PDA

View Full Version : The "NO REINSTATEMENT" thread.



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

sarabeck
Feb. 3, 2006, 01:06 PM
You say you want support but what does it take to get information out of any of you. what is the name of his business and who is it he employs. What are the names of the horses you just refered to. What part of the question do you not understand. You guys are sounding like the country club your accusing the usef of being.
Speak up so we can do something about this. How do you expect the proper sound support when you won't be specific. Your are sounding like you just enjoy the back and forth of the fight. That will not accomplish anything.

Snowbird
Feb. 3, 2006, 01:21 PM
sarabeck you are just a touch obvious On Friday you request documented information which is not available as public record. Obviously, none of us is privvy to Mr. Valiere's private business nor do we want to be.

You already have the names of three riders who compete to his credits. You have the name of the trainer he employees which has been verified without a name by his many friends. Now we have a name. He has not kept the rules because he has horses he owns being ridden and competed. I have told you at what shows.

Now, I am certain that between us the information is available and by next week you will have the information for your letter if you still choose to send it. It certainly would appear he is still professionally using Acres Wild as his farm.

BaliBandido
Feb. 3, 2006, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by sarabeck:
You say you want support but what does it take to get information out of any of you. what is the name of his business and who is it he employs. What are the names of the horses you just refered to. What part of the question do you not understand. You guys are sounding like the country club your accusing the usef of being.
Speak up so we can do something about this. How do you expect the proper sound support when you won't be specific. Your are sounding like you just enjoy the back and forth of the fight. That will not accomplish anything.

Wow, relax a little grasshopper! 4 hours between posts and you have not gotten what you want? I would suspect that most of the people here have jobs, lives etc that they are tending and can't stop everything to get an information bulletin to you. However I am sure you can go to some websites that list results of horseshows and get a lot of the info there, should you really be interested in aquiring it.

You certainly aren't going to get a lot of assistance when you make snide comments. Looking at the date you registered tells me that you are a little new to this issue, there are people here who have thoughtfully discussed this for quite a while. Dialing back the 'tude would be appropriate.

sarabeck
Feb. 4, 2006, 07:19 AM
THESE ARE NOT SNIDE COMMEMNTS I WANT FACTS AND CORRECT ONES AT THAT! I JUST POSTED ON THE OTHER "LITTLE PEOPLE" THE INFOR LIKE SNOWBIRD SUGGESTED I GET AND HOW IS IT THAT IT DOESN'T MATCH WHAT YOUR ACCUSATIONS ARE! LEGATO, ARISTICRAT AND WHO ACTUALLY OWNS ACRES WILD FARM. YOU ALL ARE MAKING FOOLS OUT OF ALL OF US BY GETTING US HIPED UP ABOUT POOR AND INCORRECT JOURNALISM
GIVE STRAIGHT FACTS OR DON'T GIVE THEM AT ALL AND THE PEOPLE AND INNOCENT JUNIORS THAT HAVE TO READ YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THEM MIGHT GET PRETTY UPSET ABOUT ALL OF THIS. YOUR PUTTING FEAR IN THEM YES AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE. THERE IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH BUT WHEN IT IS FALSE AND CAUSES HARM TO PEOPLE. IT COULD GET QUITE LEGAL,
ONCE AGAIN I AM ASKING FOR THE FACTS TO HELP BUT YOU ALL SEEM TO BE ON A WITCH HUNT AGAINST ONE A GUY WHO HAS BEEN ELIGILBE FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS TO RE APPLY AND HAS NOT. COME APRIL YOU ALL JUST MIGHT BE LOOKING BAD.
I AM USING MY CAPS BECAUSE THE REGULAR TYPE DOESN'T SEEM TO SINK INTO YOUR HEADS
BY THE WAY I DO HAVE A JOB AND I LIKE TO PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS!!!!!!

ONCE AGAIN GIVE ME FACTS!

Hopeful Hunter
Feb. 4, 2006, 07:30 AM
sarabeck....

For those who are NOT part of PV's current boarders and students, it's not necessarily easy to get the information you've requested. He does work out of Acres Wild Farm -- but whether or not he is the "legal" owner I cannot say. There are many, many ways to create layers of legal distance between actual owners and paper owners, and we don't know how PV has constructed his ownership and/or interest in the operation.

It could well be that no one actually, within the very specific technical fine-print scope of the language, "works" for PV directly. I DO NOT KNOW. It could be that the trainers employed technically work elsewhere. Again, I don't know.

I can tell you that PV has not spoken to several reporters who have tried to get DIRECT information from him -- information of the kind you seem to want. That is his right, certainly.

But sarabeck, there is NO question -- and we have enough posters who have personally reported lessons, training, boarding and current relationships with PV to "prove" this -- that PV IS currently in the horse business and seemingly doing well with it, at the highest levels. THAT is what does not sit well with many of us.

See, at least for me, I have a problem with someone who has been proven guilty of - let's use language you might prefer - manipulating they system being allowed to continue to use it. Michael Milliken can't trade anymore, you know, and no living being died from his actions.

Only in the horse world do we seem willing to accept activities which in other professions get one banned for life. I'm not willing to accept that, and maybe if more of us felt the same we could see a renewal of emphasis on the fun of the sport, and on the welfare of our equine partners.

BaliBandido
Feb. 4, 2006, 08:34 AM
sb- The only person who can make a fool of you, is you. While I admire your thirst for correct factual information, i am not sure why you are so eager to get the info you have repeatedly demanded. It looked to me that the posters who stated names of people who rode for PV or one of his horses got that information from published material, not something they made up. If that material is incorrect then that needs to be addressed. However like Hopeful Hunter said there are layers that can make things very difficult to nail down.

Why don't you search the information for yourself, then you can be sure that you have checked the facts and that they are accurate. Ya know sometimes if you want the job done right you just gotta do it your self. I really don't think there is a witch hunt in progress here, however I think unless it can be verified as to the alleged continual illegal activity of PV or anyone he may employ- one should tread carefully. We all may 'know' this is happening- but until it can be documented it doesn't matter. The problem with catching someone who is doing something they know is wrong is that they go to great lengths to hide it. That can take the form of 'selling' a horse to someone for $1, and saying 'hey, I don't own the horse- they bought him', yeah technically that is true- but we all 'know' that it is not. There are many ways to make it seem like you are technically following the rules, when you are violating the hell out of the intent of those rules, it is everywhere- little loopholes in the system. I always think that the presence of such maneuvers actually is indicative of someones guilt, why work so hard to create a false situation unless the real one is not allowed? Why hide something if you have done nothing wrong?

I'm all for putting your money where your mouth is, but I have also learned sometimes a sock is better.

Snowbird
Feb. 4, 2006, 08:59 AM
Anyone interested can find my response on the other thread in depth. The substance is the most constructive truism said by saarabeck is that we should not believe what we read. Since all the comments and credits and assertions are not documented in any way I choose to accept that the Mason Phelps Media Group with their bank of expensive lawyers has carefully analyized the Press Releases before they were sent out to the Media.

As sarabeck said,"never believe what you read!" And, I say to you sarabeck there is none so blind as the one who will not see.

Galloway
Feb. 4, 2006, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Perfect Pony:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
It will only be bad publicity for the sport if they are actually reinstated. It will be good publicity if it is shown that instead of us all being spoiled, elitist, rich brats with no morals, we DO have people that care about doing what is right, and making sure our environment STAYS family friendly.

AMEN, that is exactly what I was thinking.

IMO, it is people like Mason Phelps, who it seems practically runs things in places like WEF, and who runs a media company to actually promote the sport (LOL!) that will "ruin" things and turn people away from the sport with his "friends" and attitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Perfect Pony, I agree with you. I'm not a Hunter rider, and I'm not usually over on this board - but I have tried to follow this thread.
So far nothing has jarred me quite like Mr. Phelps use of the word "unfortunate" in describing what Mr. Valliere did.

Unfortunate - is falling off your horse at the end of a perfect round.

Criminal - is having your horse murdered to defraud an insurance company.

Mr. Phelps needs to readjust his vocabulary.

If anything would turn me off from the Hunter ring, it's thinking that an individual with power in the sport thinks that killing horses is "unfortunate"

spina
Feb. 4, 2006, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by BaliBandido:
... I really don't think there is a witch hunt in progress here, however I think unless it can be verified as to the alleged continual illegal activity of PV or anyone he may employ- one should tread carefully. We all may 'know' this is happening- but until it can be documented it doesn't matter. The problem with catching someone who is doing something they know is wrong is that they go to great lengths to hide it. That can take the form of 'selling' a horse to someone for $1, and saying 'hey, I don't own the horse- they bought him', yeah technically that is true- but we all 'know' that it is not. There are many ways to make it seem like you are technically following the rules, when you are violating the hell out of the intent of those rules, it is everywhere- little loopholes in the system. I always think that the presence of such maneuvers actually is indicative of someones guilt, why work so hard to create a false situation unless the real one is not allowed? Why hide something if you have done nothing wrong?


OK, just to jump in here for a minute, I have to disagree that there isn't a witch hunt going on - and it's actually more like a lynch mob than a witch hunt.
Someone leasing or buying a horse from a suspended member is not violating the law, or even the rules. A suspended member is not violating the law or the rules by leasing or selling a horse to someone. I agree that it is a violation of the INTENT of the rules to sell someone a horse for a dollar so that they can show it - but that's what happens when rules are made and worded a specific way to try to create organization amongst chaos - people will find ways around them. Violating an intent is not viloating a rule or law - and if you don't like it, figure out a way to get the rule rewritten so it doesn't happen again. Running through the town with torches yelling "monster" not only doesn't work, it only applies to one monster.
I am truly amazed and a bit sickened that so many people are spending so much time and energy berating one person for something he did 10 years ago that was horrible and criminal - which he admitted was horrible and criminal, and has apologized for, and paid for as best he can according to the standards set by the organization that suspended him - as well as through community service. It puts him in a category with other offenders and criminals, some who have been released from prisons and are hoping to make the world a better place with their second chance.
But the real witch hunt is the going after the people who have leased his horses. They are not criminals - they are not engaging in criminal activity - and if they choose to deal with someone with a suspended membership and a dark past then that's their perogative.
I know that showing a horse purchased by a suspended member is not against any rules. If showing a horse leased by a suspended member is against the rules then I'm not aware of it, and chances are neither are any of the people who leased the horses - and if it IS against the rules, then let the USEF deal with it.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 4, 2006, 10:27 AM
I have a problem with someone who has been proven guilty of - let's use language you might prefer - manipulating they system being allowed to continue to use it.

That is truly worth shouting. It speaks volumes.

Even more to the point, someone that manipulated the system (illegally) for financial and status benefit, that in their "reform mode" is manipulating the system for their own financial and status benefit.

hmmmm, sounds like someone that has truly changed his ways http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

Apparently the tiger still has stripes.

Sheila H
Feb. 4, 2006, 02:01 PM
I'm always puzzled by the arguement that he is somehow circumventing the terms of the suspension. The AHSA could have said something like 'we will only consider an application for reinstatement if he has nothing to do with horses for ten years', but they didnt. What they did say was quite the opposite - he has to demonstrate that he's ok to be around horses, which presumably requires his continued involvement.

Whoever said the no reinstatement people's real beef is with the AHSA's ruling 10 years ago was pretty smart. Was that Glimmerglass?

Snowbird
Feb. 4, 2006, 02:16 PM
USEF Farm Search Results:
6082 SNOWBIRD ACRES FARM SIEGEL, VIKKI; SIEGEL, MARTY LONG VALLEY, NJ ACTIVE

There you go! Show's you how wrong their records are. Snowbird Acres Farm, is an LLC and doesn't own the farm at all. It doesn't carry the mortgage or pay the property taxes or pay the insurance. They haven't updated the records since we first got that farm number 28 years ago.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 4, 2006, 02:21 PM
So did anyone look up Acres Wild Farm? Well it is active, and Paul Valliere is listed with the USEF as owner. No bold red thru the farm name what so ever. So, can anyone tell me, does this mean the farm is not suspended?

Snowbird
Feb. 4, 2006, 02:31 PM
Oh! dear someone was holding the wrong end of the snake. They just got bit in the heinie. You see that's why I love democracy. The combined brains of a majority always exceeds that of the few.

Sheila H
Feb. 4, 2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA:
So did anyone look up Acres Wild Farm? Well it is active, and Paul Valliere is listed with the USEF as owner. No bold red thru the farm name what so ever. So, can anyone tell me, does this mean the farm is not suspended?

Does it say its in RI? The farm in Slatersville is something else now.

CBoylen
Feb. 4, 2006, 02:40 PM
Show's you how wrong their records are. Snowbird Acres Farm, is an LLC and doesn't own the farm at all. It doesn't carry the mortgage or pay the property taxes or pay the insurance. They haven't updated the records since we first got that farm number 28 years ago.
You are responsible for updating your information.
However, should there be a question of suspension, it doesn't matter who owns and supports the actual property. The only thing that matters is who owns the farm name in the USEF records.

Snowbird
Feb. 4, 2006, 02:56 PM
So does that mean Acres Wild Farm is suspended where ever it is since there are no partners listed? But if there is a new Farm name at the same place it would be OK?

All I file is a Management Group which not Snowbird Acres Farm but our new show corporation which is Northeast Regional Horse Shows, Ltd. It is a separate legal entity. Snowbird Acres Farm, LLC owns the horses that are registered with USEF as part of our Riding School.

