# Master National 2008



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Updated












/Paul


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Watching from afar this year.....really love your stats, keep them coming.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

/paul


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

By my quick calculations, 74 called back to last series in A and 72 in B. Amazing the judging is so consistent. Total callbacks have been fairly close for each series.


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

Does anyone have callback for Group B 5th seriers. Interested in dog #72

Cindy


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

/Paul


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Just got a report. A is finished. B has about 30 dogs to run in the morning. #72 has completed all series in B without handles.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

/Paul


----------



## Chris S. (Dec 15, 2004)

Paul – thank you for the numbers. Just going by the numbers, I think if I were there, I would have liked to run in group A. Although the number of qualifiers at the end, are roughly the same, 18% dropped 1st series group B seems a little steep.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

132 dogs passed out of 275 starters..... almost 50%.

Congratulations to all!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Wow, this is probably the highest pass percentage I've seen in many years. Congrats to those that passed. 

Sorry AKC. Your cream of the crop was a big crop this year.

/Paul


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Chris S. said:


> Paul – thank you for the numbers. Just going by the numbers, I think if I were there, I would have liked to run in group A. Although the number of qualifiers at the end, are roughly the same, 18% dropped 1st series group B seems a little steep.


Bulk of the dogs dropped in B's first were due to handler error. The wind caused big scent problems and if you didn't watch your dog on the middle bird, you lost it to the right around a group of bushes and most could never recover. Would need a big over into the wind to correct.

A lost a large # on the Horse Pasture test. Judges moved the line a bit to the right and caused the middle or island bird to be a very hard mark t see and pick u[p. A lost a lot of dogs there. 
So neither flight really was much different in final #'s.


----------



## bfarmer (Aug 6, 2006)

Big congrats to Pat McHale for passing 3 out of 4 dogs this year!
Bobby


----------



## Boondux (Feb 10, 2006)

Congrats to NDRC's Dave Lybeck & Flap on their pass!


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Props to Ed & Jackie Thibodeaux for a strong showing, 4 outta 5.
Will celebrate with Boudin and Beer when he gets back to Gods
Country.

Safe Travels,

Raymond


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

R Little said:


> Props to Ed & Jackie Thibodeaux for a strong showing, 4 outta 5.
> Will celebrate with Boudin and Beer when he gets back to Gods
> Country.
> 
> ...


They are on there way today with a detour in Indiana. Dogs ran very strong. We will miss them being up here.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Boondux said:


> Congrats to NDRC's Dave Lybeck & Flap on their pass!


Clean all week, no handles. Very nice job. Dave held together nicely .


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

Congrats to Dave Lybeck and Flap--Dave is a good person and they are a great team!! Ann


----------



## Burt Fosse (Jan 12, 2007)

A big congrats to Mark Belford and Linda Twiss for running Buddy and Betsy all the way to get the passes!


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Wow, this is probably the highest pass percentage I've seen in many years. Congrats to those that passed.
> 
> Sorry AKC. Your cream of the crop was a big crop this year./Paul


But, here's the rub: according to AKC *and* many posters of RFT - a high pass percentage means that the tests were *too easy*. Ergo, therefore, qualifying at this years Master National doesn't really "mean anything".

Consider that one of the most frequent quotes on this forum is: "When I am ready to go to the Master National I want it to ‘mean something'." coupled with all those folks who "want to participate in a meaningful event like the Bend MN".

So, should all that good cheer for the 2008 qualifiers be taken with a grain of salt? The AKC reps and their RFT minions think so. 

Regarding the future: The pendulum has swung on way this year. Next year it will swing the other way: the 2009 Judges will be "encouraged" to eliminate 80-90% of the field.

In the meantime, the MNRC board will spend this year trying (once again) to accommodate AKC's demand that the number of dogs qualifying be drastically reduced. 

But, hey ... it's just a hobby. Right?

BTW, I‘m not AKC lackey .... so ...
Congratulations to all those qualifiers!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> But, here's the rub: according to AKC *and* many posters of RFT - a high pass percentage means that the tests were *too easy*. Ergo, therefore, qualifying at this years Master National doesn't really "mean anything".
> 
> Consider that one of the most frequent quotes on this forum is: "When I am ready to go to the Master National I want it to ‘mean something'." coupled with all those folks who "want to participate in a meaningful event like the Bend MN".
> 
> ...


 

First, what or who is RFT? I’m sorry but you are mistaken. You see the MN BOD has already implemented a fool proof system to ensure that only the cream of the crop qualify to run. Unlike before where just any old mutt could qualify and run, this year we truly witnessed the best HT retrievers available attend. AKC should be ecstatic. This fact is backed up by the fact that these cream of the crop dogs did the work. These tests weren’t easy, in fact how many MN’s have had a quad in them? And the distances were greater, in fact stretching the recommendations well out beyond the 100 yards. They didn’t even have to resort to elimination events, like the one you mention. Next year’s judges would be lucky to do as well and AKC I’m sure is thrilled that finally what they wanted to happen as happened. Why I bet those two AKC pointer people they sent were more than satisfied that AKC’s demands have finally been headed and implemented…..

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

If we could find out how many dogs passed with three handles or more through five series, we'd have a better idea about how the dogs were scored in order to get that pass.;-)

Testing to the Master level + Scoring to the Standard expected of a Master dog/finished retriever = Master National Pass/no "creme" necessary regards, :smile:

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> If we could find out how many dogs passed with three handles or more through five series, we'd have a better idea about how the dogs were scored in order to get that pass.;-)
> 
> Testing to the Master level + Scoring to the Standard expected of a Master dog/finished retriever = Master National Pass/no "creme" necessary regards, :smile:
> 
> kg


Party pooper....Can't you just be happy that we finally achieved the "cream of the crop..."?

/Paul


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

Hey Keith, I know of one dog who passed who didn't handle on any marks and had darn good blinds. Seems to me I breed him, he's a Bobbbie Sox grandson and Ray Muth owns and ran him. I'm darn proud to say the least.

Cindy


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

As well you should be, Cindy. I'm sure there weren't many dogs that didn't handle on ANY marks.

That said, would it bother you at all if the dog were yours and you got the same plate and ribbon as the handlers whose dogs handled in three series? I'd still like to know if any dogs passed that handled on three marks....maybe the dogs with the highest passing % in the history of the event handled on two marks or less. Maybe they WERE _that_ good.

Master NATIONAL cream indeed regards, ;-)

kg


----------



## Bug (Feb 6, 2005)

If you did not attend this event why are you responding to this thread? We that ran this event had to deal with challenging weather and challenging tests. The pride that comes with a finish is well deserved.

Marty Kress


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Why would it bother Cindy of other dogs passed? Its a HT not a FT. The important aspects are;
1. We finally have reached a solution on the high entry problem.
2. FT'ers are now showing respect to HT'ers by sending the National Club representatives to the event to promote, err support the event and offer to do reporting for them. I bet they will even go so far as to be willing to be the entry system for the MN, if the MN will accept their humble offer
3. We have reached the cream of the crop that we have desired for so long. AKC's dream has become reality.

Brother KG, there is no competition between dogs here. Please don't try and start discord by suggesting their should be. 

Now, on to more important things. Has anyone checked on Frank? Did he make it home or is he stuck on the road somewhere? I'm pretty worried something may have happened because we still don't have the article up for series 6. Its almost like he used RFTentry to post the update.....

/Paul


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2008)

I'm quite pleased that one of our 2-year old fluffy kids, Firemarks Bright Copper, finished. And I don't give a darn as to how many marks, if any, he had to handle on. 

Love coming home from a long trip to good news regards,

Melanie


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Bug said:


> If you did not attend this event why are you responding to this thread? We that ran this event had to deal with challenging weather and challenging tests. The pride that comes with a finish is well deserved.
> 
> Marty Kress


Kudos to all that passed, but since _when_ do we have to attend to comment?  Would someone please check the terms and conditions of this site to see if I'm violating any of its policies by asking a simple question that apparently is making some folks uneasy? 




> Why would it bother Cindy of other dogs passed? Its a HT not a FT. The important aspects are;
> 1. We finally have reached a solution on the high entry problem.
> 2. FT'ers are now showing respect to HT'ers by sending the National Club representatives to the event to promote, err support the event and offer to do reporting for them. I bet they will even go so far as to be willing to be the entry system for the MN, if the MN will accept their humble offer
> 3. We have reached the cream of the crop that we have desired for so long. AKC's dream has become reality.
> ...


On the three points above, I detect a HIGH sense of Cantrell-esque sarcasm. Please correct me if I'm wrong (like there's no chance _that_ will happen....).

Anything that you choose to read into my post is done so of your own accord. All I did was ask a question, apparently one that most folks don't want to answer. Don't _tell_ me that scenario wouldn't bother you. Performing to The Standard is the issue. 

In HTs, it's dog vs. test. That format has worked quite well. When the test "wins," the dog doesn't (pass). As I suggested above (which, strangely, no one has agreed with), perhaps THIS Master National was the best yet as far as testing and evaluating dog work goes. Seriously....if that is the case, then why isn't someone saying that NO dogs with three handles passed....OR, saying that no dogs passed with three handles???

Looking for the _truth_ regards, 

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Kudos to all that passed, but since _when_ do we have to attend to comment?  Would someone please check the terms and conditions of this site to see if I'm violating any of its policies by asking a simple question that apparently is making some folks uneasy?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


KG, its all sunshine and roses now...

As for how many dogs handled 3 times and passed, I have no idea. I didn't judge the event. What I do know is that there were no huge sweeping cuts of dogs in one series indicative of past events with "elimination series", nobody I've talked to has said there were any tricks like checkerboards mowed into 4 foot grass fields or remote sends where handlers have to stand on their heads. All the pictures i've been sent show good use of grounds, cover and depiction of "this is how I would actually hunt this." I've ran a lot of tests under Ron and I know him to set good tests and treat people respectfully, I have no doubts Ron was Ron with the handlers. At the end of the day isn't that what matters? The politics and games that go on with the board, the issues and now RN's is just free entertainment I consider a bonus to the whole thing. I'll save my money traveling all over the country to run the stinking thing and wait for it to come around every 4 years, but you have to admit. It sure is a lot of fun.....

/Paul


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Kudos, Paul. Well said.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> 1. We finally have reached a solution on the high entry problem.


Personally, I never did think that high entries were a problem.

But, given that "others" considered high entries to be a problem, we still had high entries. We still had a high number of dogs qualifying to attend the MN. 

The MN board has not implemented a foolproof system to ensure that the cream of the crop qualifies to run the MN. No solution has been reached!

The 5 out of 7 thing is a joke!

Numbers were kept down this year by the price of gas. That is not a solution.



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> 2. FT'ers are now showing respect to HT'ers by sending the National Club representatives to the event to promote, err support the event and offer to do reporting for them. I bet they will even go so far as to be willing to be the entry system for the MN, if the MN will accept their humble offer


Paul, do you smoke that stuff or bake it in a fudge brownie?



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> 3. We have reached the cream of the crop that we have desired for so long. AKC's dream has become reality.


Poleez. Dogs who passed 5 - 8 tests showed up. That is not a working definition of "cream of the crop." About the same number of dogs who qualified the year before the ratio rule took effect, qualified the year after.

The thing is dogs are better trained to retrieve across the board. People are better trained to handle. A rising tide is not the same as cream of the crop.

What I'd like to find the time to research: the ratio of Pro to amateur handled dogs over the last 5 years. And see how that affects passage rates.



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> They didn’t even have to resort to elimination events, like the one you mention.


That is my point: lots of dogs passed because ... the judges didn't turn it into an elimination event. But, the AKC reps - and several RTF posters - will argue that so many dogs passing points to bad judging. According to Keith, we should count total handles on marks.

