UKC Forums - Repeat Crosses....how often do they work?

Pages (8): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » ... Last »
Show all 186 posts from this thread on one page

UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- Redbones (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=51)
-- Repeat Crosses....how often do they work? (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=928305231)

Posted by JShelton on 03-01-2013 04:45 AM:

i dont think it would be fair to say that repeat crooses dont work. Since we have pretty much turned this into a science project i guess we will have to treat it as one. There for the repeat cross in question would have to be made and have the exact same amount of pups they would have to go to the same owners as the previous cross. the cross would have to be made pretty much the same time of year as the one before. The pups would have to be on the exact same diet, treated and trained the exact same way as the pup before. The exact same amount of time would have to be put into this hound as the one before if anything was any different it would throw this experiment completely off. DATA BASED FACTS would almost be impossible to gather because i would say there is really no way to duplicate all of these things. I would have to agree with some of the things said before. If a cross does really well once then it is tried again peopl are already interested get these pups dont really try to train the hounds properly because they think they are a miracle dog and will train themselves. Then when this doesn't happen the dog gets sold and traded around and befor long is ruined. I think this happens more in repeat crooses than in the first time crosses. I maybe wrong but thats just what I think. I wish there was a way to prove one way or another. Right now its just what we think is or is not a fact.

__________________
Jerry Shelton
606-282-8323

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 04:48 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Jackson
My first two hounds were sisters from two different litters. The one from the second cross was a better dog overall but both were nice dogs that caught me a lot of game. I've hunted with 3 dogs from the Rat xRaven cross many nights and they were coon dogs. Two were Gr.Nt. and one was Nt.Ch. I also got to see Rabble go and he was a nice dog and a Gr.Nt. I hunted with one other female from the Rat x Raven cross and the one night I saw her she hunted out and treed a coon. I think she was a Nt.Ch. These dogs were from different litters and were all nice dogs that had titles. I enjoy hunting the hunts and putting titles on dogs but just because a dog isn't put in the hunts doesn't mean they didn't turn out. Numbers and titles are useful tools but there are plenty of "handlers" out there that can title a dog. Also everyone has a different opinion on what a good dog is. I'm not a breeder or very knowledgeable about genetics. I mostly make a cross when I need a pup and most of my pups go to big game hunters and pleasure hunters but I've never had a call saying someone didn't like their pup. I made one cross three times and never noticed the pups got any better or worse. When put in the woods and exposed to the desired game they did their job. The two year old male I'm hunting now is the nicest two year old I've ever snapped a leash on and he is from a repeat cross. Pups from the first cross and second cross that were given the chance to do what is bred into them did it and from the reports I have back they are doing good. Mine is the only pup that will ever see a hunt but it doesn't make the others any less of a dog. There aren't many hunts out here. We have hunts 6 weekends a year and they are about 250 miles away from me and I'm closer than most guys out here. Makes it tough for most to put titles on a dog. I haven't in my limited experience noticed a difference in the quality of dogs from successive crosses. I've hunted with some big name dogs in other parts of the country. It's tough to judge a dog in two hours of one night but the one thing I've noticed is they are all just dogs same as mine. A top handler can do a lot more with an average dog than an average handler can do with a top dog for the most part. We all like win slips, trophies, and that coveted title in front of a dogs name but it isn't the only measuring stick of a dogs ability. Unless one could gather up all the pups from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd cross etc. and hunt them against each other how would we ever know? I'm just happy when a dog I raise wins a little in the hunts or trails an old lion track for miles on end and trees that lion and stays treed all day until I get there or works a bobcat through some of the purest hell on earth and catches it and holds it for hours on end waiting for me to get there. Those pups don't know which cross they are from, only that there is something ingrained in them that makes them run to catch and tree to stay. Sorry for the book and to make it short I haven't seen a difference in the quality of pups from successive litters, they are all pretty similar in build, voice, tempermant, brains, and ability.

Again, we are getting into the realm of what if and we are trying to put a number on pleasure dogs...which is impossible. This Is why I asked to stick to only repeat crosses where the first cross produced several titled dogs....that way we are not trying to compare pleasure dogs to competition dogs. If the first cross made their way to competition hunts....then why on earth would the repeat crosses from the same two dogs be somehow almost entirely kept out of competition hunters hands?
And I thank you for the info on the rat x raven dogs....but if that is a cross that did in fact produce more titled dogs from a repeat cross than the first one...we need to see the breakdown of the numbers of titled dogs from each litter.
Please dont misunderstand me....I am not saying that every dog from a repeat cross will be a dud. I am saying that in every instance, and this is out of over a hundred instances of mostly well known repeat crosses where the first one produced a good number of titled dogs....repeat crosses produced far fewer if any titled dogs. I am not denying that repeat crosses have not produced a few that were titled and some may have been as good or better than dogs in the first cross.. but show me some proof that there were just as many titled dogs in the repeat crosses. As of yet, even with all these posts I have not seen one shred of proof that repeat crosses work as good as 1st time crosses and if they do....or even if it was 50/50....there should be plenty of proof because repeat crosses are made in every breed each year and have been for years and years....so why is all the fact based proof showing them as no where near as good as first time crosses???

__________________
Shane Maxey
Proud lifetime member of the NRA
Banshee Wildlife Products
Hoosier Outlaw / Moonlight Redbones
1994 American Redbone Coonhound Association Hunter of the Year
My first 3 redbones raised from pup's were:
Dual Gr.Ch. Outlaw Billy the Kid
Dual Gr.Ch.- PKC Ch. Outlaw Timber Girl
Dual Gr.Ch. Outlaw Scarlett Fever
(((( Current Favorites ))))
2013 AKC Ladies World Champion
Gr.Nt.Ch.- PKC Ch- AKC Ladies World Ch Ky Moonlight Breanna
Gr.Nt.Ch. - PKC Ch. Ky Moonlight Woody
Dual Grand Moonlight Deana
Dual Grand Ch.- PKC Ch. Moonlight AfterShock
Dual Grand Nighty Night Amber
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Big Time Britt
Gr.Nt.Ch Outlaw Billy Jean
Gr.Nt.Ch-PKC Ch.-2015 PKC Red Days Champ Outlaw Cherry Bomb
Gr.Nt.Ch Outlaw Breeze
Gr.Nt.Ch.Gr.Ch. All Grand Outlaw G-Man (over $20.000 won in PKC & CHKC) 2019 Southern Redbone Days Overall Champion
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Outlaw Mac
Gr.Nt.Ch. Classy Cali (Heavy Outlaw bred)
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Cat Scratch Fever
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Addiction
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Overdose
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Jinx
Gr.Nt.Ch. Moonlight Banshee
"Always outnumbered...Never outgunned!"
To enjoy lots of pics and videos of out redbones, find me on Facebook
as Shenandoah Maxey

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 04:53 AM:

Re: Shane

quote:
Originally posted by timber hunter
I hear what your saying, but your theory is still based on so many variables. I really do not see how it can be accurate. The only way that you would ever be able to prove this theory completely is get that proven cross, raise every pup in every litter, train every single one of them and then log all the information. Have a bunch of guys lined up to campaign them and see how it all works out!

I would guess this would take up to 10 years. If you have the money and the cross, you could really learn a lot. When you were done, I would say you would then be able to write a book and maybe get rich, hehe!!

Without doing that for me it's just a whole bunch of stats that really can be made to look a certain way!

My Father-in-law once raised and trained a whole litter of Bluetick's and all of the pups turned out to be coondogs. I think he made all of the ones he kept after he had them trained into NITECH or GRNITE. He never made the cross again, kinda a shame!

John...this is not something we have to prove in the future....it is easy to prove from crosses that were made in the past. Out of over a hundred repeat crosses I have looked at....none produced an equal or better % of titled dogs than the first cross. Has it been proven in my mind...yes. what if 5 or 6 cases to the contrary are found and proof tested and found to be factual? Well that is still 5 or 6 vs over one hundred so I think I will be keeping my current point of view on this topic.

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 04:56 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by JShelton
i dont think it would be fair to say that repeat crooses dont work. Since we have pretty much turned this into a science project i guess we will have to treat it as one. There for the repeat cross in question would have to be made and have the exact same amount of pups they would have to go to the same owners as the previous cross. the cross would have to be made pretty much the same time of year as the one before. The pups would have to be on the exact same diet, treated and trained the exact same way as the pup before. The exact same amount of time would have to be put into this hound as the one before if anything was any different it would throw this experiment completely off. DATA BASED FACTS would almost be impossible to gather because i would say there is really no way to duplicate all of these things. I would have to agree with some of the things said before. If a cross does really well once then it is tried again peopl are already interested get these pups dont really try to train the hounds properly because they think they are a miracle dog and will train themselves. Then when this doesn't happen the dog gets sold and traded around and befor long is ruined. I think this happens more in repeat crooses than in the first time crosses. I maybe wrong but thats just what I think. I wish there was a way to prove one way or ano
ther. Right now its just what we think is or is not a fact.

again...didn't say they never work to produce a few good dogs....said there is no proof that they work to produce as many great dogs as the first cross.....still waiting on evidence to the contrary....

Posted by timber hunter on 03-01-2013 04:59 AM:

shane

well we are just going to have to agree to disagree!! You will never prove to me that this theory is accurate without more stats than just titled dogs!!

Posted by JShelton on 03-01-2013 05:17 AM:

i dont know if you are really trying to get somone to prove you wrong or if you just want somone to tell you that you are right. You base everything on titled hounds. Dont you think that if the first cross produced all titled hounds other people than a comp hunter would be interested in a pup from a repeat cross. If the second cross was made and noone comp hunted those hounds in your eyes the cross would be a failure because there is no paper trail. Is that what you are saying? Anyone out there can argue this point however they want to. I just dont think that we can dismiss all repeat crosses due to all the variables involved.

__________________
Jerry Shelton
606-282-8323

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 05:34 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by JShelton
i dont know if you are really trying to get somone to prove you wrong or if you just want somone to tell you that you are right. You base everything on titled hounds. Dont you think that if the first cross produced all titled hounds other people than a comp hunter would be interested in a pup from a repeat cross. If the second cross was made and noone comp hunted those hounds in your eyes the cross would be a failure because there is no paper trail. Is that what you are saying? Anyone out there can argue this point however they want to. I just dont think that we can dismiss all repeat crosses due to all the variables involved.

No...thats not what I am saying.....I was very clear and concise bout my question and the reason for using titled dogs in the first cross...and yet nobody seems to want to use the criteria I gave....they want to include all sorts of other things that cloud the facts and cannot be proven. Titled dogs in 1st cross vs titled dogs in repeat crosses is a very simple thing to prove or disprove. If I can find all kinds of evidence pointing one way....I would think that someone could at least produce a little pointing the other way. I guess people turned a blind eye to this for many many years....and some people will continue to do so. I started this post to get people thinking and to get them to seek the truth out for themselves without just taking my word for it. I guess I will let people look at the evidence from both sides of this issue and they can draw their own conclusions. There is a reason why many of the best breeders in all breeds do not make repeat crosses even though they would be very lucrative for them to do so....and for many, they feel like the quickest way to lower their dogs % on the reproducer list is to make repeat crosses that don't work as good as first time crosses. I am headed to the woods now with my little round redbone to tree a few coons....have a good night everyone

Posted by Kevin Jackson on 03-01-2013 06:16 AM:

You already have an answer in your mind so why even ask? Do you feel a need to prove how wise you are? Nobody has an answer to suit you unless they answer to agree that you are right. If you listen you might learn a lot from a dummy.

__________________
Montana Red Kennels - Redbones that catch game and hold it untill you get there.

Gr.Nt.Ch.Gr.Ch. 'PR' MT Red's Bobcat Bustin Billy

Nt.Ch.Ch. 'PR' MT Red's Coon Slammin Sage

Gr.Nt.Ch.Gr.Ch. 'PR' MT Red's Tree Bangin Buddy

Gr.Ch. 'PR' MT Red's Kim's Cat Crazy Maci

'PR' MT Red's Tree Ringin Rhea

(406)564-3061

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 06:31 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Jackson
You already have an answer in your mind so why even ask? Do you feel a need to prove how wise you are? Nobody has an answer to suit you unless they answer to agree that you are right. If you listen you might learn a lot from a dummy.

I already stated why I would like to prove or disprove this question....maybe you didn't listen to what I was saying. Very early in this post I said that I have done my homework....so what did that tell you?
Facts are facts....if this is proven or disproven....it wont make me wiser....I already stated that I share this view with others and that my views on this are not original and I am not trying to take credit for this idea. Everything I do is to help breed better redbones. I am not trying to make money from people or win a popularity contest. I know this is not a widely held belief or view....but I feel like it should be because ALL of the facts support it being true at least 90 or more percent of the times its done. I ask for fact based evidence and I get not one single piece of evidence disputing what I have found through my studies of these types of crosses over the years. I will say this once again...show me some evidence.....if there is any it cant be that hard to locate. I asked people not to cloud this thread with opinions and 80% of the responses are just that...opinions or guesses.

Posted by Tim Figg on 03-01-2013 12:28 PM:

i agree with timber hunter. also have you heard of embryo transfer. why do you think it is done? and why people spend thousands todo it.

__________________
tim figg
third place buddy hunt 1982 non cast winner

Posted by Kevin Jackson on 03-01-2013 04:01 PM:

You have done your homework so share your facts and findings. I didn't give you an opinion I gave you the results from repeat crosses I have made. Please don't talk down to me like I'm a child, it's very disrespectful. You asked for fact based answers so I told you how my repeat crosses turned out. Do what you want and I'll do what I want. I would like to see your dogs go sometime. Can that be arranged? About the only time I get back east is redbone days. You should make a trip out here sometime and we'll go tree some Montana coons.

Posted by Richard Lambert on 03-01-2013 04:25 PM:

It seems to me that "in theory" a repeat cross would be the same as the first cross. But in my limited experience, it did not work out that way. Of course, I only have a very limited experience. I crossed Mongo X Sweetie twice and the second cross did not turn out as good as the first. I can not explain why it didn't, I just know that it didn't. I first bred her to Lil Zack and out of 4 pups that cross produced 1 Gr Nt, 1 Nt Ch and 1 that had 5 seconds and 5 thirds but no first. I then bred her to Mongo and that produced 2 Gr Nt's and 1 nice pleasure hound. I bred her to Mongo again and that produced 0 titled dogs.

Posted by JShelton on 03-01-2013 05:06 PM:

Richard why were the pups not title. were they not good enough or what

__________________
Jerry Shelton
606-282-8323

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 05:30 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Jackson
You have done your homework so share your facts and findings. I didn't give you an opinion I gave you the results from repeat crosses I have made. Please don't talk down to me like I'm a child, it's very disrespectful. You asked for fact based answers so I told you how my repeat crosses turned out. Do what you want and I'll do what I want. I would like to see your dogs go sometime. Can that be arranged? About the only time I get back east is redbone days. You should make a trip out here sometime and we'll go tree some Montana coons.

I wasn't talking down to you Kevin....maybe instead of saying you didn't listen to me when I set the criteria I should have said you are not understanding or that you are not sticking to the criteria requirements. The information you gave about your dogs is not usable in this case because what I asked for specifically was the number of titled dogs from the 1st cross and then the number of titled dogs from any repeat crosses. There are probably 50 to a hundred or more repeat crosses made each year across all coonhound breeds and this has been going on for as long as I have been hunting.....so it stands to reason if there is so much evidence of repeat crosses not producing as many titled dogs as first time crosses....then it's probably because they don't produce the same number of good or great dogs that are capable of earning those titles....doesn't it? Have I formed an opinion on this subject....yes. Do I know the exact % of the time it doesnt work vs it worked....no. That is my reason for making this thread. I am doing some fact finding and I am asking others to report any facts that they may have. I am not trying to finger point or belittle anyones dog because it may be from a repeat cross. I have me female bred to a dog from a repeat cross. He is a great dog and I have never seen evidence of a dog from a repeat cross not being as good a reproducer as a dog from the first time cross. The way I look at this issue is this...
Repeat crosses are almost always made because of great results from the first cross. So if breeders who got great results from the first cross realize that they have a good proven reproducer...why would they want to make a repeat cross that most of the time will not be as good as the first cross, when they could make a different cross and maybe get even better results.
If we want to put the redbone breed back on top...this is one of those little things that we need to talk about and lay all the cards on the table and let breeders and potential pup buyers look at all the evidence. Personally...I would never buy a pup out of a repeat cross even if it produced 5 world champions the first time it was made...but thats just me and its based on my experiences over the years. Thats not to say there might not be another world champ in that repeat cross...but the odds are against there being 5 more world champs like the first cross. I am simply making the case and asking for evidence to the contrary so that everyone in this breed can see with there own eyes and make up their own mind.

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 05:59 PM:

As for evidence to support my theory that repeat crosses do not work as good as first time crosses....I will tell you about some that I am personally familiar with.
The cross that me and Danny's Gr.Nt.Ch. Breanna female and he Gr.Nt.Ch. litter mate Britt are from was made 3 times. Bree and Britt are from the first cross and with their win list and titles, I consider that cross a pretty good one. Of the other two repeat cross I know of 1 other female who has a win in competition and thats it. Now many of these pups are in the hands of competition hunters and the youngest are over 2 and 1/2 yrs old because these litters were spaced every 6 months....but so far, only one looks to be headed for a title.
Outlaw Jessie was crossed on Timber Jack in 1990 from that cross came 2 dual grands and I believe another nt.ch. then in 1991 she was crossed on Burning Ben. From that cross came 2 Dual Grands and 2 nt.ch.
Then in 1992 Jessie was again crossed on Timber Jack and the result was 1 nt.ch....then in 1993 she was again crossed on Burning Ben and the result was 1 Gr.Nt.Ch.
So as you can see the repeat crosses were not as good. They did not produce an equal or greater number of titled dogs from the repeat crosses.
Dont think for a minute that they didn't get into the right hands either. At the time the 2nd cross on T.J. was born...a female called Timber Girl from the 1st t.j. cross was winning almost everything a redbone could win so their was a long list of the right people wanting those pups. Same thing with the 2nd Ben cross...Billy the kid was from the 1st cross and won redbone days that year so there was an equally long list for that repeat cross and I know that Alton got those pups into the right hands as well.
I have also personally bought several pups in the past when I hunted walkers from repeat crosses and none ever made an above average coondog even though the first cross produced many great titled dogs.
Lets look at one of the all time great reproducers in the walker breed....stylish hickory nut harry. The cross harry is from produced 3 gr.nt.ch. and 2 nt.ch. I believe. Now this cross was repeated 3 or 4 times and out of those repeat litters I can only find evidence of 4 more titled dogs coming from all of the repeat litters put together.....that is less than the first litter produced by itself.....and everyone who was anyone wanted one of those pups so you can be sure most made it into capable hands.
Is anyone else starting to see the same pattern here that I am?
We heard similar recounts from Kelly and Richard and I would love to hear more evidence from others as well if they have a similar story based on facts about repeat crosses that they have made.

Posted by Paul Frederick on 03-01-2013 06:11 PM:

I tend to agree that repeat crosses do not generally throw as good as the original did. However, there is always an exception.

GRNITE Cannon's Kansas Joe Boy was bred to GRNITE Shortridge's Queen twice.

First litter DOB 5/22/83:
GRNITE Stanton's Ozark Sally
NITECH Herrell's Queen
NITECH Lester's Cole
WLDNITE GRNITE Kansas Sizzlin Heat

Second litter DOB 1/22/84
NITECH Superior Plott Bess
GRNITE Howell's Bayou Saber
GRNITE Sybert & Otto's Sarge

Seems like this cross worked both times they made it.

__________________
Paul Frederick
319-371-6362

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 06:16 PM:

That is the best example I have seen Paul.
Would still like to find one where a repeat cross produced equal or greater number of titled dogs. I am sure there has to be a few times that has happened. But I think most of the evidence makes repeat crosses like the one you just listed a very rare occurrence and the odds seem stack against this outcome most of the time.

Posted by oklared on 03-01-2013 06:29 PM:

I BELIEVE SCIENTIFICALY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR REASON, THE DNA IS THE SAME, YOU CAN MAKE THIS SAME ARGUMENT ON FROZEN SEMIN VERSES LIVE BREEDING. ON THIS SECOND CROSS THING EVERY THING WOULD HAVE TO BE THE EXACT SAME SUCH AS OWNERS TRAINERS HANDLERS TOTALY SAME TRAINING SAME TERRITORY EVERY T EXACTLY THE SAME TO EVEN GET AN IDEA, JUST BECAUSE THE SECOND CROSS DIDNT SEEM AS GOOD DOESNT MEAN A THING, WHAT IF THE SECOND CROSS HAD BETTER RESULTS THAN THE FIRST. MMMMM

__________________
HOME OF 2010 HIGH SCOREING REDBONE FEMALE, DUAL CH Y2KD, #7 REPRODUCING RED FEMALE
NT.Ch. WINNER AT REDBONE SEC. 2008
3RD PL. NT.CH. 2009 BATTLE OF BREEDS AT ADA OKLA.
4TH PLACE R.Q.E 2010
2ND PLACE OVERALL AT ZONE 4 AND DOUBLE CAST WINNER 2010
WENT TO 2010 WORLD HUNT
AMERICAN REDBONE ASSOCIATION HIGH SCOREING REDBONE FEMALE OF THE 2010 WORLD HUNT
OVERALL HI SCOREING DOG AT 2010 BBCHA BLUE TIC SECTIONAL
GR.NT.CH. AT 12 and A HALF
MADE-EM SEE RED

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 07:09 PM:

Thats what I am looking for....evidence that a repeat cross turned out better...(number of titled dogs produced) than a first cross. Out of thousands of these crosses over the years....why cant we find a few?
We don't seem to have any problem finding plenty who did not produce an equal or greater number of titled dogs.....now why do you suppose that is?

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 07:13 PM:

Explain how a first time cross in walkers produced 7 pups and 6 were blanket backed and 1 open spotted....then the exact same cross is repeated and it produced 2 blanket backed pups and 6 open spotted pups? If color can vary from litter to litter...so can the traits that determine ability....agreed?

Posted by oklared on 03-01-2013 07:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Hoosier Outlaw
Thats what I am looking for....evidence that a repeat cross turned out better...(number of titled dogs produced) than a first cross. Out of thousands of these crosses over the years....why cant we find a few?
We don't seem to have any problem finding plenty who did not produce an equal or greater number of titled dogs.....now why do you suppose that is?

because the second cross did not get same treatment

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 07:26 PM:

So you are convinced that out of thousands of cases of repeat crosses....none ever get the same treatment or chance? I can tell you for a fact that the ones I have been associated with did and it didnt change the outcome....

Posted by Hoosier Outlaw on 03-01-2013 07:53 PM:

Consider this...many times when a dog has won the world championship in the past...the owners of the sire and dam usually want to repeat that cross. One reason is for money as the pups will sell for a high price...and the other reason is to try to get another dog or litter as good as the first one. So this has happened many, many times...and many of the best trainers and competition hunters get on the list for those pups....so why do we not find evidence of those repeat crosses turning out equal to or higher numbers of titled dogs? Surely there are examples of first time crosses mostly going to pleasure hunters but one or two go to competition hunters and win big....then alot of competition hunters want the owner of the parents to repeat the cross and the next cross goes mostly to competition hunters......If that repeat cross was as good as the first....why did it not produce more titled dogs? This will never be proven 100% but the preponderance of the evidence supports the theory that 2nd crosses do not produce as many good or great dogs as first time crosses and while we can debate what we think...the proof stands there glaring back at us. I would like very much to see some fact based proof to the contrary....but it will take alot of examples to sway me from what I have already seen over the years as I have studied repeat crosses.

Posted by Tim Figg on 03-01-2013 10:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Jackson
You already have an answer in your mind so why even ask? Do you feel a need to prove how wise you are? Nobody has an answer to suit you unless they answer to agree that you are right. If you listen you might learn a lot from a dummy.

my thoughts exactly kevin. you hit the nail on the head

__________________
tim figg
third place buddy hunt 1982 non cast winner

Posted by JShelton on 03-01-2013 10:12 PM:

i see that there is no chance of anyone changing your mind on this subject. You have stated over and over of the failures you have heard of. So why start the conversation?

__________________
Jerry Shelton
606-282-8323

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Pages (8): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » ... Last »
Show all 186 posts from this thread on one page