CBoylen
Feb. 4, 2006, 03:02 PM
The farm in MA is Acres Wild Inc, owned by the previously mentioned Ms. Hill. None of the horses owned by it are suspended.
Most of the horses owned by Acres Wild, RI are suspended. A couple are not, and I presume those have been leased out to the satisfaction of the USEF, or are no longer competing, or there is some other circumstance of which I'm not aware.

BaliBandido
Feb. 4, 2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by spina:
Someone leasing or buying a horse from a suspended member is not violating the law, or even the rules. A suspended member is not violating the law or the rules by leasing or selling a horse to someone.

I agree with that, provided it is a real transaction, not one that is done with the purpose of getting horses owned by PV into the ring. I mean I make money selling horses, usually I have a Jr rider or AA show said horse because that is the type of horses I make- so they need to go in those divisions. However, I sign my name on the dotted line. If PV has 'sold' or 'leased' these horses for that, then if does violate the rules. If he does do that, that means he knows it violates the rules and he has found a way around it.


I agree that it is a violation of the INTENT of the rules to sell someone a horse for a dollar so that they can show it - but that's what happens when rules are made and worded a specific way to try to create organization amongst chaos - people will find ways around them.

I am right with you there, I agree. However one of the conditions of reinstatment was for him to abide by the terms of his suspension (not on grounds, no horses owned by him etc etc)his doing so would have shown that he knew he did a very foul and wrong thing and his actions would be above reproach becuase he genuinely understood what he did was wrong. Being clever enough to circumvent the letter of the suspension is not something that I am impressed with, in fact it scares me- because it shows that he still is willing to play fast and loose as long as he can point to the verbage and be clear according to that verbage. He is intellegent and has found a way around it- this is a good thing in terms of USEF wanting him back? That he is clever enough to find a loophole and dirty enough to use it? He knows it violates the rules and he has found a way around it. Much like when he knew it was illegal to kill a horse and file for insurance, so he tried to find a way around it by hiring someone, establishing his own alibi, lying etc.


Violating an intent is not viloating a rule or law - and if you don't like it, figure out a way to get the rule rewritten so it doesn't happen again. Running through the town with torches yelling "monster" not only doesn't work, it only applies to one monster. I agree again. I know some are over the top on both sides of the argument, however my only interest is my deeply held belief that someone who has the ability to do what he did for the reasons he did should not be allowed to be a part of an association like USEF. So no monster yelling from me.

I am not sure why people have a hard time beleiving he has violated the intent of his suspension, he violated the law in having killed for insurance money.


I am truly amazed and a bit sickened that so many people are spending so much time and energy berating one person for something he did 10 years ago that was horrible and criminal - which he admitted was horrible and criminal, and has apologized for, and paid for as best he can according to the standards set by the organization that suspended him - as well as through community service.

This is an interesting thing for me- I might be sickened as well if I believed as you and many others seem to that he had admitted his acts were horrible and criminal and had paid for it the best he could. However, I truly do not feel that is the case in this situation. To me paying for it the best he could would not be someone coaching from the sideline, or knowing what the intent of his suspension was but violating it while still keeping with the letter of the ruling. That does not show me true remorse or a willingness to take a deserved punishment. If he truly wanted to demonstrate his remorse and pay for his actions I think he could have remained in the business of teaching- surely he has much talent and could share that with others, where are the clinics he has given for no charge except for his expenses? When has he gotten up publicly and spoken about the infractions he committed and maybe the pressures that led him to do so in the hopes of preventing others from following that path (they make drunk drivers give speeches in high schools in hope that they will relate to their peers and their story will help others) Where has he volunteered his time and knowledge to help those that would never have the chance to learn from someone who competed at such elite levels? To me these things show someone who wants to do good things to offset the bad. I have not seen evidence of this except when he feels it will benefit him, which is not true remorse.


But the real witch hunt is the going after the people who have leased his horses. They are not criminals - they are not engaging in criminal activity - and if they choose to deal with someone with a suspended membership and a dark past then that's their perogative.

I agree that if they are unaware if they are part of a criminal action they should not be held responsible, however if they are and do so willingly then they should be. Much like aiding and abetting.

This whole discussion reminds me about the Clintonesqe debate about what 'is' is- Is it considered cheating on your spouse if you only perform certain acts? Some say yes, some say no. My thoughts on that are probably different than others- i think if you think about cheating, maybe flirt a little or get a little suggestive that is not cheating- however the second that turns to any contact of an intimate nature from kissing to anything else- then the line is crossed. Some think the minute you seriously consider stepping out is cheating. Maybe that is the real problem with a lot of posters- all seem to agree that what he did was way wrong- but they differ on whether he has shown and done the appropriate measures to be reinstated.

I just don't feel someone has truly gotten the message when they continue the same behavior only on a lesser scale. JMHO

BaliBandido
Feb. 4, 2006, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Sheila H:
I'm always puzzled by the arguement that he is somehow circumventing the terms of the suspension. The AHSA could have said something like 'we will only consider an application for reinstatement if he has nothing to do with horses for ten years', but they didnt. What they did say was quite the opposite - he has to demonstrate that he's ok to be around horses, which presumably requires his continued involvement.

Whoever said the no reinstatement people's real beef is with the AHSA's ruling 10 years ago was pretty smart. Was that Glimmerglass?

I think it would have been very unlikely that AHSA could have denied him his profession. They can not say he can not make a living by practicing his trade. Only that he may not compete in their sanctioned shows. Many trainers never make it to the rated shows, they still can teach, clinic, ride, train and sell horses. So it is not like it would be a hardship that was insufferable or take the food off his table.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 4, 2006, 03:30 PM
It states, N. Smithfield, R.I as Acres Wild Farm, Sheila H. The farm is active, and thats why my question. He is listed as suspended. The farm is not.

Snowbird
Feb. 4, 2006, 07:58 PM
Radiotalk that's a very interesting loop hole isn't it. Now if tne farm owns the horses then they can compete?

This is like the double speak that I got when they said that Northeast Regional Horse shows was charged and they couldn't file a Grievance because they weren't a person. And I couldn;t file a Grievance because I wasn't charged but I own the Management group. It has no assets I don't deposit in it.

Boy! talk about slippery lawyers.

N&B&T
Feb. 5, 2006, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by BaliBandido:
I'm all for putting your money where your mouth is, but I have also learned sometimes a sock is better.

BB, what a great line, may I adopt this as a signature? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I would like to encourage everyone who is concerned about the motives and repercussions of this petition to actually go to the no reinstatement petition (http://www.noreinstatement.org) and read the text, which, incidentally, explains why only PV is mentioned.

Signing means you support the petition. Period. It does not mean you support *every* opinion of *every* poster on this or any other bulletin board discussion.


Signing the petition does not mean you are prohibited from supporting OR INITIATING efforts to reduce or eliminate the various injustices that many have raised as being more contemporary or more worthy in some way.

