Why did the KC alter staffies

First topic message reminder :

I asked this question before,Why has the kc reduced the size of staffies ,originaly staffies were 18 " at the shoulder and over 20 Kilos .

this thread needs to get back on track its why did kc alter staffies not an argument about where the withers are .

and could a certain new member please stop turning every thread they post in into said argument as your warning bar is not looking to healthy for someone that has just joined a forum .

i thank you

The scapula is the shoulder blade!

The withers are not the back.

Now back on track............

Caryll wrote:The scapula is the shoulder blade!

The withers are not the back.

Now back on track............

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/dog-anatomy-from-head-to-tail.html

read withers
read back

now we are.....back on track i.e.

RIGHT IM NOT SAYING THIS AGAIN ONE MORE ARGUMENTIVE POST AND THE THREAD GETS BINNED .
THE THREAD IS ABOUT WHY THE KC ALTERED STAFFIES NOT WHERE THE BACK AND WITHERS ARE

right calm now
if you want a discusion about back and withers start a thread in the relevant section

pedro wrote:

Caryll wrote:The scapula is the shoulder blade!

The withers are not the back.

Now back on track............

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/dog-anatomy-from-head-to-tail.html

read withers
read back

now we are.....back on track i.e.

Sorry, Wazza but I have to answer this one.....

The whole point is, a dog is measured from the withers, not the back. The diagram you have put a link to shows clearly that the withers are not the back. You do not measure from the back, you measure from the withers - ie the top of the shoulder blades.

Im starting to find this very withering

harlou wrote:Im starting to find this very withering

harlou wrote:Im starting to find this very withering

Sorry, mate. So am I!

Who give's a t0ss wither its one or the other ... the differance is about half an inch or so ... innit

sorry but lol

i think there was a song about this called WITHERing heights

In Pedro's defence, he did state that you measure "at the front leg" across the back, back merely being a general word and in fact the "back" height at the front legs is the correct point regardless of anatomical term.

Well, that depends. Some dogs have quite laid back shoulders, others have straight shoulders - the front leg is not necessarily directly underneath the highest point of the withers, which is where you measure to. The ground to the withers.

Dicon wrote:In Pedro's defence, he did state that you measure "at the front leg" across the back, back merely being a general word and in fact the "back" height at the front legs is the correct point regardless of anatomical term.

thank you,
i didn't start this p1ssing contest, but i am correct so i wont back down.
after a previous similar scenario i was banned. so this could be my last post. being right doesn't always work in ones favour when one is in conflict with the establishment.

but anyhow, read the thread, not just look at the diagram. all will be revealed.

i.e.
withers - highest point on the back.
back - from the withers to the end of the rib cage......or to the croup depending on your p.o.v.

question.
anyone here think their shoulder blades are anywhere else but their back?
get down on all fours....how about now?
still on your back?
yes?


make up your own minds & lets move on.

Pedro you were asked to keep on topic, no need to keep arguing. This is your last warning

Caryll wrote:Well, that depends. Some dogs have quite laid back shoulders, others have straight shoulders - the front leg is not necessarily directly underneath the highest point of the withers, which is where you measure to. The ground to the withers.

hmmmmm......

justa question to see if i can get on the same page.
are your a breeder/exhibitor?
have you ever been?

i'm trying to be nice.....but that statement is not true.

harlou wrote:Im starting to find this very withering

ella wrote:Pedro you were asked to keep on topic, no need to keep arguing. This is your last warning

why warn me?

i didn't start anything, i'm defending me self.....& the facts.

pedro wrote:

Dicon wrote:In Pedro's defence, he did state that you measure "at the front leg" across the back, back merely being a general word and in fact the "back" height at the front legs is the correct point regardless of anatomical term.

thank you,
i didn't start this p1ssing contest, but i am correct so i wont back down.
after a previous similar scenario i was banned. so this could be my last post. being right doesn't always work in ones favour when one is in conflict with the establishment.

but anyhow, read the thread, not just look at the diagram. all will be revealed.

i.e.
withers - highest point on the back.
back - from the withers to the end of the rib cage......or to the croup depending on your p.o.v.

question.
anyone here think their shoulder blades are anywhere else but their back?
get down on all fours....how about now?
still on your back?
yes?


make up your own minds & lets move on.

Pedro , it's not about whether you are wrong or right it's about you attempting to goad people into an argument and be very condescending yet also very childish in your manner. You are not content with accepting you have or have not won , you insist on having many more words just to try and wind people up , I am not surprised at all if you were banned from another forum for such an attitude. Fact is you couldn't speak to anyone in the street like this or you would end up flat on your back with a few people around you laughing, you choose to start a fight from the safety of your keyboard.

For your consistently goading behaviour you have just received your last warning , so feel free to post another sh1tty comment and win yourself a ban

http://www.staffordmall.com/standardhistory.htm

pedro wrote:

ella wrote:Pedro you were asked to keep on topic, no need to keep arguing. This is your last warning

why warn me?

i didn't start anything, i'm defending me self.....& the facts.

You've clearly been posting with your eyes shut and not noticed the warnings to keep on topic and stop arguing then. I will warn you when i feel like it. As Dave said one more sh**ty comment and win yourself a ban.

this forum was about why kc change the standard > you lot lot making topic go off topic i'm going get my out i a min

ella wrote:

pedro wrote:

ella wrote:Pedro you were asked to keep on topic, no need to keep arguing. This is your last warning

why warn me?

i didn't start anything, i'm defending me self.....& the facts.

You've clearly been posting with your eyes shut and not noticed the warnings to keep on topic and stop arguing then. I will warn you when i feel like it. As Dave said one more sh**ty comment and win yourself a ban.

do you prefer fiction to fact?
&, if you were contadicted when you knew you were right would you just accept that?
i have over 25 years as a registered breeder, i do have a reasonable knowledge of the subject.

but, as they say, you can't fight city hall.

we all staffy lover why do we have to get in a huge debate about things for no reason?

I think the warning to post to topic was broken by a number of people but only one person has received a warning. I don't think this is fair.

i think this topic as ran it course