This site requires the Adobe Flash Player.
straightegyptians

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Q. Is Exochorda Pure Arabian Mare?
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 19 2012, 12:47 PM
Post #46


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (Dieter @ Mar 19 2012, 12:55 PM) *
In an effort to keep the record straight, I wrote to the EAO El Zahraa Stud earlier this year about this mare. Their answer, in part was:
Anyone can write to the EAO and pose questions, but for the record, the EAO has stated this mare was NOT owned by any royalty as suggested in #6 above.



No one ever claimed she was part of El Zahraa...of course she was not! El Zahraa was not even in existence at that time. The EAO did not state that this mare was NOT OWNED BY ANY ROYALTY. They stated that she did not belong to El Zahraa, but by a private breeder. The members of the Royal family WERE private breeders. The EAO did not state that she was not owned by a member of the Royal family, because they could not. They do not know the identities of all of the horses that were owned by all members of the Royal family -- no one knows because some of them didn't have complete stud books, and many of their stud books are gone! The horses they know are the ones that were donated to the RAS or EAO, and were incorporated into the EAO program. There was no national stud book at this time.

For example, can you tell us, Liz Dieter, the names and identities of all of the horses owned, bred and in the posession of Prince Kemal El Din? Can you tell us what happened to them all when his herd was dispersed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 12:54 PM
Post #47


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ Mar 19 2012, 08:47 AM) *
No one ever claimed she was part of El Zahraa...of course she was not! El Zahraa was not even in existence at that time. The EAO did not state that this mare was NOT OWNED BY ANY ROYALTY. They stated that she did not belong to El Zahraa, but by a private breeder. The members of the Royal family WERE private breeders. The EAO did not state that she was not owned by a member of the Royal family, because they could not. They do not know the identities of all of the horses that were owned by all members of the Royal family -- no one knows because many of their stud books are gone! The ones they know are the ones that were donated to the RAS or EAO, and were incorporated into the EAO program. There was no national stud book at this time.

For example, can you tell us, Liz Dieter, the names and identities of all of the horses owned, bred and in the posession of Prince Kemal El Din? Can you tell us what happened to them all when his herd was dispersed?
LOL - not going to play follow the leader with you kiddo or point to your ability to contradict yourself. We will agree to disagree on how to interpret their statement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 12:59 PM
Post #48


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (diane @ Mar 19 2012, 08:40 AM) *
Questions:

Has what you have bolded ever been in dispute?

Does what you have bolded specifically state that Exochorda wasn't at some time in the ownership that could have been royally connected?

"Has what you have bolded ever been in dispute?" Potentially here:

QUOTE
<snipped>6. There is very strong and mounting evidence to support the belief that Leila II was bred and/or raised by Prince Kemal El Din (the cousin to Prince Mohamed Aly and then the President of the RAS) -- and at this time, there is no evidence at all to prove that this is not the case. There is ZERO evidence to support any idea that the ancestry or qualifications of Leila II are any more "questionable" than any other Straight Egyptian Arabian horse. Not even one iota...never has been.<snipped>Caryn Rogosky

"Does what you have bolded specifically state that Exochorda wasn't at some time in the ownership that could have been royally connected?" The entire statement must be read in context. Thus she was not owned by royalty at any time.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 19 2012, 01:01 PM
Post #49


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (Dieter @ Mar 19 2012, 01:54 PM) *
LOL - not going to play follow the leader with you kiddo or point to your ability to contradict yourself. We will agree to disagree on how to interpret their statement.



No, I won't agree to disagree on this point -- you are misstating a fact and its clear as glass. It is not a matter of interpretation for those who know the reality of the history of the RAS. Quite frankly, your interpretation is so skewed that it is just false, and convinces me that you really do not have an understanding of the history of the RAS, the EAO and the early breeders of Egypt. Do you own a copy of the RAS History Book?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 01:10 PM
Post #50


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (MHuprich @ Mar 19 2012, 08:44 AM) *
Liz, are you saying the EAO only used horses that were previously owned by royalty? I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying.

Melissa, I am repeating what the EAO has said:
QUOTE
"Exochorda is not and never was in the breeding programme of ElZahraa horses, ElZahraa breeding programme including along the history Arabians well knwn and well collected from the kings and sheiks, princes as you known, as for excorda it is in some private arabians, that means BELONGING TO OWNERS NOT THE E.A.O."
El Zahraa's breeding program includes a long history of arabians well-known and well collected from the kings, sheikhs, princes.

@moderator, Why have you removed many of the very factual threads from this forum where a great deal of facts have been revealed? If you found posts to be personally offensive, remove that post or whatever comment is offensive, but to remove entire threads full of facts is rather reckless and disrespectful of all posters and readers. Please return those threads to their proper place in history, noted as edited, if you must. To do otherwise is entirely unethical in my opinion.

To everyone, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on here if this forum is insistent on hiding fact filled posts. Though it certainly is this forum's prerogative, it cannot then be considered a forum where open, honest discussion can be had no matter that the discussion is not rosy full of sunshine and (false) hope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 01:16 PM
Post #51


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ Mar 19 2012, 09:01 AM) *
No, I won't agree to disagree on this point -- you are misstating a fact and its clear as glass. It is not a matter of interpretation for those who know the reality of the history of the RAS. Quite frankly, your interpretation is so skewed that it is just false, and convinces me that you really do not have an understanding of the history of the RAS, the EAO and the early breeders of Egypt. Do you own a copy of the RAS History Book?
Repeating myself, I am not going to play follow the leader with you Caryn. You can have your opinion, but it is just your opinion and in my opinion, your opinion is wrong - ha! I can have my opinion. Clearly, WE DISAGREE. You cannot force or otherwise coerce me to believe your opinion over mine, no matter how you wish to insult, belittle or defame my character publicly, which must make you feel better, so please enjoy yourself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 01:48 PM
Post #52


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ Mar 19 2012, 08:47 AM) *
No one ever claimed she was part of El Zahraa...of course she was not! El Zahraa was not even in existence at that time. The EAO did not state that this mare was NOT OWNED BY ANY ROYALTY. They stated that she did not belong to El Zahraa, but by a private breeder. The members of the Royal family WERE private breeders. The EAO did not state that she was not owned by a member of the Royal family, because they could not. They do not know the identities of all of the horses that were owned by all members of the Royal family -- no one knows because some of them didn't have complete stud books, and many of their stud books are gone! The horses they know are the ones that were donated to the RAS or EAO, and were incorporated into the EAO program. There was no national stud book at this time.

For example, can you tell us, Liz Dieter, the names and identities of all of the horses owned, bred and in the posession of Prince Kemal El Din? Can you tell us what happened to them all when his herd was dispersed?
An afterthought . . . are you saying the EAO did not supervise private breeders in Egypt and that's why they wouldn't know anything about Exo? Failing that all records are lost and westerners should presume to know more than the EAO which is actually housed in Egypt?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 19 2012, 02:12 PM
Post #53


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (Dieter @ Mar 19 2012, 02:48 PM) *
An afterthought . . . are you saying the EAO did not supervise private breeders in Egypt and that's why they wouldn't know anything about Exo? Failing that all records are lost and westerners should presume to know more than the EAO which is actually housed in Egypt?



That is correct; at the time of Exochorda's birth and life, the EAO did not exist. Don't know how many times this has to be stated to get it through. It was the RAS then, and while they would, if requested by a private breeder, supervise a breeding (in a veterinary or consultation capacity) especially if it was to one of their stallions -- THE RAS NEVER HAD SUPERVISION OVER THE PRIVATE BREEDERS AS AN AUTHORITY OR REGISTRY. Furthermore, THE EAO DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISION OVER THE PRIVATE BREEDERS AS AN AUTHORITY OR REGISTRY UNTIL THE 1970'S.

I take the answer to my question about your owning a copy of the RAS History Book is no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 02:16 PM
Post #54


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ Mar 19 2012, 10:12 AM) *
That is correct; at the time of Exochorda's birth and life, the EAO did not exist. Don't know how many times this has to be stated to get it through. It was the RAS then, and while they would, if requested by a private breeder, supervise a breeding (in a veterinary or consultation capacity) especially if it was to one of their stallions -- THE RAS NEVER HAD SUPERVISION OVER THE PRIVATE BREEDERS AS AN AUTHORITY OR REGISTRY. Furthermore, THE EAO DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISION OVER THE PRIVATE BREEDERS AS AN AUTHORITY OR REGISTRY UNTIL THE 1970'S.
Semantics . . . RAS/EAO = same thing otherwise, interesting thoughts. . .

QUOTE
I take the answer to my question about your owning a copy of the RAS History Book is no.
Of course you would.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caryn Rogosky
post Mar 19 2012, 02:22 PM
Post #55


Micky
******

Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 11-August 04
Member No.: 1584



QUOTE (Dieter @ Mar 19 2012, 02:16 PM) *
Repeating myself, I am not going to play follow the leader with you Caryn. You can have your opinion, but it is just your opinion and in my opinion, your opinion is wrong - ha! I can have my opinion. Clearly, WE DISAGREE. You cannot force or otherwise coerce me to believe your opinion over mine, no matter how you wish to insult, belittle or defame my character publicly, which must make you feel better, so please enjoy yourself.



What part of my post addressed your character? I would say that it is you, Liz, who is the master of publicly defaming a person's character...and in fact, being guilty of legal libel -- such as the time you falsely accused me of altering the information on the export documents of Exochorda on this very forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 02:28 PM
Post #56


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ Mar 19 2012, 10:22 AM) *
What part of my post addressed your character? I would say that it is you, Liz, who is the master of publicly defaming a person's character...and in fact, being guilty of legal libel -- such as the time you falsely accused me of altering the information on the export documents of Exochorda on this very forum.
LOL - every post you make to me has a derogatory comment directed at me, but it's okay. I recognize your replies for what they are.

Oh dear . . . so sorry you feel that way. Do you really want to know my opinion of you as I've come to know you over the forum? And if so, would you prefer I post that publicly or send it to you privately?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kimberli
post Mar 19 2012, 02:43 PM
Post #57


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 30-December 11
Member No.: 40600



I could make a list of thousands of Registered Arabians that have DOCUMENTED other breeds in their pedigrees. Why not start a thread on that? Why not start listing horses that are winning on our showrings, showing as purebred Arabians when in fact there exists documents showing that they have Thoroughbred or other domestic grade horses behind them? They sell for HUGE monies not only here but to the Middle East as well. The owners have a ton of money and can afford to sue anyone defaming them or even pointing out the part-bred status of such.

Why not leave the non-documented horses alone for a while.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 03:17 PM
Post #58


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (Kimberli @ Mar 19 2012, 10:43 AM) *
I could make a list of thousands of Registered Arabians that have DOCUMENTED other breeds in their pedigrees. Why not start a thread on that? Why not start listing horses that are winning on our showrings, showing as purebred Arabians when in fact there exists documents showing that they have Thoroughbred or other domestic grade horses behind them? They sell for HUGE monies not only here but to the Middle East as well. The owners have a ton of money and can afford to sue anyone defaming them or even pointing out the part-bred status of such.

Why not leave the non-documented horses alone for a while.
From what I understand, each registry determines what they consider purebred from acceptable foundation stock that they approved many years ago. It is up to them, just like any other group who make up their own rules for the benefit of that group. Sometimes the rules change and as science progresses, I'm sure some groups will be forced to modify their rules again (or they can ignore science too). At least Blue Star has disclosed that reality. Owning and breeding any Arabian horse is, for the most part, based upon personal preference and rightly so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kimberli
post Mar 19 2012, 03:32 PM
Post #59


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 30-December 11
Member No.: 40600



Liz, you are absolutely correct!

Therefore, NONE of this thread or any thread discussing ANY registered Arabian horse in a derogatory manner, or any organization who is promoting ANY registered Arabian in the hopes of either preserving bloodlines, marketing (ie trying to create a value) or creating a short-cut to understanding the blood contained in any horse (ie SE, AK, Asil, pure Polish, straight Spanish, SO etc) should be referred to in a derogatory manner. Breeders who have dedicated part of their life and financial means to these efforts should also never be put in a position to defend the choice they made.

When we divide our house we WILL fall.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dieter
post Mar 19 2012, 03:40 PM
Post #60


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28-December 03
Member No.: 1086



QUOTE (Kimberli @ Mar 19 2012, 11:32 AM) *
Liz, you are absolutely correct!

Therefore, NONE of this thread or any thread discussing ANY registered Arabian horse in a derogatory manner, or any organization who is promoting ANY registered Arabian in the hopes of either preserving bloodlines, marketing (ie trying to create a value) or creating a short-cut to understanding the blood contained in any horse (ie SE, AK, Asil, pure Polish, straight Spanish, SO etc) should be referred to in a derogatory manner. Breeders who have dedicated part of their life and financial means to these efforts should also never be put in a position to defend the choice they made.

When we divide our house we WILL fall.
Kimberly, Thanks! Really, I do not see horses being discussed in a derogatory manner . . . I see people discussing Hansi in a derogatory manner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Closed TopicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 13:00
This site requires the Adobe Flash Player.