In other words, instead of trying to redirect this effort to the problem of your choice, go after it yourself--post a topic and a petition and you may be surprised at the support you will get.

You do not have to be a member of the USEF to sign. The petition will be forwarded to the USOC. Since the USEF also selects the equestrian Olympic team, which represents our country, everyone has a stake in this issue.

Similarly--since the petition will be sent to the FEI, numerous people from other countries have signed.

It's worth taking a look at the Australian equestrian NGB code of conduct.

blubays
Feb. 5, 2006, 06:03 AM
Ok. I did it again. Did not join USEF last year because I had heard about Nancy Banfield getting back in. The USEF just sent me another letter to re join and I replyed that I did not want to be associated with a group who supports any person who is convicted of killing horses for profit. Ooops, I mean convicted of horse abuse.

Equibrit
Feb. 5, 2006, 07:15 AM
I would like to suggest that you all redirect your energies to basket weaving.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 5, 2006, 07:45 AM
And why would that be Equibrit? People discussing bother you?

BaliBandido
Feb. 5, 2006, 09:01 AM
N&B&T- of course you can use it!

Now if I could just put it into practice more often!

Sheila H
Feb. 5, 2006, 12:36 PM
Basket weaving would be less repitious.

Snowbird
Feb. 5, 2006, 12:43 PM
By all means Sheila then go weave a basket; we don't want you to be stressed.

Sheila H
Feb. 5, 2006, 12:50 PM
I was thinking of weaving a basket for you anyway. Just in case.

Snowbird
Feb. 5, 2006, 01:00 PM
Great idea please make it red with white trim so I can use it at the shows to sell the red and white bracelets.

blubays
Feb. 5, 2006, 02:42 PM
Equibrit and Sheila, I love you both and your great ideas. Please make me the basket with red trim and a NO REINSTATEMENT ribbon on it. Than send it with love and care, insured, to the USEF. What a great idea! Heck, why not make a couple so that your friend PV can have his own. You could send them both at the same time. Wait, just one more. We forgot to get one for Mason. He would not want to be left out either. This could be another item for the NO REINSTATEMENT store. great idea guys.

Sheila H
Feb. 5, 2006, 03:03 PM
Do you clowns know what red & white means?

amandaw
Feb. 5, 2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Sheila H:
Do you clowns know what red & white means?

Santa Claus?
Or are you talking about a red and white herring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_and_white

Snowbird
Feb. 5, 2006, 04:35 PM
Red for the blood spilled to protect freedom and white for purity of purpose.

Nationalvelvet
Feb. 6, 2006, 04:25 AM
Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total; of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.
Robert F. Kennedy

N&B&T
Feb. 6, 2006, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Equibrit:
I would like to suggest that you all redirect your energies to basket weaving.


There's a thought, I could use one for my socks. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

oxer
Feb. 6, 2006, 04:50 PM
Ok. I did it again. Did not join USEF last year because I had heard about Nancy Banfield getting back in. The USEF just sent me another letter to re join and I replyed that I did not want to be associated with a group who supports any person who is convicted of killing horses for profit. Ooops, I mean convicted of horse abuse.

marty you know i think that is a superb idea!!! anyone who doesn't like the final decision should simply take their marbles and go home!

filly3
Feb. 6, 2006, 06:13 PM
Cool. So that means if the USEF does the right thing and rejects any re-instatement, we can expect all the horse killer sympathizers, supporters and suck-butts to renounce their membership? That would be a real step in the right direction.

Sheila H
Feb. 6, 2006, 07:16 PM
All except the suck-butts. You should know that.

Snowbird
Feb. 6, 2006, 07:34 PM
Quite the opposite; those of us members with principles will not leave; we will stay and get louder and louder and and grow and grow like an anti-body attacking an intruding virus used to immunize the host.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 07:38 PM
All except the suck-butts. You should know that.
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Sheila H
Feb. 6, 2006, 07:39 PM
So Snowbird, you're saying you ARE a suck-butt?

Snowbird
Feb. 6, 2006, 07:42 PM
No! you say those who stay are a suck-butt and I say that those who stay are like a burr under the saddle. Irritating and uncompromising stroking the escape mechanism of a horse to escape from the irritant.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 07:45 PM
are those staying like a burr...or are they the birdflu?

Sheila H
Feb. 6, 2006, 07:46 PM
OK, never mind.

Xegabea - who should we laugh at next?

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 08:26 PM
Sheila... you seem like a reasonable person. Perhaps you can help clear the muddy waters for me. Is there a difference between the owner that sends their useless horse off to slaughter ( for pennies on the pound)and the owner that slaughters their horse for insurance bucks?

In the Air
Feb. 6, 2006, 08:34 PM
Oh, so that is what a troll smells like. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sleepy.gif

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 08:52 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

jetsmom
Feb. 6, 2006, 08:58 PM
xegeba- I can answer that.

One is legal and one isn't.

One is done by a method that the AVMA states is humane and the other ways aren't (Especially the crow bar one).

One is a person who is fairly open about what they do and accept that there are those that don't like it. The other is a cowardly worm that works in the cover of darkness, never admitting what they did.

One is doing it as a job or to make ends meet. The other is lacking morals, and empathy and is killing the horse out of greed and ego.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 09:43 PM
See, I can wrap my peabrain around the lack of morals and greedy thing. I simply cannot give a thumbs up to the person that sends the 25 yr. old mare off to the slaughterhouse cause she no longer makes sense. I do not understand people who dump the dog on the 101. I want to shoot the dog owner who gives away the 10 yr. old dog...cause they are moving. People who don't pull over for the stray that is in the middle of the road... disgusting excuse for a human.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 09:58 PM
One is done by a method that the AVMA states is humane and the other ways aren't (Especially the crow bar one).
and I don't give a rats ass what the AVMA or you or Snowbird considers "Humane" . Try to quantify the crowbar versus the smell of death. The alligator clip is a godsend IMHO.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:08 PM
and what if PV had run into huge money problems because his wife spent all the money on jewels and crack... and he had to send THE HORSE off to the slaughterhouse? and got a check for 150.55 ? Would that be O.K.?

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:12 PM
because that would be legal. And humane. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif yep... the whole slaughterhouse process is humane and the horses are happy as can be.

musu1
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:21 PM
Aside from the fact that one was illegal and brought a heck of a lot more cash, you think the same people that killed horses for insurance in various ways didn't ship others to slaughter as well? Really? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:22 PM
what is your point musu.

musu1
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:24 PM
Think about it xegeba. I'm sure you can wrap your peabrain around it.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:26 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:29 PM
my moral and ethical neighbor has no qualms about sending his broken QH's off to the killers. He is too cheap to take out an insurance policy. Or too moral. and humane. The man has ethics afterall.

jetsmom
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:36 PM
Ya know, I am probably one of the most anti-slaughter people on this board, but even I can see the difference between legal and illegal. Ping pong balls up the nose, crowbars and alligator clips all because someone is greedy and has too much ego to admit they made a mistake buying a horse or can't get it to perform as expected is a whole lot different than the mindset of a breeder that sends his culls to auction where they are bought for slaughter. At least at the auction, they had a chance. PV's, BW's and GL's never stood a chance.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:41 PM
who cares if 1 in 100,000 have a shot at being adopted. The people that send them there don't care. They are no different than the boys. Have a horse, don't want the horse, want money. and so what if a stallion gets adopted? Do you know what happens to them after that?

