BUA discussion

[marta]

here is a link to a website with an article written by a 'recovering' BUAtista. she invites comments so i thought maybe some folks here would like to engage in the discussion:

http://clickandtrim.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=77

[LMH]

Now that surely won't cause a trainwreck.

FWIW, Kim has a few typos that she may want to address-the most glaring is the misuse of "than" when it should be "then"

[Catersun]

w.o.w. Now that's professional.

[grayarabpony]

Wouldn't it be BUAista, not BUAtista.

[eruss]

The whole idea of us vs. them, farrier vs. trimmer is ridiculous. Who cares? If Kim wants to be a farrier she should quit worrying so much about people who want to trim only. I think a little less time writing dumb articles and a little more time learning how to farriery would do her some good.

[grayarabpony]

Amen to that!

[Bluey]

I wonder, why would I use someone that only knows how to trim, because our horses have always been barefoot most of the time, when the one rare ocassion a horse needs shoes then I have to call someone else to put a set of shoes on?

How would that farrier feel, a regular farrier, that trims only more than he shoes, as that is what most do around here, if that is the only time and horse I call him for?

I rather have someone tending to our horse's feet all around, trimming practically all the time, but that can add a set of shoes the rare time such is needed.
He knows our horses and their needs, didn't just show up and had to start from scratch.

[Pippigirl]

Very unprofessional...however, considering the source and all...not a surprise. Too bad Kim can't see that...oh well!

[marta]

i know for a fact that kim has been under pressure from certain organizations who feel threatened or at least uncomfortable about how vocal she's been about the change in her view regarding use of shoes and about her own experiences in putting shoes on. i think that these types of pressures compelled her to put her thoughts on the subject down on paper.

[Androcles]

i know for a fact that kim has been under pressure from certain organizations who feel threatened or at least uncomfortable about how vocal she's been about the change in her view regarding use of shoes and about her own experiences in putting shoes on. i think that these types of pressures compelled her to put her thoughts on the subject down on paper.

Uh huh. Because she is such a force to be contended with.

Hey, anytime she does go ahead and put those thoughts down 'on paper', would you let us know? Because I didn't see any article. All I saw was a statement that she used to do barefoot only now she does shoes even though she makes less money this way (:eek::eek::eek:!!!!) with no thought or explanation as to any relative merits, benefits, drawbacks of any method or any discusssion whatosever of any of the subject matter. Unless of course, you consider pasting an email from Rick Burten 'discussion' of the matter.

[Androcles]

The whole idea of us vs. them, farrier vs. trimmer is ridiculous. Who cares? If Kim wants to be a farrier she should quit worrying so much about people who want to trim only. I think a little less time writing dumb articles and a little more time learning how to farriery would do her some good.

Well, spending some time learning either of those things would probably be helpful for her.

[marta]

Uh huh. Because she is such a force to be contended with.



well apparently someone perceives her vocality as a potential threat (to the status quo perhaps???)

[Bluey]

well apparently someone perceives her vocality as a potential threat (to the status quo perhaps???)

Maybe because heretics, to any movement, are seen as a symbol for a threat to their beliefs, no matter how small and unimportant they seem to be in themselves.:yes:

[Androcles]

well apparently someone perceives her vocality as a potential threat (to the status quo perhaps???)

If you say so.

(I think 'articulateness' would trump 'vocality', ).

[Androcles]

Maybe because heretics, to any movement, are seen as a symbol for a threat to their beliefs, no matter how small and unimportant they seem to be in themselves.:yes:

This putative 'threat' exists solely in the mind of this supposed 'threatener'.

[Rick Burten]

All I saw was a statement that she used to do barefoot only now she does shoes even though she makes less money this way (:eek::eek::eek:!!!!)
You somehow think that that is an incorrect statement?
with no thought or explanation as to any relative merits, benefits, drawbacks of any method or any discusssion whatosever of any of the subject matter.
That wasn't the purpose of the article.
Unless of course, you consider pasting an email from Rick Burten 'discussion' of the matter.
Kim asked me to write down, for publication, my position regarding the BUA and its cult follwers of the lunatic fringe of hoof care so I did. Even before that, my position regarding the BUA movement and its adherents/handmaidens/gurus was not exactly a state secret.

[LMH]

I could personally care less what someone's position is on shoes vs bare. It is her website and she can write whatever she wants.

However, Rick, if I had my name attached to it, *I* would be prefer it as least be grammatically correct. The message sort of gets lost with all the errors.

If she wants credibility, she should have the professionalism to have the article proofed.

The same could be said for the other articles.

Again, she has every right to write whatever she pleases-technical detail would simply make the meaning come through a little better.

[marta]

so that's your contribution to the discussion? proofreading????

[LMH]

Well...to be considered a professional publication, grammar should be correct?

Don't you think?

Other than that I did contribute-I said Kim is free to publish whatever opinions she has on her site.

That is the beauty of having your own site!:)

[hank]

Now that surely won't cause a trainwreck.

FWIW, Kim has a few typos that she may want to address-the most glaring is the misuse of "than" when it should be "then"

Wrong.

Then= at that time; soon afterwards.

Than= a comparison.

Than is the correct word in the context.

[LMH]

hank, are you SURE???;)

from the article:
as I've said, due to recent phone calls, I feel the need to openly denounce the BUA, and if it makes you angry, than the shoe fits.

from another article"

No, we don’t want soreness and if it means using shoes to get a better form, than do so.

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Look, Kim has something to say-something she feels passionate about. For her message to be clear, those little details should be clean-it will let her message read more clearly is all.

Whether I agree with her or not doesn't matter-these debates on a forum accomplish next to nothing. However, if you ARE going to make a point (and one which will likely piss some people off) at least don't give provide easy bait for the return punch.

Also to add, while Kim and I butt heads a bit these days, I found the BUA list really very funny.

[JB]

That is indeed the incorrect use of the word - should be "then"

Marta - what did you hope to accomplish by posting this thread, given the deep dive your more recent threads have taken?

Really - honest question.

Remember, on your last thread, the Mod made mention of being wary of posting other threads of this nature, because of the issues they are no doubt bound to bring up.

[eruss]

i know for a fact that kim has been under pressure from certain organizations who feel threatened or at least uncomfortable about how vocal she's been about the change in her view regarding use of shoes and about her own experiences in putting shoes on. i think that these types of pressures compelled her to put her thoughts on the subject down on paper.

Are you saying organizations are calling Kim out of the blue to tell her they don't like the fact she's putting plastic shoes on horses?

What inspired you to post a link to this article? I didn't see anything of any importance to anyone about anything. Did I miss something? :no:

[marta]

if you read the article then you know kim invites comments.
so i thought that perhaps some of the folks on this site who always find participation in hoof related train wrecks irresistible, might pounce on this opportunity to engage in a discussion.

honest answer...

[marta]

Remember, on your last thread, the Mod made mention of being wary of posting other threads of this nature, because of the issues they are no doubt bound to bring up.

i think you're taking mod's comment out of context here. if the mod feels/felt this thread was violating any of the coth rules, she's had plenty of opportunity to lock it down before anyone even responded.

right now it seems like you're the one straying off topic with your comments which have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the issues raised in the OP.

[JB]

It's not entirely off topic because, as already pointed out, if someone wants to write and article and engage discussion AND be taken seriously, it really, really behooves them to present themselves seriously, which means taking the time to check spelling and grammar. If there is a "challenge" doing that (and nothing wrong if there is!) that's why there are programs, readily available through Word and Word Perfect and many more, that check those basic things for you.

That's how it's on topic.

I haven't read the article because I have no interest.

I'm just not understanding how you really thought constructive discussion would take place on this board, where there is a strong history with Kim who has not been the most pleasant poster on this board. We KNOW Kim. Know where she's been, know where she is.

And no, I didn't take the Mod's comment out of context. It wasn't about you violating any rules, it was "you know how these/your threads have gone, don't post again unless you're willing to accept it going the same way again." And here we are.

[marta]

since you insist straying off the subject.

I

And no, I didn't take the Mod's comment out of context. It wasn't about you violating any rules, it was "you know how these/your threads have gone, don't post again unless you're willing to accept it going the same way again." And here we are.

how can you be so sure? are you the mod?


and one more thing. folks interested in a discussion w/ kim were invited by her to send their comments directly to her website. so while kim may be a persona non grata on this website, the discussion doesn't have to take place here.

now if someone else chooses to discuss this issue here that's beyond my control.

