The inconsistency in what you said was in the judges "judging". That they judge differently. (I even used short sentences, to avoid any confusion about that. grin ) Your starting argument was that since they were paid to come to the US, they would not judge the same way. I thought you expressed that very clearly. There seems to be no question that was your argument. Are you saying now that you dont think the money is the issue? Or did you just leave that out for some reason? Not judging the same way means rating dogs differently. Are you now saying it isnt the money, but it's the peer pressure, the politics, lots of other dogs around... THAT changes how they rate dogs ? How do you explain that they reference/accept Bear type in both the US and Russia? (among many other things they rated) I'm not trying to be tricky here. You started off assuming they have to judge differently to make a point about dogs in the US. You used one reason, that didnt seem to work and it seems like now you're trying to use another reason. Maybe there will be new reasons if those dont hold up. I think you can see why someone might say there is inconsistency. Besides changing the reason, you still didnt address that they in fact DID l judge the same way. You did not address that your original starting point, "they judge differently", does not seem to be correct. They rated dogs, compared the same things, Bear among them. I'm just trying to keep track of your point (or maybe that's part of the inconsistency? hmm) Either way... Just to throw in another piece here, one of the arguments (not so much here apparently, more drama seems preferred), is that FCI judges judge against the standard. I am sure I didn't miss that point in all the discussions over the years about FCI judging. In fact, people often refer to how the judge rated the dog, as more important than the particular award. The whole point of that is that the rating is the same whether there is one dog, or 50 dogs, in the ring. Your new set of points runs very contrary to that. Are you also saying they do not judge against the standard? If you want to stay with different judging, and change to this new set of influences, its pretty hard to ignore something else. That the judges are freed from those influences in the US, and perhaps judge with LESS influence. I dont want to put words in your mouth (or make it easy to get out of this one grin)... BUT perhaps you really meant to talk about the award only? That the award, in any given show, is not the most important thing since it can be influenced by a number of Possible things.... who knows exactly what. It really doesn't make any difference where the show takes place? You were so specific about US vs Russia, however... hmm Perhaps you were trying to ONLY say that when there are more dogs present, and you get an AWARD, that it MIGHT have more value since there might be more competition>? But that's starting to sound like AKC judging, not FCI judging. (btw, AKC shows give a dog more points, the bigger the competition... just so we dont go into an off track tail spin about that) Since we're concerned (I know you are you've been very clear about that) about the quality of the dog; not the award on a particular day. IF you are talking about the AWARD, not the judges ratings, not the quality of the particular dog. Then I dont know why we went through this whole excercise? Better drama with your approach, I'll give you that. Anyway you were going to clear up the apparent inconsistencies. Could you take another shot at it please?