[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Understanding the GSD Standard
- From: "Chris S. Kimerer" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "tanbarkgsd@xxxxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: Showgsd-l GSDList <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 18:30:24 +0000 (UTC)
D.D.When you say you looked up the definition, are you referring to Webster
Dictionary or AKC's definition? My first reactive answer would be that
undesirable would be less serious than a fault, so this is a very interesting
point you are making. After just reading the entire AKC Standard as published
on it's website, I actually only see one reference for undesirable: "An
overshot jaw or a level bite is undesirable" All the other things listed are
either faults, serious faults or disqualifying faults. So I think I
personally would stick with that undesirable is less than fault. Chris Chris
S. KimererHillside-Tanbark Kennels www.tanbarkgsd.com "where
good bloodlines never die"
From: "cudjoegsd@xxxxxxxxxxx" <cudjoegsd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 11:11 AM
Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] Understanding the GSD Standard
Listers-A recent discussion with a knowledgeable lister got me to thinking.
This could be a dangerous thing but as a confirmation judge I need all the help
I can get. In the e-mail discussion, undesirable and fault were mentioned.
After thinking over the discussion, I looked up the definition of each and was
surprised to see that "undesirable" seemed to be more serious than" fault.".
Am I incorrect in my assumption that undesirable is more serious than a fault?
I am not talking about a serious fault but what the Standard lists a just a
fault. This is a serious discussion and we need to keep cool heads when
discussing this subject.Another question would follow that if we are divided on
this then should the word 'undesirable" be removed. If so, what word or words
should replace it. D.D.
Other related posts:
