====================================
" There is nothing vicious in relating that one had heard that so-an-so's quality isn't great, especially if one, as I did, makes it clear that the comments could be viewed as incorrect. It leads to conversation."
Hi Yellow House,
Actually there is. I stand with fowlman1 in his excellent explanation of below of how an unreferenced opinion like the one you posted can hurt a reputation.
Your opinion of me doesn't worry me a bit. It's possible "relating that one had heard that so-an-so's quality isn't great, especially if one, as I did, makes it clear that the comments could be viewed as incorrect." could lead to some kind of conversation. However, it can also lead to conclusions based on 1/2 infomation. Conclusions which can hurt reputations.
Discretion holds a valuable place in animal breeding. We are not talking about withholding or avoiding the truth here. We're talking about verbal wisdom, couched in a positive literary voice, which is the product of both knowledge and experience. Correctly done, discretion is a mindset which understands that any type of conversation should leave the subject in a better place than when the dialogue started. That is the acid test of whether one is operating with discretion or not. Whether the end result is positive or negative, the dialougue ends with a solid foundation upon which those involved can pursue further truth.
That is not what you did. You stated the subject and then ended it with inaccuracy, leaving the reader with an insufficent infomational foundation for confident further research. That leaves the possibility for "assumed" knowledge and incorrect parameters for further research on the subject.
Sincerely,
Karen
Karen, your discussion on discretion was really quite lovely, a definite change in tone and more grounded.
I still disgaree with you and Walt. My one small statement was one of many in a flow of comments and was open for proper rebuttle, which Matt did. I made the comment as part of a dialogue, without holding to it. Furthermore, I'm glad I made the noncommittal comment because it received Matt's retort which allowed me to think about Mr. Overton's Sussex in a new, more positive way.
You, on the other hand, were simply explosive and reactionary in your response and failed to say anything concrete about the stock you defended so extraordinarily vehemently. There's no comment abut their confirmation, weight, width, depth, length, productive qualities or correctness of coloring. Nothing. Indeed, for all of the brouhaha, there has been no substance.
Mr. Overton's reputation has not been threatened by this dialogue, for any reading are going to follow it to it's end, and, in the off chance that someone read that one comment without looking before or after and also assuming that that reader make outstandingly rash conclusions from two sentences, that one reader might be put off, but then that reader, or type of reader, was never going to patronize Mr. Overton in the first place.
Could I have shown more discretion to fit your taste? Yes. I shall endeavor in the future to add more disclaimers when I go fishing for clarifiers.
Your response was outlandishly over the top and strangely rude, while still being humorously quasi-medieval, which I guess is an expression of my taste. It's too bad you didn't simply offer your comment on discretion originally. Then I could have apologized and asked for some more clarity concerning the excellence of the stock in question. With the profound knowledge which your fiery defense implies, I would have followed up with my expression of happiness in learning that there are still some good Speckled Sussex out there.
Joseph
