This is a placeholder text
Group text
by beetree on 13 April 2012 - 17:04
YOU DON"T GET IT. YOU ARE GOING ABOUT THIS ALL WRONG. You won't listen to what NEEDS to happen because you have serious issues, probably are just another internet narcissist. I don't really care any more what you go through because none of it matters except to hear your own voice, so you can feel superior.
If you truly want the answers to do what you claim you want to happen, you would re-read all my replies and start rethinking how you can accomplish what you say is the reason you get out of bed in the morning. Or something like that.
I'm wasting my time with you, if it wasn't for the damage you are trying to do against your "competition" I'd just let you fester.
If you truly want the answers to do what you claim you want to happen, you would re-read all my replies and start rethinking how you can accomplish what you say is the reason you get out of bed in the morning. Or something like that.
I'm wasting my time with you, if it wasn't for the damage you are trying to do against your "competition" I'd just let you fester.
by Blitzen on 14 April 2012 - 02:04
I'm wasting my time with you, if it wasn't for the damage you are trying to do against your "competition" I'd just let you fester.
Ditto, BeeTree.
Ditto, BeeTree.
by Abby Normal on 14 April 2012 - 07:04
It is against my better judgment to continue with this thread, but a question keeps running in my head.
If there is an experimental treatment that Dr Clemmons had going which was proving to be so promising why didn't he patent it? Then information about it could be put in the public domain without fear of it being 'stolen'. Wouldn't this be better rather than to effectively allow it to effectively go out of existence, due to fear of it being stolen and effectively deny it to dogs and owners as a result? Also, donations to fund the treatment/research could have been sought on the same site, or at least information as to how and where donations could be sent to help fund this research could be shown.
In all of this I don't think anywhere there has been any useful info to people about how to donate to Dr Clemmons research into DM. I didn't know you could send donations directly and earmark them for specific research for example.
In fact, as Dr Clemmons site no longer exists, and there is no information as to any current activity/new experimental treatment how are people to know that he is even still involved in DM research?
If there is an experimental treatment that Dr Clemmons had going which was proving to be so promising why didn't he patent it? Then information about it could be put in the public domain without fear of it being 'stolen'. Wouldn't this be better rather than to effectively allow it to effectively go out of existence, due to fear of it being stolen and effectively deny it to dogs and owners as a result? Also, donations to fund the treatment/research could have been sought on the same site, or at least information as to how and where donations could be sent to help fund this research could be shown.
In all of this I don't think anywhere there has been any useful info to people about how to donate to Dr Clemmons research into DM. I didn't know you could send donations directly and earmark them for specific research for example.
In fact, as Dr Clemmons site no longer exists, and there is no information as to any current activity/new experimental treatment how are people to know that he is even still involved in DM research?
by beetree on 14 April 2012 - 11:04
Very interesting Abby. And that is why people should ask questions if they are going to donate. Let me explain one other thing to you why there is no funding from the "big money", even if we could find a bona fide research program going on. The big money funders will only get a tax deduction for donations to non-profits, and private foundations can only donate to other 501 c 3's.
I hope you can appreciate why I say, this whole tactic of Marjorie's is just so wrong. She should be researching how to start her own non profit since there is none that fulfills her mission to research what she calls, GSDM. That is the very first step that would actually accomplish something.
She won't though. Screaming that she's too smart for the rest of us, is instead, what she does best.
I hope you can appreciate why I say, this whole tactic of Marjorie's is just so wrong. She should be researching how to start her own non profit since there is none that fulfills her mission to research what she calls, GSDM. That is the very first step that would actually accomplish something.
She won't though. Screaming that she's too smart for the rest of us, is instead, what she does best.
by Blitzen on 14 April 2012 - 12:04
If they tell you, they'll have to kill you, Abby and Bee. It's confidential.
by Abby Normal on 14 April 2012 - 22:04
beetree, I was clearly getting the message that you were knowledgeable about the funding situation and were continually trying to get a message across to Marjorie. I really do have no clue about it, but it is a little clearer now that you have offered your explanation above, and it does make sense to stop doing something that doesn't work (yelling) and look at how to accomplish that is necessary (obtaining funding), and I guess, if you don't know how and you want to make a real difference - learn.
On a smaller, much smaller scale, Marjorie has a section about Dr Clemmons experimental program on her site, with information about donating. Why in all of these tirades (on this and other threads) has a more balanced approach not been made, maybe asking that people could consider donating a small amount to Dr Clemmons research whenever they submit a DM DNA test, to keep all research pathways open, or just point out that there is/was another programme running that needed donations and offer a link? I would have donated an amount that I could spare in memory of each of the DM dogs I have known.
Also I do not understand why Dr Clemmons does not still have an active website running with this same information, stating where donations can be sent (perhaps he is not allowed to?) and (last year) the fact that he was seeking 6 GSDs for the new programme. If that information is on Marjorie's site, there would be no reason not to have it on his own site. This may well be found by more people, and may also carry more 'weight'.
As I say, it is less than obvious that he is still actively involved in DM research unless you happen across Marjorie's site, and then the right page.
Blitzen - Hey, it almost feels that way!
On a smaller, much smaller scale, Marjorie has a section about Dr Clemmons experimental program on her site, with information about donating. Why in all of these tirades (on this and other threads) has a more balanced approach not been made, maybe asking that people could consider donating a small amount to Dr Clemmons research whenever they submit a DM DNA test, to keep all research pathways open, or just point out that there is/was another programme running that needed donations and offer a link? I would have donated an amount that I could spare in memory of each of the DM dogs I have known.
Also I do not understand why Dr Clemmons does not still have an active website running with this same information, stating where donations can be sent (perhaps he is not allowed to?) and (last year) the fact that he was seeking 6 GSDs for the new programme. If that information is on Marjorie's site, there would be no reason not to have it on his own site. This may well be found by more people, and may also carry more 'weight'.
As I say, it is less than obvious that he is still actively involved in DM research unless you happen across Marjorie's site, and then the right page.
Blitzen - Hey, it almost feels that way!
by Blitzen on 15 April 2012 - 13:04
I just noticed that the GSDCA CHIC optionals include a DM test done by the U of M or UFL.
by Abby Normal on 16 April 2012 - 08:04
Forgive my lack of knowledge of the processes and procedures in the USA Blitzen, but this presumably is the standard DM test we have been discussing? I am assuming then that the money goes to UFL if it is done there?
by Blitzen on 16 April 2012 - 13:04
I honestly don't know, Abby. Marj says Clemmons isn't offering the Flash test anymore. Maybe OFA or the GSDCA needs to update that statement.
by Bhaugh on 18 April 2012 - 01:04
OK so the test causes false results.......pregnancy tests do the same.......should we do away with them too? It was mentioned about doing an MRI for testing (somewhere in this thread but I got lost after page 4). Well from someone who has looked into an MRI recently for a dog with a tumor on his face, I was quoted 1200.00. Pathetic since I can send a patient for an MRI and its much cheaper. So really if we want to use an MRI for testing, someone needs to complain and bring the price down to something more reasonable.
I think any testing is a TOOL in helping us decide what we want to breed and buy. If it is available, why not take advantage of it. And know that with ANY TEST there is margin for error. The test will improve with time. And if there is money to be had, sooner than some will even know.
I think any testing is a TOOL in helping us decide what we want to breed and buy. If it is available, why not take advantage of it. And know that with ANY TEST there is margin for error. The test will improve with time. And if there is money to be had, sooner than some will even know.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
