Once again.. ALL of the emails sent through Dmarc DO have the sender’s address
on it. But you must copy/paste it on your reply
Here was Kathy’s up on that post
(Redacted sender "Pinehillgsds@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Stormy Hope
On Aug 7, 2015, at 10:39 AM, edwinx@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Wanted to reply back to Kathy privately but she is a "dmarc" and I don't know
her other email address..... Kathy! only knowing you from this list , I
believe I am a good judge of personality and character, you are extremely
intelligent, logical and strong willed! Folks listen to you ( me included) we
need you on the Board next year, please consider running... Thanks Ed
Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App
------ Original Message ------
From: dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, freelist
Sent: August 7, 2015 at 10:21 AM
Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: something to think about......................last
board me...
What do I think?
I think it is a glorified puppy match and for what it costs to send a
youngster to "camp", show in a few specialty shows over a couple of weekends
so that they are performing up to the level most seem to expect I can have a
dog finished and then go play in a few performance venues or breed a bitch in
her 3rd year when I have a good chance of getting/keeping her pregnant...
that's what I think.
The numbers are going to continue to go down until we get back to "fun match"
mentality...as they should.
Kathy, member GSDCA, DVGSDC
Celebrating generations of Dual Titled TC'd Champions
visit http://www.pinehillgsds.com/ <http://www.pinehillgsds.com/>
In a message dated 8/7/2015 12:13:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
There was a discussion at the last meeting in regards to futurity judges
proposed by clubs and
I have been thinking it through for the past week ....the more I do, the more
I am feeling annoyed.
So, for those that did not tune in..............when a club hosts a futurity
they propose their slate of
judges .....when I was chair in 07 we had to put 5 names in, now apparently
it is 3.
The clubs should have the right to propose who they want as long as though
judges meet the requirements
to judge a futurity.
At the last meeting in a certain region the #1 judge proposed was discussed
by the board and THE BOARD felt
this judge should not have that assignment because they may have breed some
dogs in the area.
This is someone who has judged a futurity before, is not a licensed judge
(yea to breeder judges only) and I believe the
winner in the region the person judged went on the a victor/victrix title at
nationals.
Point here......there is a point where the board MUST step back and stop
trying to micromanage everything. The clubs
should have the right to pick who they feel will best suit them, and the
board should approve that AGAIN providing that
person is qualified to judge.
Uncle Sam doesn't need to have a finger in every pie.....................
While the futurity shares profits with the PC it is a club function and the
PC needs to take a huge step back on this one.
So, what do you think?????
Molly
Trillia GSD's bokenkampgsd1@xxxxxxx
Member GSDCC, GSDCA, Life member CKC
