Pedigree Query

By Pleasant Colony (Ribot line). Non Phalaris (more or less, since Pharos is in Ribot's dam sire line).

How is he doing as a sire? Will he help keep the Ribot line going? Any information on what he throws re: size, conformation, temperament, and talent would be greatly appreciated.

[quote="vineyridge"]By Pleasant Colony (Ribot line). Non Phalaris (more or less, since Pharos is in Ribot's dam sire line).

How is he doing as a sire? Will he help keep the Ribot line going? Any information on what he throws re: size, conformation, temperament, and talent would be greatly appreciated.[/quote]

I know those Pleasant Colony's are late maturing types, but .....
with 5 crops, 125 foals of racing age;

70 starters 31 winners, no stakes winners, 1 stakes placed with average lifetime earnings per starter of $12,428 (as of 10/02/06), avg. lifetime earnings per start $1,617, AEI .57 vs CI 1.58.

His leading earner (out of a Deputy Minister mare) has made $77,548. His runners have lifetime win percentage of 10%.

One hellofa racehorse, but I don't think he's interested in passing on his winning techniques. How soon will he be coming to California?

fastappy wrote:How soon will he be coming to California?

Heh, I doubt even California would take him. East Coast so the hunter/jumper folks can play with him. He's one HOMELY (as were most PCs) looking beast but the few foals I've seen, he does transmit good bone and size. NY/Penn... maybe VA or NH.

Sam - have you seen Behrens? He is stunning. Not at all PC. Very lovely body without the clunky PC head. Can't argue about the stats though...

CS wrote:Sam - have you seen Behrens? He is stunning. Not at all PC. Very lovely body without the clunky PC head. Can't argue about the stats though...

Behrens:


If you say so. Stunning for a Warmblood, maybe... homely for a Thoroughbred. Big ol' PC ears and all. Admittedly, that's a better pic than non-professional ones I have of him.

Pleasant Colony:

Sam wrote:

CS wrote:Sam - have you seen Behrens? He is stunning. Not at all PC. Very lovely body without the clunky PC head. Can't argue about the stats though...

Behrens:


If you say so. Stunning for a Warmblood, maybe... homely for a Thoroughbred. Big ol' PC ears and all. Admittedly, that's a better pic than non-professional ones I have of him.

Pleasant Colony:

Well, neither Behrens or Pleasant Colony ran with their EARS.

Physical conformation, I can understand, but what is it on these "fan" forums that incite posters to insipid comments on TB's looks....they are race horses not beauty queens... are they not?

reese wrote:Physical conformation, I can understand, but what is it on these "fan" forums that incite posters to insipid comments on TB's looks....they are race horses not beauty queens... are they not?

One of these days I'll figure out why any expressed opinion is automatically assigned a negative assessment.

So the horse is homely... did I say "homely" was bad? I'm not so narrowminded to think homely as a discriptor is bad. It's just homely. It's neither bad nor good. If I'd thought the horse was ugly, I would have said they were ugly. I said he was homely and looked just like his father. You're the one putting a negative spin on that, reese.

I happen to love mules so for someone to think I believe a homely horse with big ears is ugly is, at best, ill-informed. I actually kind of like homely looking horses more than the pretty ones. Those pretty ones tend not to be able to run for shit.

Win photos do wonders for the looks, don't they?

I'm not so narrowminded to think homely as a discriptor is bad. It's just homely. It's neither bad nor good.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in my opinion that homely does have a negative connotation.
Even "plain" does, in real usuage, and that literally just means "plain".
However . . .
Behrens was a real racehorse. I hope his offspring are going to leave a mark in some good way.

Toccet02 wrote:

I'm not so narrowminded to think homely as a discriptor is bad. It's just homely. It's neither bad nor good.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in my opinion that homely does have a negative connotation.

Probably not, nor am I alone in thinking 'homely' is neither a negative nor a positive. It's like calling a woman 'handsome'.

Toccet02 wrote:Even "plain" does, in real usuage, and that literally just means "plain".

That's because anything that isn't a gushing review must automatically be a negative. I'm not that black and white. I could have just as easily said both horses were plain. To me, neither horse is ugly nor are they gorgeous.

Toccet02 wrote:Behrens was a real racehorse.

Never said otherwise. Looks only get you so far.

homely
One entry found for homely.
Main Entry: home·ly
Pronunciation: 'hOm-lE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): home·li·er; -est

4 : plain or unattractive in appearance

Toccet02 wrote:4 : plain or unattractive in appearance

The operative word there being "or."

Like I'd said, if I'd wanted to say I thought they were ugly, I would have done so. Can we drop it now? This is getting pretty damn stupid.

By the way, if you're going to do that kind of crap, please list ALL definitions and quote your source:

American Heritage Dictionary - home·ly

1. Not attractive or good-looking: a homely child.
2. Lacking elegance or refinement: homely furniture.
3. Of a simple or unpretentious nature; plain: homely truths.
4. Characteristic of the home or of home life: homely skills.

homeli·ness n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Please note numbers 2 and 3. While you and reese are clearly hung up on the first definition, Toccet, I am not.

yes, it is getting pretty stupid.
Just thought I'd discuss something, as I'm interested in people's perception of words, but as I've seen so often today especially, people are so often more agressive than polite, it's just not worth it.
My only point was that many people PRIMARILY see the word as a negative connotation, and both our dictionary sources back me up on this, at least in part.
Mine was Miriam Websters. If I thought I was prepaing a scholarly paper, I cheerfully would have provided all the documentation you wished for.
It would be nice if you respected others enough to not use phrases like "that kind of crap", but as I've seen from reading your posts, you usually don't.
Anyway, I won't discuss this anymore. That would just be wasting people's time.
Good luck to your Yankees.
I'm a Met's fan, myself.

Sam, it only got stupid because of your back peddle/erh imaginative take on the term homely after others disagreed on your assessment of the Pics.

Toccet02 wrote:Just thought I'd discuss something, as I'm interested in people's perception of words.

That's fine, except the way you approached it was to put me on the defensive by basically telling me I was using the word incorrectly -- TWICE.

We'd not have reached this point if you had said you wanted to discuss my interpretation right from the start.

I had reese basically implying I called the horse ugly (when I didn't). Then you stepped in by saying your opinion was that it carried a negative connotation. If you notice, I didn't contradict you. I simply said that yours was not the only definition and that not everyone thought as you.

You then quoted ONLY the definition (and by your listing, it's the 4th definition which would indicated it is not the primary one, at least according to Miriam Webster) that backed up your assertion it was a negative and implied it was the most common meaning to the word.

THAT is where I got snappish because you didn't make an attempt to 'discuss' the different definitions... You posted a dictionary entry with the implication that I was wrong to use the word as I did and made no comment at all.

My saying the horse was "homely" was immediately interpreted as my saying the horse was ugly and I got jumped for it. I don't mind being jumped when I state an opinion and have no problem defending it (I happen to like a good verbal sparring match)... just don't expect me to be nice about it if people start putting words in my mouth or resorting to troll tactics like playing grammar/diction nazi. I can play that role as well as anyone, but it's a surefire way for me to start being very condescending. My tolerance level with people whose only method of debate is to nitpick grammar and diction is quite low -- which is why I'm very good at it and can turn it back on them so quickly.

Toccet02 wrote:My only point was that many people PRIMARILY see the word as a negative connotation

And MANY people do NOT.

The majority of the people in this country possess a basic high school education, therefore they don't really have an expanded vocabulary. This means their only exposure to the word is as a synonymy for ugly since that is generally the only context in which they hear/use it. But then, most people generally don't hear/use it -- most people would just use ugly.

And please don't interpret that as my saying you personally are uneducated, Toccet... again, I don't mince words. If that's what I meant, I would say it.

Toccet02 wrote:Good luck to your Yankees.

Danke

Toccet02 wrote:I'm a Met's fan, myself.

99% of the time, I would be rooting for them... but I was kind of looking forward to a Yankees/Dodgers series this year. I've been in Vegas for a while, so I've had a chance to watch some of the Dodgers 'grow up'.

This game has gone south so I hope the Mets kick the crap out of St. Louis.