My response to Linda

Linda,
>
> Generalizations:
> So does "classic" mean the sheep of 1600-1800 like you say in one post, or does "classic" mean a new kind of Shetland sheep like you say in a different post??
>
> So "long wool" is a....Shetland with a fiber past a certain length designation (?), or a long wool (?), which is a different class of breeds. These two are VERY different, yet you consistently use them interchangably...which is incorrect. This is one of the consistent "slips" you use that make me suspicious of your true intentions.
>
> So "long" and "coarse" mean the same thing and are interchangable? This consistent slip has been brought to your attention by many, many people over the years I've been watching. Why haven't you corrected it yet?? The fact that you still use this language is another indicator that makes me not trust.
>
> I am not mistaken or generalizing, rather I have my nose to the facts. Open your NASSA Handbook to the last page...you'll find the Breed Standard there. Look under Wool. Here is what is says: "Extra fine and soft texture, longish, wavy and well closed" THAT is the genuine, historical Shetland sheep. Striving to raise sheep that fit this description is not generalizing or making mistakes. Rather, it is good breeding. That's why I keep my standard at fingertip-ready reference and use it often. This is the fiber that builds the famous textiles. The standard wool description and the resulting incredible textiles are connected and cannot be broken apart. To make good Shetland textiles, THIS is the fiber you must raise. What you read above is what Wheely Wooly Farm strives to raise, without any scientific speculations, rationalizations, changes of word definitions, dismissals of related cousins, "lost" handbooks, or anything else you can come up with to quietly change the Shetland breed into something new. All of your strategies seem like huge leaps to me, to abandon facts for obscure, speculative, generalizing science, "newly found" information, language mix-ups...from the region of the world that GAVE us the English language to boot! To make overall statements about a WHOLE breed over a LARGE period of time, and place that assumption above ALL the writings and photos, because a few bone or fleece samples were "tested" is really putting your faith in one speculative spot! What if it's flawed? Missing important details? To encourage those working on these fun projects is one thing. To redraft an old, treasured, documented useful breed into a new breed based on this alone is irresponsible.
>
> Linda, if you want to put all of your faith in that spot, you are welcome to. They are your sheep and you can raise what you like. Enjoy. My sheep and I will not be following you there.
>