No one said that it was wrong to breed two purebred dogs to one another. I would think that the point which is being made is that it would be better by far to use a different breed to save/better a bloodline than to rather insist on using only purebred dogs when the breed is going down the drain as a direct result. This is something I used to feel strongly about myself until I started studying the health problems in the breed I am interested in. Most of the problems stem from too much inbreeding and, as a result of the popular sire effect, most of the dogs now carry the same - or similar bloodlines. This has caused the setting of various genetic faults in most of the bloodlines which cannot be corrected without the judicious use of a breed without the same problems, although it will probably add a few others of it's own to the stew. IMO, it would be better to take the chance of making a few small changes to achieve a far more important objective - healthier dogs. This is a highly contentious subject and, if we are not willing to look at it from a purely logical standpoint, we will spend the rest of eternity arguing about it. The question that comes to mind is; will our dogs still exist to be lying at our feet before this argument becomes moot?