Santas and Duhram Reds
Well-known member
Yeah, I'm surprised Longhorn didn't get more votes.
DOC HARRIS":133oizcm said:As happens with most discussions (debates, discourses, arguments, disagreements, etc.) the participants invariably lurch into mis-understandings, mis-interpretations, mis-readings, muddled meanings, foggy explanations, and a myriad of other rhetorical comments and statements which eventually becomes so diverse that the original subject du jour becomes so opaque and obscure that the intrinsic fundamentals are lost in the haze of semantics (the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning). I feel that this is what has happened in this thread.
The definition of "contextulize" - "..to place words into a particular or appropriate context for the purpose of interpretation or analysis". I think that the title of this thread has been obscured by individual interpretations and meanings and analyses of the subject matter.
We ALL have our own individual opinions of different cattle "BREEDS" - and our own interpretation of "INFLUENTIAL - and our own analysis of "TIME".
Regarding this topic, I think that we all can agree on the "BREED(S)" being those listed in the poll. That should 'standardize' one/third of the subject matter. Regarding "...OF ALL TIME", let's concur that the cow and bull in "The Ark" is pedantic, and has no real place in the discussion. Let's concede a point of argument and settle on a date of - oh - say - - July 4, 1776! That is where the majority of our focal points coalesce, metaphorically speaking, and the importance of Beef Cattle Management became intrinsic in the future of advanced Beef Production Protocols. That settles another one/third of the instant subject matter. Now - we have left the last one/third of the Subject at Hand - "INFLUENTIAL"!
To establish the word "INFLUENTIAL" in its appropriate context, it's definition is compelling. Definition: "INFLUENCE: implies the power of persons or things (whether or not exerted consciously or overtly) to affect others, seen only in its effects".
To expunge the superficial rhetoric to which this thread seemingly has degenerated to the point of untelligibility, may we come to an understanding that the word "INFLUENCE" is the operative term, and all thoughts focus on that cognition? Knowing, in the broadest sense, including memory, perception and judgement, that the Hereford breed was the most 'influential' during the years from about 1870+/- to about 1945 (end of World War II), and that the power of the Angus breed has been "affecting others" up to this current point in time - cannot we now acquiesce and accede to these facts as cogent?
Doesn't this post embrace the 101 posts preceding it?
DOC HARRIS
-Santas and Duhram Reds":ku3knos8 said:He doesn't make my head hurt but sometimes he reminds me of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. :lol:
DOC HARRIS":m6s27yrd said:-Santas and Duhram Reds":m6s27yrd said:He doesn't make my head hurt but sometimes he reminds me of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. :lol:
:shock::???: :dunce:
DOC HARRIS
3waycross":25aezzn4 said:DOC HARRIS":25aezzn4 said:-Santas and Duhram Reds":25aezzn4 said:He doesn't make my head hurt but sometimes he reminds me of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. :lol:
:shock::???: :dunce:
DOC HARRIS
Don't worry Doc. We all still love ya. Verbose as you are ;-)
Santas and Duhram Reds":2x3jysxc said:"As happens with most discussions (debates, discourses, arguments, disagreements, etc.) the participants invariably lurch into mis-understandings, mis-interpretations, mis-readings, muddled meanings, foggy explanations, and a myriad of other rhetorical comments and statements which eventually becomes so diverse that the original subject du jour becomes so opaque and obscure that the intrinsic fundamentals are lost in the haze of semantics (the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning)."
This, for example, reminds me of Jesse Jackson. Using synonyms to reitirate a point over and over again. Its almost comical. Put these words into a rythm and you could swear it was from the mouth of Mr. Jackson. Just making an observation. :tiphat:
S&D it give you 3 choices ... be a preacher, politician or just stir the sh& like the right reverend bigot JJ does.Santas and Duhram Reds":1r6g3i9j said:"As happens with most discussions (debates, discourses, arguments, disagreements, etc.) the participants invariably lurch into mis-understandings, mis-interpretations, mis-readings, muddled meanings, foggy explanations, and a myriad of other rhetorical comments and statements which eventually becomes so diverse that the original subject du jour becomes so opaque and obscure that the intrinsic fundamentals are lost in the haze of semantics (the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning)."
This, for example, reminds me of Jesse Jackson. Using synonyms to reitirate a point over and over again. Its almost comical. Put these words into a rythm and you could swear it was from the mouth of Mr. Jackson. Just making an observation. :tiphat:
DOC HARRIS":2xtjkgcf said:Santas and Duhram Reds":2xtjkgcf said:"As happens with most discussions (debates, discourses, arguments, disagreements, etc.) the participants invariably lurch into mis-understandings, mis-interpretations, mis-readings, muddled meanings, foggy explanations, and a myriad of other rhetorical comments and statements which eventually becomes so diverse that the original subject du jour becomes so opaque and obscure that the intrinsic fundamentals are lost in the haze of semantics (the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning)."
This, for example, reminds me of Jesse Jackson. Using synonyms to reitirate a point over and over again. Its almost comical. Put these words into a rythm and you could swear it was from the mouth of Mr. Jackson. Just making an observation. :tiphat:
:roll: S and DR-
As usual - you have missed the point entirely! The entire treatise was meant to be not only comical, but IMPACTIVE! The thread began as a reasonable and interesting study, but soon became comical, and tangential to the original intent. I was attempting to bring the discussion back to a stable base.
Have you ever wondered why some of the dedicated posters of two or three years ago don't bother to respond - lately??
Whatever.
DOC HARRIS
TexasBred":1b5yar3x said:S&D it give you 3 choices ... be a preacher, politician or just stir the sh& like the right reverend bigot JJ does.Santas and Duhram Reds":1b5yar3x said:"As happens with most discussions (debates, discourses, arguments, disagreements, etc.) the participants invariably lurch into mis-understandings, mis-interpretations, mis-readings, muddled meanings, foggy explanations, and a myriad of other rhetorical comments and statements which eventually becomes so diverse that the original subject du jour becomes so opaque and obscure that the intrinsic fundamentals are lost in the haze of semantics (the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning)."
This, for example, reminds me of Jesse Jackson. Using synonyms to reitirate a point over and over again. Its almost comical. Put these words into a rythm and you could swear it was from the mouth of Mr. Jackson. Just making an observation. :tiphat:
tel":17frq2kl said:Can anyone tell me the backround of the spanish cattle they originated from please?