A word from Susan Patterson re: Avuvi's

[sinbaje]

With out the dripping sarcasm - should make this a legal post:

@tanza:

Not sure what your point is…. All I said was that there is a reason, I never stated that I had any idea why, be it good, bad, indifferent... It was RMH that assumed that I was saying there was a "bad" reason they have not been submitted... not me. And I think Honey is very much Basenji Type.

I never said you specifically stated anything. However the implications were certainly there, in many of the postings not just yours, for people (sans Marie) to fill in the blanks and think badly or negatively about the reasons why they have not been submitted. I know how I read it and know from several private exchanges I was not the only one. Therefore I personally felt the need to find out vs just taking said implications as being based on any kind of fact.

And to email her and give her "your" impression of what was implied is improper at best.

I disagree. Whose impression should I give but my own?? How else does one start a conversation or query if not to give a bit of background based on my thoughts? Would you rather I send her a 'copy and paste' of all the posts and let her judge for herself? I would be more than happy to - folks just need to give me permission to do so and it is done!

Again, I point out, I said nothing about her bitch, her conformation, her health testing, etc… only that "obviously" there was a reason that she had not been submitted... it was others that put words in my "mouth"... making it look as if I thought there was a "bad" reason.

Again - I never gave her particulars of who said what only what this readers overall impression was. And while I agree you never "said" anything per se, IMO, writing an open ended statement such as "obviously there was a reason she was not submitted" leaves much for the reader to fill in - which is of course where implications et al come in.

[qoute] In the end, I really have no interest in these particular imports and if submitted they would be judged as all the others have.

And THAT is the beauty of living in a world we do - interest is not forced on those who have none. I think that was KathyB's point - if they are not your cup o'tea - then you never have to use them but don't take away or make the decision for someone else who might have an interest.

Thanks for your reply Lisa. I will send along what you have written. Good stuff to know. I did not take her questions re: offspring to be "putting words" in anyone's mouths but I know we all read things how we see things.

Thanks too aAndrea - will be sure to send your positive thoughts to Susan as well.

[rmholt]

@sinbaje:

Nay Marie - yours are not the only posts to be deleted. My dripping in sarcasm post seems to have disappeared into thin air - luckily I have a copy of it if anyone cares to know what we are replying too. Nothing more absurd (or confusing) then to read replies to things that are no longer there.

Silly really we have to have a moderator step in to take care of things as though we are children vs the adults I thought we all were. And as you say - only certain posts from certain folks are targeted. Double tsk.

Heh! Kind of a waste of good material (sarcasm) but c'est la vie.

I dont say much about my dogs bc I see no reason to talk to anyone but buyers and co breeders and folks who are genuinely interested. I'm not exactly sure I have seen moderation done in precisely this way, but WTH.

[rmholt]

@sinbaje:

With out the dripping sarcasm - should make this a legal post:

I never said you specifically stated anything. However the implications were certainly there, in many of the postings not just yours, for people (sans Marie) to fill in the blanks and think badly or negatively about the reasons why they have not been submitted. I know how I read it and know from several private exchanges I was not the only one. Therefore I personally felt the need to find out vs just taking said implications as being based on any kind of fact.

I disagree. Whose impression should I give but my own?? How else does one start a conversation or query if not to give a bit of background based on my thoughts? Would you rather I send her a 'copy and paste' of all the posts and let her judge for herself? I would be more than happy to - folks just need to give me permission to do so and it is done!

Again - I never gave her particulars of who said what only what this readers overall impression was. And while I agree you never "said" anything per se, IMO, writing an open ended statement such as "obviously there was a reason she was not submitted" leaves much for the reader to fill in - which is of course where implications et al come in.

[qoute] In the end, I really have no interest in these particular imports and if submitted they would be judged as all the others have.

And THAT is the beauty of living in a world we do - interest is not forced on those who have none. I think that was KathyB's point - if they are not your cup o'tea - then you never have to use them but don't take away or make the decision for someone else who might have an interest.

Thanks for your reply Lisa. I will send along what you have written. Good stuff to know. I did not take her questions re: offspring to be "putting words" in anyone's mouths but I know we all read things how we see things.

Thanks too aAndrea - will be sure to send your positive thoughts to Susan as well.

The original tanza post is still up and Susan et al can make their own decisions about implications.

[rmholt]

@sinbaje:

Hi Patty,

If you are really interested in knowing the answer I would highly suggest ask the folks that are responsible for the Benin Avuvi's. So as not to post their private info to a public group -email me and I can send you contact info. Or if you are a BCOA member - look up: Susan Patterson, Anne Humphries and Brenda Greenberg Jones and drop them a line or give them a call. (I do not not include Marie cuz we know where she is and how to locate. I do not include Robert cuz I have no contact info for him but the others might) IMO, they are the only ones who can answer that question fully - the rest of us can only speculate and to be honest I would rather listen to fact than speculation.

As for Avuvi's being a distinct breed with the AKC - I am not sure what you mean unless you are refrring to the Avuvis of which Manu has written? If yes - I seem to recall Marie stating that Manu's dogs are not the same as the Benin but confusingly they share the same name so perhaps that is where the problems arise?

<shrug>I do not know but until such time that 1) they do not submit the dogs and the studbook is closed or 2) they submit but are denied - we can not say unequivaclly what they are or are not as there is no genetic test to prove or disprove otherwise.

Sure we can have our opionions but that is all it is - our opinion and only worth the monitor we type it on.

Again - go to the source(s) if you are truly interesrted.</shrug>

Avuvi is a fon word meaning Little Dog - it isnt the more common word for dog. Fons live along the West African Coast, in the southern part of several contiguous countries. North Benin has a whole different set of tribes and languages.
The name of Manu's dogs and our Benin dogs is coincidental to the fon language and the species (dog) and with Robert having contact with Manu. If you look at the BCOA guidelines for African imports you can see exactly where the Avuvis we speak of here are from. Manu has no connection with us. She did help out James J I believe with his dogs in a completely separate country/plan/expedition. Going back and googling Avuvi will bring in a lot of preliminary stuff by Robert, not necessarily relevant to the project related to the AKC/BCOA. This information can be used intentionally or unintentionally to confuse the picture and has been so use caution in interpreting it.