Talk:Bandog/Archive 3

message: ::  1.  None of your referenced 'facts' prove that Swinford was the modern developer of anything.  They only show him to be a dog breeder who fought his dogs, and got them accepted into the Fighting Dogs Journal.  According to an old friend of Swinford's, Donald Stocks, his inclusion in the magazine was merely as filler material.  Another old timer who knew Swinford, Michael Sottile Jr., also disputes the importance of Swinford's contributions as well. 24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barbara, your post needs correcting on so many levels it isn't even funny. First, Donald and I are on friendly terms...but Donald NEVER KNEW Swinford, much less was he friends with him. Donald and I are on friendly terms. We don't agree on everything, but we are indeed on friendly terms and discuss things on a semi-regular basis. Apparently, you do not know Donald or how to get ahold of him...for if you did you would know he never knew of Swinford personally. Perhaps you mean Jack Kelly? For, Jack Kelly was friends with Swinford and new his work fairly well...which is why his documented and published referrences of Swinford's work should be included. It was clearly outlined in both the referrences I provided (Kelly's and Semencic's) that Swinford's dogs were developed and used primarily for guard dogs. You should read the referrences I provided before speaking on such matters. Also, Jack Kelly's article about Swinford's work was the COVER STORY. Since when is a covery story put in as "filler?" Also, Jack Kelly who owned the SDJ also wrote about Swinford's work in his book that discussed 30 years of the SDJ. Why was it in this "overview" book that talked about 30 years of the journal (a huge amount of writting) if it was "filler?" You can't answer this because you don't have any facts or referrences. Sottile JUNIOR is not an "old timer." His father Senior was. But, JR was not there and not involved. And, although Senior was there, his dogs were not involved. As referrenced by Jack Kelly, Swinford used the APBT (which was called "Bull-n-Terrier" at that time by many "old timers" but was understood by all to be the APBT and not the "Bull Terrier." Sottile JUNIOR didn't apparently didn't know the difference because 1. he is not an "old timer" and 2. he wasn't involved.SSDA71.195.158.57 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody said you weren't friendly with Donald, nor did anyone say you were.  It's irrelevant.  Differing opinions don't mean someone is attacking the other.  As a person who was in that circle back in the day, I respect and believe what he has to say.  Perhaps it was in the overview because it was a rare "breed" being published in a pitbull journal, the bandog is a topic of interest to the pitbull community because they are cross bred with mastiffs, and because Swinford the breeder admitted to "rolling" his dogs.  That would make it an interesting piece to include in a dog fighting magazine I would think.  As for Sottile Jr.; he's an old timer to me because he was around when Swinford was. 24.45.232.201 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it up Lee.  You've never proven your exaggerated claims about Swinford because you can't.  If what you claimed were true more experienced people would back it up.  They don't.  Others who were actually there don't concur with your revisionist history.  What you fail to acknowledge is no one has a problem with Swinford the problem is you refuse to use anything else that contradicts your story.  This is why you are not a credible source for bandog history.71.84.116.43 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been the only one to provide published and varifiable referrences. I would like to ask you ONCE AGAIN to site even a single publishing that suggests an opposing view.SSDA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.158.57 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   paragraph break  

message: This really must stop.  Now.  On all sides.  Comments must be related to the article.  kmccoy (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a battleground 

message: There were further personal attacks.  I archived the page to get them out of view.  I think we're done here.  I hope some people are going to hop in and improve the article. kmccoy (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ... and another new start

message: A question about the appearance section:
Is that an actual breed standard or just a description?
If it's just a description then it should be general enough to represent all bandogs, including those of the SSDA.
If it's a breed standard, then who wrote it and which breeders (or group of breeders) follow it? Saying that the SSDA follows a different standard implies that every other bandog breeder follows the one in the appearance section.77.49.135.251 07:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already agreed upon to remove the appearance section all together during the first discussion, for the exact same reasons as you have stated, there are too many variations for it to apply to everybody. When all of this is sorted one of the first things to go will be the appearance section. Vitaliy G 12:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance