But I think part of the reason I got so firm about it is that it seemed the people arguing that they had "real working dogs" were implying that those dogs have more value than non-working dogs, or were better creatures for it. Therefore it was fun to point out that their dogs weren't "real" working dogs by everyone's definition.
Just to emphasis that that comment wasn't really in reference to the original post, but rather the times previously this topic has come up. It was a pretty hot topic for a while back, complete with its own set of little pictures that people had in their signatures and everything. At that point, I cared a lot more about the definition because there was definitely a clear cut line being made by some members that if a dog wasn't a real working dog (by their definition) the dog was not as valuable.
I do think it is fair for Beanie, myself, or anyone to say "to me this doesn't matter", because that is answering the topic brought up. And really - to me it doesn't matter. Even from a breeding standpoint or a puppy buying standpoint - if someone says to you "I breed working dogs"...nobody is just handing over a check at that, right? I mean, it would be like saying "I health test". You look at the actual tests and results, and if their definition of "health testing" is "well the vet said my dog was healthy", you move on. If they say they have working dogs, and that turns out to be agility titles up the yin-yang, you can declare that you don't consider that work and move on. If I go looking for a puppy in a few years, and the breeder says "we breed successful agility dogs", I'm going to look further to see whether that means that some of their dogs have made it around a level 1 CPE course, or if it means that multiple offspring, as well as the parents, have championships in USDAA or AKC.