discuss.--
Chapter - The Behaviour of the Birmingham Roller.
Page 24 the closing sentence reads,---
"Generally speaking we are ever content to cultivate our pigeons in keeping with the intelligence we derive from our past and current associations, which we know is based upon repetition and the upholding of many out-of-date methods, instead of using our brains to try and discover other and better ways to reach our goal."
Pete.
|
Dave Szab
225 posts
Feb 08, 2009
1:06 PM
|
Good post Sid,
Here is a young roller man that has an understanding of what it takes to put up good kits of spinners. There are many on this list that should pay heed to his advice. Sid figured it out a while ago. He asked many good questions from guys that did well with their birds, and he obtained birds from these men also. Common sense is needed in this roller game of ours, and many seem to lack it.
Dave
*****************************************************
Most of us are Competetion Flyers, did Bill ever write a book how to prep and fly competetion? I have not read any of his books.I was told he wrote a book of roller standard didnt know if he flew comp or would win a comp if he flew it like we are doing it now?
From Bills time to now things have evolutionized to the present age rollers.After 3 generations the birds are yours and Pensom has been gone for 30 plus years .I highly Respect Pensom and most all us U.S guys flies his birds.
Eveything i have learned has been threw Mentors who are wining and doing it now and Scott C,Ken Billing,Joe Emberton,Higgins, Decker,Don O,Heine, etc,etc is one of those Great Mentors! Who is your Mentor? I was told once you can bring good birds home but you cant bring the handler home with you. Each family is feed and flown diffrently. What one has written of there family might not work for everyone. One must get and figure your own birds out and see what works for you. Thats what counts what works for you! my view on things<<
djsid
Thunderbirds
|
Alohazona
558 posts
Feb 08, 2009
2:48 PM
|
First of all and foremost we are pigeon keepers/fanciers.Fanciers whether in it for competition or not.Some just want to house birds and keep them healthy for their enjoyment.Since this is a sporting breed of pigeon ,some will want to pursue their ultimate in performance of this breed as applied to a level.they can be fairly judged to determine a winner.
If anyone told me ,do not read this or that writing on the breed,and it struck as worthy of experimentation.I would politly ignore that person,and wish they would crawl back in the hole they keep poppin out of,and claiming themselves as a factition of the breed.
Discussing old books and articles is fine,but using those writings as facts out of a text or reference book,does not hold water,and proves nothing.
"ALL THE BOOKS ARE WRONG!RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!"
Man this thread is getting deeper than Horner's nestbowls!
Common sense is taught to us and engrained by the people who brought us up.Yes, common sense has alot to do with everything we take in and try to apply.So unless we were reared by the same parents,are levels of common sense are all over the place[that is a fact]Mentors have to be just as interested in you as you are in them to transfer their knowledge[that is a fact]If you have more than one mentor,you will get more than one opinion[that is a fact]Everything that is said in books,forums,bulletins,from advanced or junior fanciers should be taken tounge and cheek[that is a fact].These are just communications and offer you a chance to experiment,to determine your own facts,as they apply to you,and you alone.Never stop learning with this breed and you will enjoy it more[that is a fact]....Aloha,Todd
|
Dave Szab
226 posts
Feb 08, 2009
3:07 PM
|
Todd,
I can't tell if your last post was referring to me or not, because your last paragraph is exactly what I was trying to say in my posts, but the first part of your post seems to be mis-interpretting what I said in my first post.
When I said: "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 was trying to point out that text books and reference books usually contain facts that have been proven over time, by multiple people using scientific methods, but the books and writings that have been used to back up claims on this list, are usually writings of a single man just stating his opinions. In other words, consider the source of the writing. I never said to disregard all written books or that "all books are wrong", I don't know where you got that from.
Dave
Last Edited by on Feb 08, 2009 3:08 PM
|
Alohazona
559 posts
Feb 08, 2009
4:18 PM
|
Dave,
What I wrote is nothing that should be taken personally.There is no stamp of approval on things that have been written or dicussed about BR'S.Fanciers that know better,know what the unproven ,so-called facts are that will never enter into their well thought out program,whether it is scientific or simple common sense.My post is there to simply to clarify that there are good ideas out there that can be blanketed by broad generalzations.There are times that we stumble upon those ideas by chance,and never would sought them out as an option based on these generalizations.So you see,we never have to stop seeking the methods that will take us to the next level of learning.I'm sure there is some information that you have pondered over while reading posts on threads here,or why would you ever look and read.As an advanced and respected fancier as yourself ,you should be careful that what you say is done with clarity,and post more examples proving what does not hold water in your opinion,so we can make our own determination.There are some explanations that are cut and dry and there are some that are vital to be experienced.There are four levels of learning[resonance],you will find all of them on this list.
1]unconcious incompetence
2]concious incompetence
3]concious competence
4]unconcious competence
I am willing to expound on this if it intrigues you,but we would be getting off the topic....Aloha,Todd
|
SiDLoVE
363 posts
Feb 08, 2009
7:51 PM
|
Hey Dave S. You were one of my influences as well. Man i would bug you with questions as well in the chat years ago. Your a true gentlement cause you went out of your way for me. I dont forget people like you and many other roller gentlemen who have made a impact in my roller journey. Now i owe it to the new starters what has been passed to me in anyway i could help. Thanks Dave S. and to all and God Bless.
djsid
Thunderbirds
|
Ballrollers
1742 posts
Feb 09, 2009
7:36 AM
|
By all means, Dave...one must always consider the source...be it Pensom or some other roller man...in the roller hobby we are dealing, primarily with reports and observations of the experience of men...men who have agendas...men who have failing or convenient memories...very little scientific fact.
Cliff
|
0221
75 posts
Feb 09, 2009
8:21 AM
|
I think most of the honest people would agree that most proof come's from trial and error in the breeding coop and observation in the air. that doesn't mean we can't learn something from everyone. I think the fighting that goes on in here is frustration caused by the B.O.P.. When we can get back outside and get some fresh air alot of this bickering may go away.I HOPE.
|
SiDLoVE
364 posts
Feb 09, 2009
12:09 PM
|
Cliff, your right that one must consider the source, be it Pensom or someone else, reports and observations of experience of men. The FACTS are the ones me and you face in our own back yard. Some Facts and Fictions may come from a book or Person but at the end of the day its whats works in your and my backyard.The science needed is finding ur click pairs,prepotent birds, flying kit chemistry with ur teams and pulling out your measuring can to feed,prep,,,etc etc whatever science thats gonna fit for you.The Science of speed, style,tight kitting,frequency,depth which hold in genetics traits from your breeders, the whole science chemistry of a wining team for concert breaks also holds how good the handler can manage, and trust me your science experiment might be diffrent then mine.In my science experiment i enjoy seeing the volcano shoot fire...lmao...Thats what makes this hobby so interersting ,fun and unique! Have a great day my friend ,
djsid
ThunderBirds
|
Ballrollers
1748 posts
Feb 10, 2009
8:38 AM
|
Excellent post, Sid! You're on the right track!
Cliff
|