[LMH]

You start a thread with an article by Kim then suggest the discussion need not take place here??

marta, seriously.

You like Kim, you are happy with what she does-that is a wonderful thing for you. Because you like and trust her, you want to promote what she does.

Again, that is a great thing-Kim must feel very honored to have a friend that keeps going to the mat for her.

I am being serious.

However, please don't play so naive on how things progress on these threads. You know with every keystroke that it will get ugly...and you do it in spite of common sense screaming otherwise.

So, if you are going to drink the Kim-aid ;) (ok that was kind of funny) or join the KUA (ok even funnier),be ready for the fallout-just like with any BUA, bare, hoof, shoe, farrier, trimmer, natural discussion.

Gawd I do hope Kim is reading this-because I assure you she would chuckle at KUA at least!

It rings of the poor Parelli folk trying to defend LP on a 'normal' forum.

Also, stay strong and armed for heaven's sake. If you want a good trainwreck at least don't back down after you have pulled out of the station!

[Bluey]

So this is all about people taking pot shots at each other, again?

I thought we were discussing farriery trends.:lol:

[Androcles]

You somehow think that that is an incorrect statement?
Who cares? Who cares how much money Kim can make or not make doing something vs. something else?

That wasn't the purpose of the article.
I know. That would have made it useful. As it was it was a content-free waste of bandwidth, allowing her to continue her constant psychodrama, and since apparently posting it on her website isn't generating enough controversy and attention for her, she has to enlist her minions to try and drum up some for her here.

[Androcles]

so that's your contribution to the discussion? proofreading????

Not much else one can do with a content-free article.

(i.e. what was Kim's 'contribution' other than sharing her income situation?)

[Androcles]

I thought we were discussing farriery trends.:lol:

What made you think that? A person changing their methods, equals a trend?

[Androcles]

Are you saying organizations are calling Kim out of the blue to tell her they don't like the fact she's putting plastic shoes on horses?


Black helicopters sure to follow.

[Androcles]

I haven't read the article because I have no interest.


There's nothing in it to read.

[LMH]

OK to try to contribute discussion, giving marta the benefit of the doubt regarding good intentions.

As I said, Kim feels very passionate about something. Having spoken with her in the past I *think* I can read between the lines and find her message (I will get back to that).

The problem is two-fold, first as I have mentioned, to be a credible publication, it needs to be well written and grammatically correct. Any poorly written article is distracting to the reader and the message suffers.

The second (again MY opinion) is the message also gets lost because it is an article of attack rather than an article of information.

I assume (and I am pretty sure I am correct) that Kim is just flat over horses suffering in the name of Bare of Bust. She is tired of owners feeling guilty for wanting to ride rather than bute and transition.

These are fair frustrations.

The message IS a good message if this is the intended message: Many horses simply do not have the means to obtain healthy enough hooves to do what owners want while doing it bare. Years of poor hoof form, poor environment, poor genetics, lack of skilled professionals available to all owners, mean many horses simply can't do things without protection.

So, rather than act like fools and do nothing, Kim wants to offer a solution.

For ME at least, the message would be more appealing and better received were it one written as a positive one-one offering solutions, one showing examples of HER successes. An article that leaves out the name calling, showing photos of others work without any history and likely without the knowledge of the owners of the photographs.

It lacks power as presented. If she showed HER work that didnt' work (she does do that somewhere on the site), if she gave a history of the horse, the diet, the trim protocol, the time in transition and explained the reason she believes it failed THEN showed the horse sound and comfy and with healthy hooves, as shod by HER-well it would give the reader moment to pause and think.

Her message would be heard and she wouldn't lose readers that may otherwise seek her perspective.

Instead it is a negative article-one criticizing others-heck she even quotes some poor person and apologizes for that person's grammar (on another article)...

My question is why?

If you have something productive to say-if you really DO feel passionately about something, why not just say so? Why demean others in the process?

I honestly do feel Kim is wanting to provide solutions to owners-I don't think or would hope her entire goal is not to simply tear others down.

IF this is her goal, I would be more interested in an article in the format I described above-a positive and productive, professionally written article showing what SHE can do to help owners.

[katarine]

Marta, could you kindly change signatures? You liked my joke about folks wanting a Nannygate state where it's butterflys and cocktails, but turn aound and you are all spit and hiss at anyone daring to question your 'hoof care provider' or farrier or shoeglueroner, whatever...so if you are going to continually shill for her, I'd kindly ask you to your own personal Nanny to Kim Gate State, somewhere else. Your world is SO nannygate that, you draw swords on other's behalf, for free. Me, I invoice.

I want my words back, chickie. Nothing's free :)

[hank]

hank, are you SURE???;)

from the article:
as I've said, due to recent phone calls, I feel the need to openly denounce the BUA, and if it makes you angry, than the shoe fits.

from another article"

No, we don’t want soreness and if it means using shoes to get a better form, than do so.

OK, I missed the first one, and whatever article the second is in, I did not read the article. When I'm wrong, I SAY I'm wrong....:winkgrin:

[LMH]

hank...:)

seriously I am not offering these comments to hassle Kim-I noticed these things before...but if someone is going to post it publicly for comment (and I would assume the author's knowledge) well...

I am all for well written publications-regardless of the position of the author-that is what makes people think.

[marta]

hiss?

i think you got my posts confused w/ someone else's.

and i'm not going to comment on your sig line request b/c no matter how hard i try i just can't come up w/ a response that doesn't implicate your maturity level...

[FatPalomino]

Am I the only one who found the "You may be a...." funny?

[LMH]

Am I the only one who found the "You may be a...." funny?

NOoooo-I said I did earlier.:D

[katarine]

LOL I finally looked at her promotional rant I mean article....

1. You believe your horse will be sound if you just get the trim perfect, despite trying every Guru’s recipe for the past 5 years.

2. You hang on the words of some Guru and have given up common sense and critical thinking

How long HAS said Guru been picking at said mare's feet, anyway?

The pots and kettles are knee deep this fine morning, aren't they?

Marta, I'm not the least confused. See #2 :)

[Rick Burten]

Who cares? Who cares how much money Kim can make or not make doing something vs. something else?
IMNTBCHO, that was not the point she was trying to make. Farriers are often accused by members of the BUA of only shoeing horses because we(the farriers) make more money shoeing than trimming. Which assumes facts not in evidence. Personally, I can [usually]make more money trimming and leaving the horse barefoot than I can shoeing the horse. And, I don't need a big/expensive rig and all the tools, equipment and supplies and other expenses that are attendant to a shoeing custom. And, I can start later in the day, finish earlier in the day and drive a corvette to work if I so choose. ;)
I know. That would have made it useful. As it was it was a content-free waste of bandwidth, allowing her to continue her constant psychodrama.
Well, you read it didn't you? And here you are, commenting on it. LOL.
and since apparently posting it on her website isn't generating enough controversy and attention for her, she has to enlist her minions to try and drum up some for her here.
A logical fallacy. Why? Because it assumes facts not in evidence. If you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

And, for the record, I wasn't even going to participate on this thread until you brought my name into play.

[Catersun]

Am I the only one who found the "You may be a...." funny?

I did too.. but it would have been funnier if not found on a hoofcare professional's website.

[Rick Burten]

However, Rick, if I had my name attached to it, *I* would be prefer it as least be grammatically correct. The message sort of gets lost with all the errors.
Leah,

I try to keep my work grammatically correct. Since I had the opportunity to proof-read the article before it was published, I bear some of the responsibility for missing and thus not correcting those slight faux pas. Mea culpa.

Considering the grammatical errors that are routinely found in works by other erudite/scholarly professionals of various and sundry persuasions, perhaps you can find it in your heart to forgive Kim her grammatical transgressions, and me my proof-reading transgressions. :) After all, unlike many of those afore mentioned scholars and professionals, Kim did not have the services of an Editor or professional proof-reader at her disposal.

"And forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sinned against us......" ;)

[LMH]

Good on you Rick for sharing the burden.;)

I understand your position-honestly it is just a huge spine ripple issue for me.

