Hiding Confusion

[Liriel Garnet]

Since I've tried twice to post this and it hasn't gone thru either time, I'm going to start a new thread.

The confusion comes from the fact that several different situations got confused. The original post about three boxes hiding lynx was what started the discussion. These were all offspring of two black/silver hiding lynx boxes. In this case, as stated, no guarantee can be made of what is hidden.

The cat that Charlotte speaks of from a siamese blue hiding lynx with a black/silver hiding lynx is *absolutely 100% guaranteed* to be hiding the lynx, as she stated. I'd also like to point out that the original post that raised the issue with the black/silver parents on both sides, she modified yesterday to state that they might be hiding it as well!

[Khea Karas]

(03-07-2012 01:32 PM)Liriel Garnet Wrote:  Since I've tried twice to post this and it hasn't gone thru either time, I'm going to start a new thread.

The confusion comes from the fact that several different situations got confused. The original post about three boxes hiding lynx was what started the discussion. These were all offspring of two black/silver hiding lynx boxes. In this case, as stated, no guarantee can be made of what is hidden.

The cat that Charlotte speaks of from a siamese blue hiding lynx with a black/silver hiding lynx is *absolutely 100% guaranteed* to be hiding the lynx, as she stated. I'd also like to point out that the original post that raised the issue with the black/silver parents on both sides, she modified yesterday to state that they might be hiding it as well!

As I was trying to show in the other thread that was deleted what Liriel says is true. See the attachment for the box in question that DOES hide Lynx.

[Charlotte Calael]

(03-07-2012 01:32 PM)Liriel Garnet Wrote:  Since I've tried twice to post this and it hasn't gone thru either time, I'm going to start a new thread.

The confusion comes from the fact that several different situations got confused. The original post about three boxes hiding lynx was what started the discussion. These were all offspring of two black/silver hiding lynx boxes. In this case, as stated, no guarantee can be made of what is hidden.

The cat that Charlotte speaks of from a siamese blue hiding lynx with a black/silver hiding lynx is *absolutely 100% guaranteed* to be hiding the lynx, as she stated. I'd also like to point out that the original post that raised the issue with the black/silver parents on both sides, she modified yesterday to state that they might be hiding it as well!

Thank you Liriel that you looked and saw it was 2 diffrent fur parents.. And also just a coment those 3 boxes was not my cats. I have nothing to do with those cats. And i cant be sure what the cats i dont own hides

[Tad Carlucci]

I have no idea what the previous discussion said .. but, if I saw a pedigree such as the one in the attachment above, I'd *run away* as fast as possible. It looks to me that the 100% guarantee should be that Lynx can NOT appear.

For the claim of 100% true to be true, either

* the Black/Silver on the box came from the Father (meaning he's Siamese Blue, HIDING Black/Silver and mom is Black/Silver HIDING Lynx); or
* the Lynx came from the Father (meaning he's Siamese Blue, HIDING Lynx)

Given that Lynx and Black/Silver appear on Mom's side, she's Black/Silver HIDING Lynx OR BETTER.
Given that Dad comes from starters, he's Siamese Blue HIDING Siamese Blue OR BETTER.
If the Black/Silver comes from Mom, where we can see it, it is impossible for her hidden Lynx, or better, was passed to the box.

Give just the information shown in the pedigree attachment above, I'd put the odds at exactly 0% (meaning: NO chance at all) that the Lynx trait from Mom's mom appears at all in the offspring claiming to carry the gene.

Perhaps the claim is based upon facts not visible in the pedigree. For instance, if the father can be shown to carry either Black/Silver (making the odds of Lynx, or better, in the box 50%). However, if the father can be shown to carry Lynx, then the 100% guarantee is likely to be true. But, given just what is shown in the pedigree attachment, above, there is no way to verify the claim and it appears unlikely to be correct.

[Ethereal Hurricane]

That's basically what I said in the previous thread, although I was probably more mean about it.

[Liriel Garnet]

(03-10-2012 11:13 PM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  That's basically what I said in the previous thread, although I was probably more mean about it.

In this case, an examination of the offspring of the paternal side shows he does indeed hide the lynx, thus the fact that it's 100%. This has been verified by two separate people. Had you bothered to actually read my original post on this thread, I stated that the father and mother were both hiding the lynx.

Bottom line, the original question that was raised had nothing to do with Charlotte's cat, it was another post entirely and that post was fixed as well. Charlotte got dragged into this because of a linked post in the wrong thread. As for the fact that the pedigrees prove the hidden fur, Khea's verified it, Saga's verified it .. not sure what else it takes for people to be convinced and stop attacking.

[Tad Carlucci]

No attack, simply stating that the attachment itself tends to prove the reverse of the claim.

Think of it this way .. since it's unlikely the maternal grandmother's fur appears in the offspring, would you believe the claim if her fur were something else, say Bengal Snow?

As I said, it's _possible_ the father hides Lynx. The pedigree attachment does not show that.

[Ethereal Hurricane]

(03-11-2012 12:37 AM)Liriel Garnet Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 11:13 PM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  That's basically what I said in the previous thread, although I was probably more mean about it.

In this case, an examination of the offspring of the paternal side shows he does indeed hide the lynx, thus the fact that it's 100%. This has been verified by two separate people. Had you bothered to actually read my original post on this thread, I stated that the father and mother were both hiding the lynx.

Bottom line, the original question that was raised had nothing to do with Charlotte's cat, it was another post entirely and that post was fixed as well. Charlotte got dragged into this because of a linked post in the wrong thread. As for the fact that the pedigrees prove the hidden fur, Khea's verified it, Saga's verified it .. not sure what else it takes for people to be convinced and stop attacking.

The whole problem was, if you bothered to read what I posted, she doesn't say possibly, she flat out ALWAYS says guaranteed. She makes the direct claim saying that IF YOU BUY THIS CAT, you will get lynx, which simply is not the case. Based on what she says, if I buy her cat, and I breed it with a Red Tabby, I'm going to get seal lynx, that's what guaranteed means. We're all breeders, and we all know there is almost a 0% chance that if you breed, lets say a black silver, with another black silver that's hiding something, you're going to get the hidden fur. Sure it CAN happen, but you can make a bet that it wont.

And no, the bottom line that was raised was by me, because I'm the one who raised it, but maybe we're talking about 2 or 3 different threads, there are so many about this topic now. NO ONE questioned that the cats hide seal lynx, that wasn't the initial debate that was sparked, I simply asked her to STOP saying guaranteed, and ALWAYS implying that if you buy her cats, you WILL get the hidden fur.

I really don't understand why people who didn't even read the original thread are posting their comments either.

GL;HF ^__^

[Callie Cline]

Hey all

Just chiming in to gently make a nudge to keep posts in a respectful manner. I made it in another post on this subject so i'm guessing some missed it.

if you're finding it hard to communicate with someone on a subject, it's sometimes good to take it to private IM's and stuff. also, again, if talking about a certain subject, please keep from mentioning people's names or businesses. we want to take every measure to protect every member of the community.

i hope you can understand the nature of what i am saying it's a good rule of thumb to privately write a person when you have an issue with them and we appreciate you doing that in these forums, just like we do in chat.

now if it's a critique about US, by all means, let it fly although you can also write us privately too

thanks for all you contribute, each of you.

warm regards,

callie

---

wow, i sure use smiles a lot hahahah i guess it's better than...

[Tad Carlucci]

In the development of Public Key Cryptography (such as PGP and HTTPS web-page security) we had the problem of "trust" in a real sense. We needed someone who both parties could trust to sign our keys. Microsoft can sign my key, but they have a strong profit motive, so some refuse to trust them. RSA can sign my keys, but they take US Government research money, so some can't or won't trust them. Some third-parties have come along but we don't really know who they are .. so can we really trust them? Without complete trust in that third party, the public key system collapses (evidence: continuing problems with secure web page hijacking, falsified digital signatures, etc.).

So, when you see a pedigree, with the claims made, such as the attachment, it comes down to trust. If you know the person, and trust the veracity of their claims, fine. But if you don't, well .. buyer be ware. I'm told that Saga has verified the claims .. I've not seen it myself, but I'll accept it exists and is findable .. and, knowing her work, I'd trust that and her verification of the claim. But not everyone knows Saga's work and it's a safe bet not everyone fully trusts her work.

The second issue of trust is fully on the claimant. It says "100% Guaranteed" .. what if, despite all efforts by the breeder and trusted third parties, the claim turns out to be false? Is there a recourse? I'm told (not verified myself) that the offspring was priced very high. Does the guarantee mean "or your money back" which is what one would expect from common usage of the term (and the Uniform Commercial Code)? Not only is trust being asked in the claim, but trust is also being asked in the idea that there is some guarantee of safety offered by the claimant. You might know the vendor, and trust that some compensation would be forthcoming should the claim turn out to be incorrect. Or you might know someone you trust who can assure you that is the case. But if neither is the case, well .. again .. buyer be ware.

It's unfortunate that one person's pedigree and claim are being discussed because that person will likely feel they are being singled out unfairly. But we see so many claims of "Offspring of This" and "Hides That" which prove to be false, that this one SEEMS simply just another example of that larger problem.

Developing that "web of trust" is hard enough. All the false and misleading claims just make it harder. Perhaps the KittyCatS community can come together and find some third party who can verify such claims. But, experience says even that won't fully solve the issue.