The judging pendulum swinging away from silly rules regarding total number of allowable handles and trick tests does not indicate a turning point. It does confirm a well-known fact that some year’s judges allow a higher passage rate. Other years' judges try to eliminate the field - so the MN ribbon will "mean something".



KG said:


> If we could find out how many dogs passed with three handles or more through five series, we'd have a better idea about how the dogs were scored in order to get that pass.


Where does Keith get off with statements like this? I would like to see a MN rule or regulation that states that dogs handled more than 3 times in 6 series must be dropped. 

Any dog that has to be handled more than 3 times over 6 series is not, by _*his*_ definition, the cream of the crop. Following this reasoning, the owners of these [poor marking] dogs have accepted that plate under false pretenses. Those dogs that were handled 3 times or less are tainted since no one knows for sure which of the qualifying dogs are " truly good" and which dogs are "mediocre".

Sorry, Paul, but I'm sure that the AKC reps - far from being ecstatic - are pretty well convinced that this years' MN doesn't pass muster.

Next years pressure will be on the pendulum to swing the other way.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

I would much rather see 3 quick handles than 3 huge hunts!


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

K G said:


> If we could find out how many dogs passed with three handles or more through five series, we'd have a better idea about how the dogs were scored in order to get that pass.;-)
> 
> Testing to the Master level + Scoring to the Standard expected of a Master dog/finished retriever = Master National Pass/no "creme" necessary regards, :smile:
> 
> kg


Keith, they ran 6 series and we were able to work/watch 5 of the 6. We only missed the Horse Pasture test.

My wife worked the line at several of B flights tests and the notes taken were very detailed on the dogs. Weather conditions played a big role in handles on the first day as well as the Wednesday running of A at the horse pasture. Most of what we saw wsa pretty clean work. Blind work dropped many dogs.

Several tests were given away due to wind, and thus to be fair, and because they did not get the answers they wanted, callbacks were larger than most had ever seen. You could tell the judges wanted a balanced evaluation. 

IMO, the quad was a wasted test the way it was set up.. The wind gave away the marks for both flights. Different line or wind and it would have been a nice test. Again, wind was a big factor in the callbacks.

I cannot say for certain if any 3 handles passed, but I know of 4 that did not as well as 1 with 2 handles who did not qualify.

Overall, all of the tests we saw were designed well and required a well balanced dog to finish. With few exceptions, I saw very good Master level dogs and spend a lot of time with a rep from the AKC who agreed. ( no he was not a pointer guy)

IMO, the 5 of 7/8 of whatever, did present dogs that should be there and next years judges will have a tough act to follow in terms of balance and fairness.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> KG, its all sunshine and roses now...
> 
> As for how many dogs handled 3 times and passed, I have no idea. I didn't judge the event. What I do know is that there were no huge sweeping cuts of dogs in one series indicative of past events with "elimination series", nobody I've talked to has said there were any tricks like checkerboards mowed into 4 foot grass fields or remote sends where handlers have to stand on their heads. All the pictures i've been sent show good use of grounds, cover and depiction of "this is how I would actually hunt this." I've ran a lot of tests under Ron and I know him to set good tests and treat people respectfully, I have no doubts Ron was Ron with the handlers. *At the end of the day isn't that what matters?* The politics and games that go on with the board, the issues and now RN's is just free entertainment I consider a bonus to the whole thing. I'll save my money traveling all over the country to run the stinking thing and wait for it to come around every 4 years, but you have to admit. It sure is a lot of fun.....
> 
> /Paul


Good tests and good use of grounds are paramount to ANY dog games in the field. I just read and reread the WRC coverage of this MN and it looks _on paper_ like your observations are confirmed....no "goofy" stuff that would make the test instructions read like a logarithm. 

Over 6 series, they ran one quad (you're right, rare as hen's teeth), two triples, and three doubles. My question on handles was a really simple one that some folks have taken issue with. That in itself pretty much confirms dogs with at least three handles finished....and that's okay. I'm not surprised in the least; you shouldn't be either. Yeah, at the end of the day, the points you brought up surely matter, but it also matters that a dog's performance in a NATIONAL event be up to The Standard for Master Hunters. I just have a hard time (and while I may be alone in public on this matter, I KNOW I'm not alone away from this board) with dogs getting a passing marking score at the end of the event that have handled in three (or _more_...) out of six marking series. Two handles I could deal with over six series in a week (unless they were in the same series), especially on a quad or a triple....but three or _more_? 




Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> But, the AKC reps - and several RTF posters - will argue that so many dogs passing points to bad judging. According to Keith, we should count total handles on marks.


PTMY, wasn't it about three years ago that you got banned from here for attempting to twist other folks statements to your own advantage? All the while keeping your real name a secret? Your position on ANYTHING here is no stronger than it was 3 years ago, Mr. Anonymous.



> Where does Keith get off with statements like this? I would like to see a MN rule or regulation that states that dogs handled more than 3 times in 6 series must be dropped.


Where do YOU get off using other folks names when you don't have the GUTS to use your own?



> Any dog that has to be handled more than 3 times over 6 series is not, by _*his*_ definition, the cream of the crop. Following this reasoning, the owners of these [poor marking] dogs have accepted that plate under false pretenses. Those dogs that were handled 3 times or less are tainted since no one knows for sure which of the qualifying dogs are " truly good" and which dogs are "mediocre".


You post whatever you need to post PTMY. I'll take you as seriously as I did three years ago before you were banned.

Man _up_ regards,

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

sheriff said:


> I would much rather see 3 quick handles than 3 huge hunts!


Not all handles are created equally.

My favorite one is a quick "check whistle," usually blown as the dog is screaming through/past a mark on a line given by the handler with no CLUE as to the depth of the mark thrown. I'm amazed at the number of handlers that take exception to that sort of handle even being CALLED a handle......

You have to let the dog indicate an area (i.e. HUNT it) before he can get credit for the mark. Three HUGE hunts are bad, for sure....but at least the dog indicated the areas of the fall rather than not. Hunts OUT OF THE AREA of the fall are EQUALLY as bad as handling TO the mark. Handling AT the mark is another story entirely.

Marking is of _primary/paramount_ importance regards, ;-)

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Good tests and good use of grounds are paramount to ANY dog games in the field. I just read and reread the WRC coverage of this MN and it looks _on paper_ like your observations are confirmed....no "goofy" stuff that would make the test instructions read like a logarithm.





K G said:


> Over 6 series, they ran one quad (you're right, rare as hen's teeth), two triples, and three doubles. My question on handles was a really simply one that some folks have taken issue with. That in itself pretty much confirms dogs with at least three handles finished....and that's okay. I'm not surprised in the least; you shouldn't be either. Yeah, at the end of the day, the points you brought up surely matter, but it also matters that a dog's performance in a NATIONAL event be up to The Standard for Master Hunters. I just have a hard time (and while I may be alone in public on this matter, I KNOW I'm not alone away from this board) with dogs getting a passing marking score at the end of the event that have handled in three (or _more_... ) out of six marking series. Two handles I could deal with over six series in a week (unless they were in the same series), especially on a quad or a triple....but three or _more_? Nope.
> 
> kg




I think this gets to the age old questions. You mention that the National event should be “up to the standard for Master Hunters.” We’ve all had the discussion regarding this with our local friends, clubs, HT’ers. Does the standard change for the MN? Should it? Where is the “new” standard documented? In a non competitive event is it necessary? For years we’re heard “AKC wants the “cream of the crop.”” I had to take the judges test this year and quick search of the guidebook does not find “cream of the crop.” It’s not there. What I can tell you is this. I know many of the past judges personally, and have ran under them numerous times and two things I can state with confidence. They are not judges that give out passes easily and they are not judges that are going to change their standard or method of judging at the MN. I may not always agree with their tests but it’s their test. The current HT system is not setup to determine a “cream of the crop” and never will. In my opinion the “standard” is the same, from a weekend test to the MN. If AKC wants something different then they need to step to the plate and make a differentiation in the standard. 

But hey, we all have an opinion. 

Nice reply to Mr. Meet You.



/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> Keith, they ran 6 series and we were able to work/watch 5 of the 6. We only missed the Horse Pasture test.
> 
> My wife worked the line at several of B flights tests and the notes taken were very detailed on the dogs. Weather conditions played a big role in handles on the first day as well as the Wednesday running of A at the horse pasture. Most of what we saw wsa pretty clean work. Blind work dropped many dogs.
> 
> ...


With the conditions and test execution allowing for marks to be winded/given away, this makes three or more handles even WORSE. Thanks for the description of the conditions....that sure helps explain the passing percentage. Handlers have to take advantage of the conditions when they can. There's no on among us who hasn't been THRILLED to get a giveaway bird with a switched wind that other dogs had been missing.

Thanks again, Golddogs.

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I think this gets to the age old questions. You mention that the National event should be “up to the standard for Master Hunters.” We’ve all had the discussion regarding this with our local friends, clubs, HT’ers. *Does the standard change for the MN? Should it?* Where is the “new” standard documented? In a non competitive event is it necessary? For years we’re heard “AKC wants the “cream of the crop.”” *I had to take the judges test this year and quick search of the guidebook does not find “cream of the crop.” It’s not there.* What I can tell you is this. I know many of the past judges personally, and have ran under them numerous times and two things I can state with confidence. They are not judges that give out passes easily and they are not judges that are going to change their standard or method of judging at the MN. I may not always agree with their tests but it’s their test. *The current HT system is not setup to determine a “cream of the crop” and never will. In my opinion the “standard” is the same, from a weekend test to the MN.* If AKC wants something different then they need to step to the plate and make a differentiation in the standard.
> 
> But hey, we all have an opinion.
> 
> ...


The Master National is an upsized version of a weekend event. It's SUPPOSED to be that way. The Master National only gets a snippet in the regs/guidelines for AKC HTs, and NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with cream, creme, or any other sort of superlative relative to this event. In fact, truth be told, the regs/guidelines go OUT OF THEIR WAY (IMHO) to promote consistency and non-competitiveness (between dogs) in testing. There should be -ZERO- differentiation between the TYPE of testing and evaluation done in weekend events OR the Master National.

The Standard is The Standard, weekend or week-long, regards, ;-)

kg


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

K G said:


> PTMY, wasn't it about three years ago that you got banned from here for attempting to twist other folks statements to your own advantage?


I was taken off the site temporarily because I repeated a PM discussion I had with Chris.

It is *YOU*, Keith, who has single handedly cornered the reputation for twisting other folk’s statements to your own advantage. 



K G said:


> All the while keeping your real name a secret? Your position on ANYTHING here is no stronger than it was 3 years ago, Mr. Anonymous.


Judging from the replies to your comments on this thread, my positions are shared by many!



K G said:


> Where do YOU get off using other folks names when you don't have the GUTS to use your own?


From the man who once represented himself as Larry Leisure on this forum!

*Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!Ha! Ha! Ha!*




K G said:


> You post whatever you need to post PTMY. I'll take you as seriously as I did three years ago before you were banned


Of course I'll post whatever I want to -- this is AMERICA! 

You have always taken my posts seriously. I can tell by your frantic replies. And, so can others ... who have PM'd me to "Keep up the good work!"

Hope you have a thick towel to dry off your keyboard. All that foam and spit must get awfully messy.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I've given it some thought, PTMY, and I've decided that I'm not gonna share "sewer space" with you.

If you aren't proud enough of your name to use it, that's your call. You'll reap what you sow.

kg


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2008)

K G said:


> You post whatever you need to post PTMY. I'll take you as seriously as I did three years ago before you were banned.
> 
> Man _up_ regards,
> 
> kg


Interesting that many of you have assumed that PTMY is a male. I had never assumed that was the case. 

Female intuition regards,

Melanie


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I don't really care, honestly. I'd be even more disappointed than I already am if it were, but in the long run, it matters not one whit.

I suppose being "gutless" knows no gender bounds.

kg


----------



## golden boy 2 (Mar 28, 2005)




----------