I had it beaten into me from high school on so the horror of the sin still freaks me out. I shudder even as I end sentences in prepositions in online discussions-but to do otherwise sounds somewhat silly in today's informal language world.

It just seems for a group of folks that like to quote french and latin (and whatever else), focus should also be on facing the challenge of the english language.:winkgrin:

For the record, there are also several run on sentences, a few sins of comma use, etc. So it is not simply the one minor faux pas of the use of then/than. Without beating the dead horse in the epona shoes, the grammar throughout is simply distracting.

Glad you didn't take the observations with too much offense. To make matters even more interesting, should you ever need the services of a slightly Type A grammar snob, you know where to find me.

[Daydream Believer]

I finally got a chance to read the article. I've been offline most weekend with hosting a breed related function.

Shrugs...nothing in there shocks me or strikes me as off base...but I think I am a bit disappointed to read such a negative article on Kim's site. I truly do hate the bantering about of the word "BUA"...I always have. I hate the fact that many label all trimmers as such even though a large number of us are not. It's the same thing as calling all farriers "iron hangers" due to the actions of a minority (or lack or skills or whatever) when clearly there are many very skilled farriers out there doing a good job. I suspect it is the same with trimmers regardless of where or how they were taught or whether they like shoes or not.

I'm sorry Kim has caught so much heat over her change in viewpoint but she's been incredibly vocal about it and it's been publicized all over the net now. With her high ranking position in a trimmers organization, I'm a bit surprised the crap hasn't hit the fan sooner. The ongoing and very nasty battles on this forum with other posters did not help.

To Kim...My only comment is to quit focusing on the negatives and go on with your life. Learn what you want...go to farrier school, glue on shoes...whatever....and quit giving a rat's patootie about who says what. Move on. Focusing on the past and carrying a big chip on your shoulder is only going to make folks who disagree with you to want to knock it off.

[marta]

good post.

but for what it's worth, the organization you referred to is not a trimmers association. at least that's not what their website indicates. it just says "hoofcare professionals." i don't think their membership is limited to trimmers only although maybe some would like to see it that way.

[Rick Burten]

Good on you Rick for sharing the burden.;)
"S/he ain't heavy, s/he's my [sister]brother....." :)
I had it beaten into me from high school on so the horror of the sin still freaks me out. I shudder even as I end sentences in prepositions in online discussions
I feel your pain.
-but to do otherwise sounds somewhat silly in today's informal language world.
I agree but it still chaps me to.(I know, I know, but I couldn't resist.) :D
It just seems for a group of folks that like to quote french and latin (and whatever else), focus should also be on facing the challenge of the english language.:winkgrin:
Unfortunately, for many, the concept of correct English grammar is as alien as the concept of me becoming a Bolshevik. Although, now that I think about it, the definition of the terms BUA and Bolsehvik have much in common(lunatic fringe grouply* speaking that is. ;) )

* a new term I have graciously added to the lexicon.
For the record, there are also several run on sentences, a few sins of comma use, etc.
A crime of which I too am often accused, and to which I usually plead guilty. :)
Glad you didn't take the observations with too much offense.
I took no offense at all.
To make matters even more interesting, should you ever need the services of a slightly Type A grammar snob, you know where to find me.
Thanks. I'll put you on speed dial[up] :)

Rick

[Androcles]

IMNTBCHO, that was not the point she was trying to make. Farriers are often accused by members of the BUA of only shoeing horses because we(the farriers) make more money shoeing than trimming. Which assumes facts not in evidence. Personally, I can [usually]make more money trimming and leaving the horse barefoot than I can shoeing the horse. And, I don't need a big/expensive rig and all the tools, equipment and supplies and other expenses that are attendant to a shoeing custom. And, I can start later in the day, finish earlier in the day and drive a corvette to work if I so choose. ;)



Good. Good for you. And good for her for having someone else explain through nearly 100 words what her point might have been. Having said that I seriously doubt she has made any of that investment especially to have one person trailer their horse to her glue shoes onto their horse's feet.


Well, you read it didn't you? And here you are, commenting on it. LOL.

I guess. If you consider commenting that there's nothing to comment on, a comment. :sleepy: