iamshack

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 10:11 PM) Dammit you caught me! There truly are only 3 vegan people that look like that in the entire world. You actually never met me either. I sent in a paid 6'4" extremely athletic actor to meet you guys up for drinks at Dylan's. **cough** Hey Sqwert, do most synthetic protein formulas fit into a vegan lifestyle? Is that what a lot of the more athletically- inclined vegans do for protein? Or is it strictly natural protein mostly?

I rarely ever eat red meat. Maybe once or twice a month, in a beef stew or something. I may have a burger if I am on vacation. I never eat steaks. However, I do eat chicken and pork. I eat chicken probably 4 times a week, mainly as a source of protein, although I have been gradually cutting back more and more and adding other sources of protein, such as nuts. I also drink 2 protein shakes a day to make up for my lack of meat consumption. I'm not sure I could ever entirely eliminate meat from my diet, but I do eat far less than the average American, and I am reducing the amount that I do eat more and more each year I feel. I need to continue to look for other sources of protein that are versatile and that I enjoy.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 09:50 AM) God I don't even know where to begin. I just find it astonishing that the lifestyle I lead is deemed by some as being hypocritical. Let me provide you a little more insight as to the way I view the world and the actions I take to minimize my negative impacts (and I’m not stating these to be some kind of show-off): I do not participate in the direct, intentional killing on any animal for the purposes of my diet or clothing. There are literally billions of animals intentionally killed for these purposes each year in the U.S. alone. By doing this I also am not contributing to the enormous amounts of food, water, and land used to maintain this system of billions of animals. My paycheck does not contribute to the enormous amounts of animal waste product and methane gasses that pollute our air and land. I make all attempts to walk, bike, or take public transportation whenever possible. My wife and I put less than 5K miles on our car each year. We purchase an CSA share from a local organic farm to provide us with fruits and vegetables. We also proactively purchase as many local, organic, and fair trade products that we can. We donate to multiple charities that range from wildlife preservation, animal rescue, and doctors without borders. For someone to insinuate that my views and actions are nothing but hypocritical because the very impactful decisions I make don’t go far enough because I don’t live in a clay house under an apple tree and only subside on apples that fall from the tree and consume nothing else...well that’s preposterous. These actions I take dramatically reduce my carbon footprint and minimize unnecessary suffering of animal life and shouldn’t be easily dismissed because an animal has been unintentionally run over by a tractor when my corn was picked. For someone to equate that run over animal with the factory farm system of intentional pain and suffering and ultimately death is absurd. These are not apples to apples and you're being disingenuous by stating that. This whole argument reminds me of the early debates in the filibuster about climate change. The climate change deniers completely dismissed everything because Al Gore has a large house. That’s it. He has a big house so that means climate change doesn’t exist, no one should take steps to reduce their footprint, and the theory is automatically false because he is a 100% hypocrite. So I might as well eat tons of meat, purchase fur coats, kick dogs in the head (because they might not really feel pain anyway), and drive an H1 everyday to the corner post office instead of walking because I am nothing but a hypocrite right now because I eat fruits and vegetables (they might feel pain!) and use the Internet. It’s an all or nothing proposition. Unless I live in that clay hut under the apple tree then everything I’m doing is meaningless. And I apologize if sharing my viewpoints come off as preachy to everyone. That is not my intention. I have not demanded that any one of you change anything in your lifestyle. Sqwert, I am very aware of what you do to try and 1) reduce unnecessary animal suffering; 2) reduce your carbon footprint; and 3) support local businesses/individuals who seek to provide services for others with your same mindset. At no point in time did my argument suggest that these are fruitless or worthless exercises. At no point in time did I suggest that making an effort to do everything you can to not support factory farms or industrial pollution in general is a fruitless or worthless exercise. What I said was this: and What I am questioning is your reasoning and logic for drawing the line where you do. I disagree with it, and I think it is based-upon your ability to identify with certain creatures because they are more similar to you than others. For all the wide-ranging behaviors and beliefs that arise on the basis of your your viewpoint, one would think that viewpoint would stem from something other than your ability to recognize or sympathize with an animal's physiological reaction of pain. Secondly, where I said your position is hypocritical is not in all the actions you take to try and be a good environmental steward and a friend to animals, but in openly criticizing others for their desire and willingness to eat meat, while you desire and have a willingness to do other things that are as destructive to the environment or to animals, such as use frill-ish gadgets that utilize fossil fuels. Your ability to overlook one set of behaviors that you are unwilling to give up because you enjoy them too much, while criticizing others for another set of behaviors because you have been able to avoid participating in those behaviors, is what I would call hypocritical. In no way does that mean these issues do not exist or are fanciful. In no way am I arguing that there is nothing that can be done to help or ease the problem, either. I'm merely saying that to arrive at the conclusion that one set of behaviors is acceptable, while another set is not, even though many of them lead to the same or a similar result, simply based upon the criteria of whether the pain suffered by an organism is recognizable to you or not, while simultaneously condemning others who may disagree or partially disagree with you, is very hypocritical in my opinion. This is not anywhere close to the same as saying nothing that you do accomplishes anything, or that I disrespect your efforts, or that the problem of farm factories and industrial pollution which causes damage to the ecosystem is nonexistent. What I am saying is that tremendous difficulty comes in when trying to draw a line in the sand, or to make value judgments of other people, because of the fact that almost every action you take by living in our industrialized culture has some far-reaching, complex consequence to the environment and ecosystem. It's difficult enough to try and grasp what those consequences are, with the limited information and experience that we have, let alone to start making philosophical judgments of others based on their behaviors, in all but the most extreme of cases, such as Michael Vick's. So in closing, please don't interpret my criticism of your position as an attack on your way of life or your belief system, because it certainly is not. We're basically pulling from the same rope here, honestly. My criticism is targeted more at the reasoning for the distinctions you make, and then your judgment of others based on those distinctions. Ultimately though, we have arrived at a very similar philosophical destination, and I think you are aware of that from my posting on these and other issues over the course of the last few years.

This reminds me of that traverler's insurance commercial where all the animals are playing together near the shore...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 11, 2011 -> 01:04 AM) If you want to get philosophical, most humans have no concept of time at all. There is some crazy thing that if you took the history of Earth and converted into 365 days, human existence would be limited until the final hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic...and_periods.svg). Its almost unimaginable to comprehend what the year 3000 would look like (if compared to human progression from 0-2000), let alone what the year 1million would look like. And that is still such a small scale compared to the universe. Some stars in the sky that we see today, have been gone for millions of years. But I dont think there is anything right or wrong about nature, things just are. The real truth is we all make up fake rationalities and rules that govern our lives that dont really mean anything at the end of the day. Well that's for certain. And I don't mean for Sqwert to think I don't respect him for his position, because I think it's admirable. But on the other hand, I don't think it's right to be preachy about it either.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 10:15 PM) Well ignoring the possibility of a relapse, drugs ravage your body, and it seems to me that he's been banged up a bit every single year, including last year during his MVP run. For that reason alone, he isn't a great bet long-term. Add in the possibility of a relapse, and it's scary to invest in him long-term. I'm sure they could structure the contract so that it could be voided should it be proven that he was taking some form of illegal drugs. As for the issue of whether his past drug use has damaged his body such that it will cause an earlier decline in performance than an otherwise healthy player, you'd have to trust your medical staff on that one.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 11:27 PM) Im not going to fight another person's battles, but Im pretty sure the distinction that was being made was "intentionally". Hurting animals via using the internet, or just being a human (undoubtedly the creation of the hospital where you were born hurt some animal) is not intentional, those would be more like incidental and consequential damages. People can only be responsible for so much, some people choose not to directly buy a product that was made from a killed animal. A lot is out of human control. The point is he tries to minimize animal death as much as possible. You cant attack the position just because its impossible to live and not hurt animals at all. Im sure many vegans if possible would try and live without harming any animals, it just isnt possible. We all draw a line in the sand some where, and at the end of the day all that matters is if in our own mind we are on the right side. It's not a question of intent, because he intentionally uses all kinds of devices which utilize fossil fuels and harm the ecosystem in a similar fashion to how it is harmed by our industrialized food production methods. It's a question perhaps of directness. But even still, there is not much of a distinction, IMO. You are seriously going to argue with me that using the internet is being more human at it's core than eating meat? There is a directness achieved by saying "I do not eat animals and therefore do not participate in their slaughter." But I participate in the mistreatment of animals on farm factories in no direct manner. I do not, simply by eating meat, determine the course of action taken by some hog farm in Georgia. No more do I cause that behavior does Sqwert cause the the behavior of a utility starting a new coal plant in Idaho which displaces some local bird population of its habitat and cause overall pollution to the surrounding ecosystem for miles by turning his thermostat to 68 in the summer. You are an attorney, you know we can stretch the causal connections to all kinds of lengths if need be, but at the end of the day, there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied, other than in the most extreme of cases, again, which Vick's clearly is.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 11:16 PM) I've said this before and I'll say it again: iamshack = iamawesome KHP, you've made the best arguments I have ever seen you make on this forum in this thread. Everything was very well thought out and articulated. And Sqwert, don't get me wrong...I have never hunted a mammal and do not believe I could do so unless faced with no other option by which to sustain myself. I am an animal lover, especially a dog lover, and could not fathom doing what Vick did to one dog, let alone several dogs. In fact, I probably feel more sympathy and have my emotions aroused more so in the defense of dogs than any of my fellow human beings that I have no relaton or deep friendship with. As you know I just bought a puppy and I can pretty much guarantee you that pup will receive more of my time, devotion, and caring than just about any human being I interact with will. But I just see the world we live in as so incredibly complex as to make drawing lines in the sand by which value judgments of others possible to be an entirely fruitless exerise. It's absolutely futile in my opinion. You can stop eating meat, but what if I continue to eat meat but refuse to use any device which derives it's power from a fossil fuel source? Does that make us equal? Does that make you more morally pure than me or me more morally pure than you? The consequences of the mere decision to live in an industrialized culture are so far-reaching and vast as to make a determination or moral judgment moot in all but the most extreme cases, which Vick's certainly is.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 09:19 PM) This entire paragraph seems to be a complete contradiction to everyone's argument that what Vick did was wrong. So the dog might not actually feel pain? Then why is everyone in an uproar? Why are there animal cruelty laws? I'm not saying the dog did not feel pain. What I'm saying is that I don't subscribe to making value judgments based on that distinction alone. I think it's entirely over-simplistic.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 09:19 PM) Let me put this as succinctly as possible. I choose to not intentionally harm anything in the animal kingdom. Period. I need to sustain my own survival so I have to consume plant life. We know for a fact that animals, whether they be dogs, bats or kangaroos, feel pain. This is indisputable even though you seem to imply that we're just somehow guessing this to be true. We need to nourish ourselves to survive. Consuming animals is not a requirement to achieve this. Animals are sentient. Plants are not. This entire paragraph seems to be a complete contradiction to everyone's argument that what Vick did was wrong. So the dog might not actually feel pain? Then why is everyone in an uproar? Why are there animal cruelty laws? Oh come on, Sqwert...you simply can't make some quick and dirty distinction like that. Simply living in human society is intentionally harming things in the animal kingdom. You're using the internet right now, which has caused all kinds of animal life to lose it's habitat and migrate elsewhere, most likely to a less desirable one. You consume all kinds of products that intentionally cause harm to all kinds of things in the animal kingdom which are not a necessity for your survival, but instead are a mere convenience or luxury for your enjoyment. You simply cannot divorce yourself from this reality by drawing some line in the sand and saying this is the point where I become less culpable for the destruction of other species than you are, because you eat meat and I do not. It's nice to think that, because it allows you some peace of mind and lessens the burden on your conscience, but it's a false reality based on a nonsensical premise. Are you suggesting that you need to use the internet to survive? That the use of your cell phone is imperative? That you need to live in a climate controlled living space to survive? All those things, both indirectly and directly, cause devastation to other species in varying degrees. I know it's an impossible line to draw and an unfair position to place someone in, but it's what a vegan does every time he makes a value judgment of someone who does consume meat. Why is pain some ultimate distinction? When you look at what pain is, it is simply a mechanism by which to inform the organism that the behavior engaged in is not favorable to it's chances of survival. Why is that some eligible criteria by which to attach some moralistic judgment to? Plants have the same exact survival mechanisms, they just happen to be different than ours. So because you can understand the mechanism of an animal because it is more similar to your own somehow makes it more worthy of consideration?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 08:55 PM) Shack's argument is a fun one when I some times am on the other side of this fence. Thats how I know about the carrots screaming, I usually have to defend against vegans/vegetarians. I was always good at arguing, I just some times get paid to do it. I think the closest one can get to a general rule of thumb is just to be responsible stewards of the planet. Use our intelligence and knowledge gained through experience to make the most reasonable decisions possible for the good of our own species and the good of the planet. Anything more than that and things get really messy.

QUOTE (IChaseBlackWood @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 08:20 PM) Thank you fellas!!! AND no, we are not the same height hahahaha ...he is about 2 inches taller than I am! He's 5'10", but he'll tell you around 6' if you ask him directly!! lol ..that's a running joke of his ...he's "tall as s***!" That's probably because teams like to list players as taller than they really are...he's being "enabled" by the White Sox...

It's unfortunate they wouldn't trade him to us. I would love to have him. Maybe we make a run at him in FA after Danksy is gone. Wouldn't mind them trading him out of the division though.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 07:33 PM) Because we have central nervous systems and know what it's like to have pain inflicted in us. That is why I, and many others like me, do not wish to inflict pain an animals. These are creatures that feel pain. They attempt to flee when you hurt them. They squeal in pain when injured. When you accidentally step on you're dog's foot and he yelps loudly it's because it hurts them and you feel bad. That feeling of compassion in that instance is the same feeling I have for any animal because we all share very basic things like pain receptors and the need to survive. Yeah, I understand that, and I can understand how others would dial-in on that distinction as some sort of line to try and avoid crossing. But I just don't think that line is really relevant for the very large judgment you are making. In the grand scheme of what is the ecosystem and the natural order of things on this planet, I have a hard time identifying the ability to communicate pain or fear in a way in whch we can recognize as the key distinction for what is morally right or wrong. As KHP has pointed out, other organisms react or change the course of their behavior based on how we interact with them, but they do so in a manner which is less evident or recognizable to humans. So what you're ultimately saying seems even more hypocritical to me than what many others are saying, in that your viewpoint depends simply on your perception of their suffering, rather than on whether suffering is actually occuring. So if you can perceive it, it somehow holds more weight and value to you, however, if you are ignorant of it, it is morally acceptable to overlook that suffering. One more critical point here. The reactions of sentient beings are those evolved into their genetics as a tool for survival. They developed the instinct to flee or let out cries of suffering as a tool to help them evade death. The reason those reactions manifest themselves in a manner in which we can recognize is to accomplish their purpose. Behaviors and instincts don't evolve if they are ultimately ineffective or accomplish nothing. In fact, they do precisely the opposite. So the very reason we can recognize the pain and the desire to flee expressed by sentient beings is the very reason for their presence. On the other hand, plant life has evolved to react in ways that are more relevant to their ability to survive, whether that be moving in and out of sunlight, or secreting a substance which attracts insects to fertilize them, etc. These actions, while not necessarily recognized by humans, are just as important to that organism's survival. It just so happens that that organism's survival does not so much depend on it's ability to interact with humans or other predators, but instead, some other source of danger or necessary life-giving source. So what this entire notion of the suffering of sentient beings is based entirely upon our ability to recognize an organism's survival instincts, and the emotions those instincts evoke in us as humans and our ability to feel compassion and empathy. I think such a distinction is short-sighted and incorrectly arrived at. It's based on an even more hypocritical belief that the only survival instincts worth feeling emotion or compassion for are those which we can readily recognize and relate to. That those survival instincts somehow carry more weight and value because we can identify with their suffering more, since it is believed to be similar to our own. I just see that as an incredibly flawed premise.

Badge, don't you think one needs to form a stance on the issues before one can come to a conclusion on whether or not what Mark said is hypocritical? I thought all the ensuing arguments were simply trying to hash those issues out so we could then reach that conclusion...

QUOTE (IChaseBlackWood @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 05:04 PM) Uploading pictures as we speak! Yesss, Ryan Buch and Bradley Salgado were part of the wedding party! Congrats, Bren! I expect to see you up in the booth with Hawk and Stony one night telling us about a White Sox charity the player's wives are working with!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) Apparently. You'd think it's common sense to think that the total amount of inputs over a cow's lifetime is way more than the output of meat it will provide at slaughter. And the mass amounts of waste materials the cow excretes hasn't even been touched upon. I don't think anyone can really defend these factory farms from an ecological standpoint...they certainly have one goal in mind, which is to produce the most quantity of passable quality for the least amount of money. Other than that objective, it's difficult to see much other concern for anything, whether that be the animals, the land, or even their human employees, to be honest. The difficulty with your position, Sqwert, is that every action we take within any ecological system or our greater environment has some effect on everything else. There really is no course of action one can follow which does not have some unintended consequences to it. Nature and the environment are what they are, and no matter what your moral choices or your best intentions, every choice one makes, is causing some other event in nature which will cause some organism to suffer and/or another to thrive. And the scariest part of it all, is we don't really have much of a clue what those reactions will be. So where does it all stop? What is acceptable and what isn't? Why is the presence of a central nervous system some signpost at which we stand and say, "enough is enough"? I think the position that sits best with me is to try and be the most responsible stewards of the environment and the ecosystem that we can. Unfortunately, that is not only difficult because of our limited knowledge, but also because of our capitalist economy. But as you full-well know, some companies are better about it than others, and perhaps we can illuminate their practices and promote patronage for those reasons rather than simply price. It's certainly something that is unsustainable, ultimately, as you have said. But I'm just not so sure that it is as simple to draw the line where you have.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) My jeep is sick. Talk about great timing buying it a few weeks before the storm hit. It guzzles gas quite a bit, but overall its been a great vehicle. REALLY quiet and put together well. I will say I really wanted to be tooling around in a Range Rover if only for the prestige of that car, but the Jeep offers alot more value. I miss the speed from my G sometimes, but the cruising aspect and storage space makes up for it. Sweet. The Range Rovers are very cool looking, but I don't love the interior on some of the recent models and the reliability of them is a bit frightening. I am going to be looking for something with a fairly decent size 2nd row seat as well as cargo space. No need for third row seating. Want something that isn't going to be super high to step into, as I don't want the dog to struggle to get in. The Grand Cherokee seems to be a nice midsize model with plenty of room and power; nice enough to please me and big enough for him. I'll be looking closely at the Jeeps and the Audi Q5, I imagine.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 08:19 AM) We Are All Michael Vick Oh man, Sqwert, you are going to unleash a s***storm with this one... I think there is definitely something to this debate, however, they are still distinct. There is a difference between doing this to an animal that is revered in our culture as being our #1 nonhuman companion versus the horrendous treatment meted out against other sentient creatures who happen to be part of our food chain. My guess is they are probably different levels of evil. But no matter how hypocritical it may be to pay critical attention to one and ignore the other, they are still just not the same.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 10, 2011 -> 12:32 AM) I agree with you mostly, in terms of the overall idea. Animals are actually quite a bit more intelligent than human beings give them credit for, and are far more capable of defending themselves (or evading danger) than many human beings are, if you think about it. Many people will stand there and take a beating because they are afraid to fight back, or will refuse to arm themselves because they convince themselves that some of the ridiculousness they hear is true, like violence is wrong/bad/uncalled for in "civilized" society, etc. Most animals OTOH can at least play dead to try to confuse prey, or will arm themselves with some kind of unique poison, escape capability, claws/teeth/whipping or breakable tail, etc. The difference - and where dogs come in - is that dogs are animals bred to serve human beings and provide unconditional love generations removed from the wild and existing in breeds that didn't even exist naturally, not wild animals conditioned by the harshness of nature. Dogs trust their abusers and follow the orders of their abusers because their abusers feed them and at least appear to keep them safe. What Vick did, to me, is sick, plain and simple. He took a trusting, intelligent lifeform bred to serve man and he used his higher intellect to deceive the animal into maiming itself for its master, the only benefits being gambling monies, and then when the animal was useless he destroyed it in a fashion that (at least I would hope) makes people want to puke. Most people are going to be naturally anthropocentric in the way they think, and that's what law is based on. The law says what Vick did was wrong, but really not all that wrong, basically akin to selling some coke, vandalising a neighbor's property, stealing some money, etc. According to law, what Vick did is perfectly acceptable in other areas of the world, and at least not all that atrocious here. But you're not supposed to adjust your own concept of what is right based upon what the justice system says. Law isn't the issue here, morality is, which is actually a separate thing, and it boggles my mind when people constantly try to override the moral understanding of others with some remark about Vick "doing his time," or "atoning," or whatever. All that s*** relates to law, not individual morality - even an apology means absolutely nothing in this world. So as a purely moral issue, no, in my eyes Vick doesn't at all deserve to be let off the hook, no matter what the legal system says. The moral punishment for his crimes, which cannot be enforced by any legal system, is that Vick must go through the rest of his life being hated like cancer by a wide swath of humanity for being the scum he is. MB was nice about what he said. Perfectly nice. And he is in no way wrong for saying it. The bolded is the key here. Domesticated dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be a natural companion of human beings. We have bred them to see human beings as members of their pack, using their natural tendencies to take a place in the hierarchy of that pack and see the human being as the alpha member of that pack. Therefore, dogs will seek to follow the desires of the alpha member of the pack, even if it may be being ordered to take part in an act which is against its own instinct, because that instinct has been overridden by the command of the alpha pack member. While there may be nothing wrong with that dynamic, from some perspective, as you say, Vick was not putting the dogs to this task for any reasonable or even defendable purpose, but instead, for bloodsport. While this may have been acceptable in some previous time, it no longer is, and he was well aware of this. Hunting, whether something you can stomach when considering the methods undertaken by human predators or not, is part of the natural order of things. Predators target prey for sustenance, and if that is the reason for Mark's hunting, than I find that difficult to be critical of. Hunting for pure sport, whether it is explained away in some attempt to justify it by achieving some ecological or modern logistical objective, is another debate altogether. Simply put, if we are to assume the hunting Mark does is for sustenance purposes, the two situations are clearly distinct and not analogous.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 06:17 PM) Really, how many dogs do you think she has had to replace? People bond to puppies as soon as the pick them out, if your dog was a year old and your doctor said he/she has hip displasia(sp?), would you honestly go to her and say "I need a new dog"? There is no way I could do that. I think her health guarantee would hold up a lot more if it encompassed compensation for treatment as opposed to replacement of the dog. Oh, I agree 100%. I saw some guarantees for as long as 8 years. But I think this is more for those buying the dog with the intention of showing or breeding it. I can foresee really no circumstance where I could give the dog back unless it was literally right out of the crate that I discovered this.

Downloaded "The Art of Raising a Puppy," by the Monks of New Skete to the iPad. Hopefully this will provide some guidance.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 05:57 PM) From everything that I have heard from people higher up the chain and those in MBA programs/have gone through them, I would highly suggest getting work experience before you get an MBA. Agreed. MBA's seem to work best when you are adding them to a resume which features a strong base of employment experience. Then "going back" for an MBA shows a desire to take the next step up. I had a history degree and a law degree, with a lot of work experience, but no "real" job in my field for any length of time. I applied for a lot of positions in and outside of my fields of study and was often times told I was "over-qualified." Sometimes those with more degrees than experience get looked-upon as "professional students" or "theorizers" as opposed to "doers."

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) my grandfather had great danes for my entire life, and every single one of them was the friendliest dog in the world except for the last one he got. For whatever reason Marmaduke was extremely protective of the kitchen area and nobody except my grandfather could feed him because he would go after them as soon as his food was put down. The funny thing was my grandfather said "You know, I always found people that just bred Great Danes and bought them, really cheap, and they were great dogs. But when we got Marmaduke, we decided to go to a reputable breeder, we got the breeding history, his entire lineage shown to us, spent the extra money to have him registered with AKC, the whole nine yards. And Marmaduke turned out to be the worst of the bunch, I just dont understand that" FYI, im not trying to warn you away from Danes, just sharing the story If really pressed, most breeders will admit that every dog is ultimately a crapshoot. You simply never know what you are going to get. Some dogs of bad genetics or disposition turn out the be the sweetest, most wonderfully healthy dogs. Some dogs with bulletproof pedigrees turn out to be genetically inferior, or of poor temperament, etc. I wasn't concerned about the pedigree much in regards to the GSP's because of this. But with a dog of this size, having been raised with GD's, Irish Wolfhounds, and English Mastiffs, I know that their bone structures and heart health is extremely important to their prospects as healthy, happy animals. If you get a dog with a defect in bone structure or some other major issue, it can cost you tenfold or more in terms of vet bills and heartache. All that can really be done is that you breed two structurally, mentally, and temperamentally sound dogs together and hope they produce good pups. If they do, you do it again. That is basically the best you can hope for. There is a 2 year health guarantee on the dog that protects me from genetic defect. If the dog has an issue, she will replace him at no charge. He comes with a lifetime of support and guidance. But ultimately, who knows. I guess...everything seems to appear that he'll be one heck of a specimen though.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) I applied for a job at the University of Iowa and was just told they are "very interested in (my) candidacy and will begin checking your references quite soon" Wooo hooo! (Ok, not the part about having to possibly move if I am hired freaks me out a bit. lol) Congrats, AHB, always good to be wanted...going through the process will be good and allow you to ask a lot of questions that you might not ordinarily have thought about the answers to. Regardless of whether you take the job ultimately, it should be a productive process.