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 10:50 PM
and how would you feel about PV if he had decided to cut bait and send the failure to the slaughterhouse? Less greedy, but more humane?

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:01 PM
is a whole lot different than the mindset of a breeder that sends his culls to auction where they are bought for slaughter. At least at the auction, they had a chance
Yes... this makes total sense. The breeder that culls...cherrypicks ... has his feet firmly planted on the higher moral ground. Damn this filly is ugly... off she goes.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:06 PM
Ping pong balls up the nose, crowbars and alligator clips all
I'll bet the communal trailer ride to the lot is plush. The paddock is divine. the aroma is soothing. The redcarpet walk is heady. Who needs Dr. K? the whole scenario is dreamy.

musu1
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:08 PM
Which could very well be any breeder in europe, where so many wb's are so popular to purchase.

So..which would you deal with? The WB dealer in europe that may have a top of the line horse for sale and honestly tells you they cull the herd... or the person who has a conviction for Horse killing..and is probably going to get that horse from said european breeder even if you chose him?

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:12 PM
i believe that the European Ethics Book is one page longer thanthe American Ethics Book.

jetsmom
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:13 PM
Xegeba-Why in the world are you defending horse killers?
What part of legal vs illegal don't you get? What part of killing horses purely for ego is so hard for you to understand? PV didn't kill because he needed the money.
I sure hope that any horses you own never fail to live up to your expectations. Apparently you think what they did is OK.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:15 PM
you mistake "defending" for some other emotion. or you have chosen to interpret my posts that way. or... jetsmom has decided to interpret the content of my posts...and then she decided to categorize those posts. "Defending"is the word she used. She then wondered why I felt the need to make numerous posts, instead of making one gigantic post that most people don't read. She even was kind enough to point out that somewhere, somehow I could edit something. Even if I did not want to. I never did get an answer to my many dumbass questions that I thought were pertinent to the topic. However... I think she probably got her English Masters from HYPS... and I so am loving that little eraser thinghymajig.

musu1
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:15 PM
They still slaughter horses. Trailer ride and all. They've just figured out how to slaughter less. Is not the point of hiring someone to go to europe to avoid the culls?

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:18 PM
so all the horses in the US... that end up as ALPO, are breeder culls?

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:21 PM
PV didn't kill because he needed the money
You were privy to his FS?

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:24 PM
Posted Feb. 07, 2006 02:13 AM

I sure hope that any horses you own never fail to live up to your expectations. Apparently you think what they did is OK
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:27 PM
on second thought... how much does a POS go for per pound these days?

jetsmom
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:27 PM
Psst-Xegeba-"defending" isn't an emotion. It's an action. There's also a little icon at the bottom right of your post that lets you edit, instead of posting 42 times in a row. Unless you're going for quantity vs quality.

It's pretty well known that PV, BW and GL weren't exactly hurting for money when they had those horses killed. Do a little research.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:29 PM
psst..jetsmom... I enjoy having conversations with myself... and clearly you GOT me on the usage of the english language deal. you win.

xegeba
Feb. 6, 2006, 11:30 PM
and never, ever.. judge a book by the car they drive... I realize that you know what their debt sevice was/is.

xegeba
Feb. 7, 2006, 12:15 AM
[quote]Is not the point of hiring someone to go to europe to avoid the culls?
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif so we don't buy the culls? or we think we aren't buying the culls... but we really are? they kill the culls? they kill less culls? Oh... they sell us the culls...and the ones that we don't buy end up on the bistro table? Who knew, Muse? thanks a bunch.

musu1
Feb. 7, 2006, 12:26 AM
Of course on that note, who better to hire to deal with a sneaky european, than a sneaky american, lol, so have at it.

xegeba
Feb. 7, 2006, 12:30 AM
now THAT was a straight answer.

Sheila H
Feb. 7, 2006, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by xegeba:
Sheila... you seem like a reasonable person. Perhaps you can help clear the muddy waters for me. Is there a difference between the owner that sends their useless horse off to slaughter ( for pennies on the pound)and the owner that slaughters their horse for insurance bucks?

Yes there is a difference. The insurance fraudsters never keep the horse's poop in their freezer.

Limerick
Feb. 7, 2006, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ping pong balls up the nose, crowbars and alligator clips all
I'll bet the communal trailer ride to the lot is plush. The paddock is divine. the aroma is soothing. The redcarpet walk is heady. Who needs Dr. K? the whole scenario is dreamy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's all awful and disgusting and heartbreaking. I'm against slaughter, would NEVER do that to my horse. And I'm against what PV et al did to their horses. This thread, however, is about No Reinstatement for horse killers" (who defrauded insurance companies) I am positive there is still an active thread that rallies against horse slaughter but it's in the Off Course forum.

Now, I asked earlier if people thought we should send individual letters to USEF letting them know we've signed the petition. What department at USEF should I direct such an e-mail to? Membership?

Duffy
Feb. 7, 2006, 05:22 AM
I would think "membership" would be the logical place to start. Good idea, Limerick. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ise@ssl
Feb. 7, 2006, 05:43 AM
Ladies - I think you are forgetting that killing a horse for the insurance money is INSURANCE FRAUD - which is a Federal Offense! Slight difference legally.

As far as sending horses to slaughter - I'm not supportive of people who do this. They can have a horse put down (though in the case of insured horses they will probably NOT receive a pay out) in a humane manner and paying to have the horse buried, cremated or disposed of properly. NOW - that involves money OUT - and no MONEY IN. But for the life of me - I can't respect a person who feels getting about $180+/- less the transport to send a horse to the killers is such a cash windfall.

Insurance Fraud is it's own category and clearly shows a level of character that is well below the norm - IMHO. I always wonder when people have done this - what else have they done?

hiddenlake
Feb. 7, 2006, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by xegeba:
I never did get an answer to my many dumbass questions that I thought were pertinent to the topic.

Finally we're getting somewhere. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Thanks for a great laugh.

BaliBandido
Feb. 7, 2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by xegeba:
now THAT was a straight answer.

I think their are people who think both the situation of sending a horse to slaughter and killing one for insurance purposes are wrong. I don't see the need to compare one to the other in terms of which is more wrong.

The methods used to kill for insurance are not any more or less humane in many ways then the slaughter house, both are terrible.

I am not sure why you feel the need to detract from this issue, which most agree is heinous by comparing it to slaughter or chastising people becuase they are passionate about this issue. I am not sure if you think people should spend less time on this and more time on the slaughter issue, but just because one posts here does not mean they do not also give their time and effort to the issues involved with horse slaughter.

Unfortunatly, there is a lot of ignorence in the horse world at all levels, there are those who still think of them as property and there are those who have no option other than sending a horse to slaughter. Now you may say there are always options, but we all know that sometimes that is not true. there are those people who can not afford to have one put down, disposed of or buried due to finances etc- what do you tell them? Should they let it die and just rot? If they can't afford to feed it, put it down do they just let it starve?

Although I hate the thought of it, and know firsthand how horrible the feeling, smell, sounds etc of these places are, as well as the ride to and fro- some of these horses that are there and who will be dead in 24 hours, will be spared the horrors that can await them in the hands of ignorent people, those who can not afford to feed them or care for them etc. I have often seen horses that were in a situation that they would have been better off dead. Those who indure the daily abuse, hunger and pain that is visited on them by uneducated or uncaring individuals.

I understand your rage at people who dump animals, abandon them due to inconvience etc- I feel the same way and I am one of the dopes pulled over on the side of the road trying to coax some stray into my truck before it gets killed (always have snauseges with me!) and have even been the one with the camera and video trying to gather evidence to be used in abuse/neglect situations. So I really do see where you are coming from- but these are two separate issues, equally horrifying, neither worse than the other, but different. I think we all do what we can, where we can. That is a good thing.

In a perfect world none of this would be happening.

Duffy
Feb. 7, 2006, 09:58 AM
Well said, as usual, BaliBandido.

SGray
Feb. 7, 2006, 10:02 AM
Rule of thumb is: if you feel the need to hide an action then it is an action that should not occur.

Snowbird
Feb. 7, 2006, 02:03 PM
I do think there is a difference.

On one hand we have affluent people with a perfectly sound and sensible horse that is murdered just because they either don't want to take a loss, don't want the tax benefit for the loss or are afraid that someone else might be able to make the horse everything that was anticipated and perhaps come back to beat them. In this case there is a Federal crime of defrauding the insurance company and cruelty or abuse of an animal.

On the other hand you would probably have a horse which has not been saleable; that they can't afford to support and no one will take it even for free. It is unlikely that it is either sound, sensible or useful.

Granted I would prefer to have the horse shot and then dispose of it but that's expensive and maybe they really don't have the money. That could be their food budget. And, it may be distasteful but it is not illegal.

BaliBandido
Feb. 7, 2006, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
I do think there is a difference.

On one hand we have affluent people with a perfectly sound and sensible horse that is murdered just because they either don't want to take a loss, don't want the tax benefit for the loss or are afraid that someone else might be able to make the horse everything that was anticipated and perhaps come back to beat them. In this case there is a Federal crime of defrauding the insurance company and cruelty or abuse of an animal.

On the other hand you would probably have a horse which has not been saleable; that they can't afford to support and no one will take it even for free. It is unlikely that it is either sound, sensible or useful.

Granted I would prefer to have the horse shot and then dispose of it but that's expensive and maybe they really don't have the money. That could be their food budget. And, it may be distasteful but it is not illegal.

Of course there is a difference, many differences, legality being just one of them. Also it is not only horses that are not saleable, useable or sound sent to slaughter. Many are healthy etc, and are sent there for many reasons.

When I said this
but these are two separate issues, equally horrifying, neither worse than the other, but different.

what I was trying to convey is in the situations where there may be no other options available to certain people in certain individual situations, I can understand the slaughter option. I can never understand the horse killing for insurance. These horses were killed for ego or to cover up the fact that they were not as good/sound as they were when a buyer was conned into paying mega bucks for them and they were killed before that became known. A CYA situation. No excuse- ever for that.

I was not comparing the two. I was merely stating that although there are people who feel both are very wrong and they are intitled to that opinion, to compare them is not really comparing apples to apples.

BaliBandido
Feb. 7, 2006, 07:55 PM
I recieved an email today with a link to the petition, I thought that was cool because it came from a person I did not expect would be in favor of signing it. I thought this because this person is fairly well known and associates from time to time with some BNTs and BNRs that have espoused the 'he has done his time, let it go' point of view. I was surprised to see her signature on the list.

It got me to thinking about any of those people who are in the horse business for a living who have signed the petition. There is a certain amount of risk involved when they put their name on that list. They are announcing the way they feel about a certain big name person, who has many big name supporters in many places. They run the risk of losing a sale of a horse, maybe run the risk of losing contacts, find themselves getting the cold shoulder at shows from someone who may be a PV et al supporter.

I know that when I became aware of the petition, I knew I would sign it because I believe in it- but I did stop a moment to think of the potential consequences. While I do not often travel in the same circles as the Big Names, I have sold a few horses in those circles, have enlisted the services of some BNR as a catch rider, have enlisted the help of a BNT for some tune up/fine points for a student in a big medal class etc. I have wondered if by putting my name out there stating my view for all to see would cost me the next time I have a really nice horse for sale that would fit in the upper eschelon, will I get turned down when I ask for help or have a lovely horse that needs a name to show it? If I do, I am prepared to accept that. I suspect there are others who have signed the petition that have also decided their principles are important enough to risk the potential losses.

The horse world is pretty small and connections are important. I think that these people should be commended for willing to take the risk to their livlihood. It is easy to stand up for something when it does not have the potential to come back and cause you harm, far more difficult to do so when it can.

i have been so disillusioned with this whole situation and the fact that a petition is even necessary- but when I got the email and looked up this persons name on the petition it kind of renewed my hope for the horse community. There are more than just us little people on board!

Snowbird
Feb. 8, 2006, 10:15 AM
Well as to the orders for the bracelets. I have been struggling with pay Pal trying to figure out how it works so I can include it a method of payment and donations.

I apologize for my inadequacy but please know that because I remember when there was only one channel and TV was only on two hours a week that at that point the computer was not even yet a good idea.

I am struggling and if they could let a program last more then 6 months because they change it I might have a shot.

I can accept credit cards and checks. If you want to call, fax or email to me privately I would be delighted to send you bracelets. I just received and order of envelopes that will not be eaten by the machines at the post office.

Address it to USA Horse Shows Association and make out the check the same, mark whatever you send me as either a donation or a request for how many bracelets. I have set up a fund for donations to the general NO-REINSTATEMENT fund to cover those who may not be able to afford to pay but support our actions. We hope also to be able to advertise in those magazines will to use our Press Release.

The actual out of pocket cost with shipping and mailing is $2.00 each. I have 150 on hand and will order more as needed.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:40 AM
And I'm against what PV et al did to their horses. This thread, however, is about No Reinstatement for horse killers" (who defrauded insurance companies)
and I believe that whether you defauded your insurance company or decided that you no longer WANTED to feed your lame , useless horse( and then send it off to the SH)... Both scenarios make you a horsekiller. You probably A) shouldn't own a horse B)Should not be able to apply for membership in any Association having to do with horses.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 12:04 PM
Now you may say there are always options, but we all know that sometimes that is not true. there are those people who can not afford to have one put down, disposed of or buried due to finances etc- what do you tell them? Should they let it die and just rot? If they can't afford to feed it, put it down do they just let it starve?
Personally? If I found myself in that situation... I would do whatever it took(beg, borrow,maybe even steal?) to make sure my animal died a dignified, painless (physical and emotional) death.

Sebastian
Feb. 8, 2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I'm against what PV et al did to their horses. This thread, however, is about No Reinstatement for horse killers" (who defrauded insurance companies)
and I believe that whether you defauded your insurance company or decided that you no longer WANTED to feed your lame , useless horse( and then send it off to the SH)... Both scenarios make you a horsekiller. You probably A) shouldn't own a horse B)Should not be able to apply for membership in any Association having to do with horses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Therefore, by your own logic, PV should NOT be reinstated to USEF.

I knew you'd come around xegeba... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seb

TWF
Feb. 8, 2006, 12:11 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 12:26 PM
nothing to come around to. This whole industry sucks.

Sebastian
Feb. 8, 2006, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
nothing to come around to. This whole industry sucks.

You and I definitely agree on that. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

I hate that horses and showing have become an "industry." I think that is the basis for most of my complaints, and the corruption I see going on around me. And, aside from the emotional response I have to what PV did, I think he represents the "industry element" that I'd like to see removed from the USEF. I know he's just one of many, but we have to start somewhere...

Seb http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 8, 2006, 01:06 PM
Excuse me but we are the industry and the recreational sport activity. We are the Federation and if we have sat back and allowed people who take the industry in the wrong direction then we are responsible and need to take it back.

Simple life lesson if you make a mistake then you fix it! It is an insurmountable problem if you can decide on where to start.

There are people who in good faith believe that at an auction their horse will find a home. They try not to believe that no one else wants their horse.There are people who have died and left so future support for their horses or the relatives didn't want to share with the horses.
I think the breeders hope that someone who will enjoy theri culled horses will get a bargain and buy the horses.

Don't assume because we have so many selfish people that it is true of everyone but you.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 01:21 PM
There are people who in good faith believe that at an auction their horse will find a home. They try not to believe that no one else wants their horse
Kinda like the people who dump their dogs on the freeway? Either someone will rescue it... or it dies. Super. i feel so much better now.

filly3
Feb. 8, 2006, 01:30 PM
I suppose it can happen. A know someone who watched a truckload of guys dump out a dog at the end of the winter circuit in Wellington and drive away. The dog ran after them barking and frantic. She witnessed this, chased after the dog until she caught her put her in her truck, named her Grace and the dog has about the most spectacular life a poochie could have. Probably the exception rather than the rule but thought we could all use a bit of cheering up! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 8, 2006, 01:32 PM
I know it's hard to believe but it is a fact there are some very good people who hit on very hard times. Actually, someone stole a mongrel pup of ours and I was heartbroken and worried for him.

But, one day he showed up here at a horse show and someone found him when he was dumped on a highway and took him home and he was wonderfully happy and healthy. I was thrilled to know that was what happened and he wound up with horse people besides.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 8, 2006, 01:40 PM
Snowbird, since you asked about football, let me try to explain it, briefly so that we do not run too far astray of topic. The object is for the offensive team (the ones holding the ball) to score by moving the ball past the defensive team and into their endzone. Like polo, with no horses, no mallets, and much larger men.

Snowbird
Feb. 8, 2006, 02:26 PM
OK! Harry I understand the fundamentals of the game and a game. What I don't understand (beyond the ying yangs who get paid $100 million to risk their limbs) why it matters?

You have two teams of huge men all but kill each to get to that line they have to get over. My question is WHY? Take high school or even college they do the same thing for free. What it all reminds me of is a devious mascarade of the Roman Coliseum; modern style. Stands filled with citizens to watch the gladiators.

Then you have teams of tall skinny men who have to get the ball in the hoop. Or the little fast guys hitting the ball with a bat sliding face down in the dirt to be below the line not to get tagged.

My question is why as civilized people do we care who wins the game or want to sit there watching? How does that give pleasure? To make it horse related as a sociology thesis perhaps there is a way to convert that energy to horses.

For example let's say that people spectate because their pleasure is watching crashes and broken bones. Maybe instead of teaching perfection which more an art than sport we need to have the "elite" who look like their life is at risk.

How many people who don't know how to ride well would welcome the opportunity to try for $1 million? Perhaps we need to rethink the way we teach the sport. The biggest event at the Garden was Thursday night's Puisance.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 8, 2006, 04:32 PM
Kinda like those reality shows Snowy. For some reason, people want to watch them. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just think if we didn't have all of these, where would those pent up tensions release themselves?

Snowbird
Feb. 8, 2006, 04:54 PM
Well, I know you're right because humanity has been doing the same thing for over 5000 years so there must be some pleasure.

I can understand why we do what we do;it's a melding of two creatures. The horse has the legs we don't have can run faster and longer so we adopt his legs and use his strength and depend on his courage. The horse trusts us and believes what our brain wants to do. That is logical; it computes. That gives pleasure because it makes us taller, stronger and more dominant than by ourselves.

I can understand skiing or snowboarding where there is the ultimate freedom of flight. Watching it let's you imagine what being really free from natural laws of physics must feel like.

What is the world is the benefit of someone submerged in a tub of worms or letting bugs crawl all over them. Ostensively they do this for the chance to get $50,000; so do we watch to see how much someone can endure or to see if they win the money? How much more gross would they endure for $1 million dollars.

Why is tolerance of abusing the person a game or amusement? I can understand it in primitives who test themselves evey day just to survive. That can be a battle to measure the survival of the fittest. But in our world it just shows in the clinches you can't trust anyone.

I think it's a kind of brain washing that convinces the "masses" that there is no point in trying because all but one is a loser. It may not be as innocent as it looks.

Sheila H
Feb. 8, 2006, 05:06 PM
Melding of two creatures my @ss. Owners do it for bragging rights. Kids do it so they don't dissapoint their parents. Amateurs do it to get away from their husbands for a few days.

BaliBandido
Feb. 8, 2006, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now you may say there are always options, but we all know that sometimes that is not true. there are those people who can not afford to have one put down, disposed of or buried due to finances etc- what do you tell them? Should they let it die and just rot? If they can't afford to feed it, put it down do they just let it starve?
Personally? If I found myself in that situation... I would do whatever it took(beg, borrow,maybe even steal?) to make sure my animal died a dignified, painless (physical and emotional) death. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that the fact you are willing to do so is great, however not everyone places the same emphasis on the same things. If I couldn't beg or borrow and my option was to steal then I face the possibility of jail, where does that leave my daughter, my home, my job? Maybe it is an option for you, but for me and I am sure many others it is not. Then what? See I understand what you are saying and I truly appreciate it, however for many it is not a realistic scenario, I think in that situation slaughter is not equally comparable to the killing of horses for ego or profit. Yes, in the end you have an animal that is dead- however intent is a huge factor I think in determining the nature of the offence.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 8, 2006, 06:47 PM
Absolutely, Bali. We have a nice hunter/jumper barn...but with home heating prices and the economy what they are, even the local dog warden is calling me to help "place" 15 year old morgan pleasure horses and such! What DO you tell these poor people? They have families, and have to fill the oil tank all winter. I say..take them to a decent auction and PRAY!

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 07:00 PM
Can't most people figure out that they cannot afford something...plan ahead? Are you saying that the majority of owners that send their horse off to the killers wake up one morning with no money? Maybe they should stop buying lotto tickets and switch to generic ciggies. I'm also curious how many of these people are repeat customers. How many rely on the SH to take care of their problems... the unwanted horse garbage dump.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 8, 2006, 07:11 PM
"Are there no workhouses?!"...apologies to Charles Dickins. I couldn't resist.

Riggs
Feb. 8, 2006, 07:35 PM
How many times have we seen people in the horse world, who, when misfortune unexpectedly comes their way, divorce, illness, death, job loss, they can no longer pay the freight. The horse is for sale but sometimes it takes more than a few weeks to sell a horse, and the horse ends up having to go fast, very fast no matter what or where.
Not uncommon - we've all seen it happen. Very sad to see. They are an expensive part of our lives and its heartbreaking I am sure to have it happen to you. It's bad enough to watch it happen. I dont really think the people it happens to always have time to plan. And lets face it, some people just arent good money planners. Especially if all their money goes into their horses! So the horse has to go and go NOW. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

IMHO I think it is because they can't survive on their own and trust us to look after them. To that end, a slaughterhouse or auction to a bad home is pretty guilt creating.

Sheila H
Feb. 8, 2006, 07:52 PM
Most people cant figure out that they cant afford something. Thats what socialism is all about - encouraging the imbeciles to reproduce.

Sheila H
Feb. 8, 2006, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Riggs:
How many times have we seen people in the horse world, who, when misfortune unexpectedly comes their way, divorce, illness, death, job loss, they can no longer pay the freight. The horse is for sale but sometimes it takes more than a few weeks to sell a horse, and the horse ends up having to go fast, very fast no matter what or where.
Not uncommon - we've all seen it happen. Very sad to see. They are an expensive part of our lives and its heartbreaking I am sure to have it happen to you. It's bad enough to watch it happen. I dont really think the people it happens to always have time to plan. And lets face it, some people just arent good money planners. Especially if all their money goes into their horses! So the horse has to go and go NOW. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

IMHO I think it is because they can't survive on their own and trust us to look after them. To that end, a slaughterhouse or auction to a bad home is pretty guilt creating.

Typical middle-aged woman mentality. If said unfortunate person burned down their house for insurance $ to support their horse (and stupid kids), you'd salute her courage. If she off'ed her horse, you pity her. If he offs his horse for insurance $, you condemn him.

Sorry, Xebra and I know more about this game than all the rest of you put together.

Riggs
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:05 PM
I am really glad you know all about this horrible side of horseworld Sheila H. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Too bad you are so proud of that.

If you consider what I said, you MIGHT realize that I said that it is guilt creating. Some times there is no choice. Doesnt mean it doesnt make people feel bad.

I have been in horses for 45 years, so I guess I have seen a thing or two as well Sheila. Doesnt make it nice.

Sheila H
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:09 PM
What does 'guilt-creating' mean? Sounds like some leftist boo hoo hoo crap to me.

Riggs
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:13 PM
Now Sheila, THAT was cute! I think I like you....almost! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:14 PM
Schadenfreude. Obviously.

BaliBandido
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:15 PM
Sheila H- I hardly think you know more about this game than all the rest of us put together- prove it. As it stands now you just open your mouth and let the drivel out as long as it comes out sounding all knowing. Please, you are like many of the other blowhards, throw stuff out, allude to how in the know you are and offer nothing of any value.

You should find that sock.

Sheila H
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:19 PM
Once again my detractors make my point precisely. Drivel is exactly what this game is all about.

Kap
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:22 PM
Then you must be winning.

Sheila H
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:25 PM
Just like in the movies - you need good guys and bad guys. Except in my movie, the bad guy always wins.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:27 PM
Just what does the bad guy win?

Riggs
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:27 PM
Sheila, honestly you are my new best friend.... (where is that icon with the fluttering eyelashes when you need it).... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Riggs
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:28 PM
Harry, the bad guy always gets the last word in. Just like me! I am Sheila's new best friend!

Snowbird
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:30 PM
Well SheilaH in my movies the good guys wear white hats and they always win over the black hats who are the perpetual bad guys. Glad we watch different movies because mine make me feel good.

Sheila H
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:30 PM
Same thing the good guys win in the show ring: bragging rights.

Snowbird
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:32 PM
Ah! but my good guys win honest!

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:35 PM
Well, bragging rights, wonderful prize. Just what can you brag about? That you pretended to be an authority on something?

Sheila H
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:36 PM
That I bested my pathetic opponents at any cost!

Kap
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:38 PM
As the loser so often dellusionally thinks. There are no real winners in debates because no person can decide with ultimate authority what is right and wrong. If you want to "best" your opponent, go play tennis.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:39 PM
Only in your mind, I hardly think anyone ever feels bested. At any rate, living on the east coast, it is late. Have a sparkling evening everyone, and GOD BLESS PAUL VALLIERE!

Snowbird
Feb. 8, 2006, 08:46 PM
Good Night Harry! Sleep well.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 09:25 PM
Salud!
to HorseKillers everywhere! Harry?
do you prefer your liquor mixed or neat?

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 09:54 PM
Sorry, Xebra and I know more about this game than all the rest of you put together.
sheila, i prefer ZebrabraDDD.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 10:42 PM
How many times have we seen people in the horse world, who, when misfortune unexpectedly comes their way, divorce, illness, death, job loss, they can no longer pay the freight. The horse is for sale but sometimes it takes more than a few weeks to sell a horse, and the horse ends up having to go fast, very fast no matter what or where.
Not uncommon - we've all seen it happen. Very sad to see. They are an expensive part of our lives and its heartbreaking I am sure to have it happen to you. It's bad enough to watch it happen. I dont really think the people it happens to always have time to plan. And lets face it, some people just arent good money planners. Especially if all their money goes into their horses! So the horse has to go and go NOW. Now I get it...the bad money planners have the E-ticket... How many horses get whacked annually?

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 10:46 PM
There are no real winners in debates
Serious?

BaliBandido
Feb. 8, 2006, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
Now I get it...the bad money planners have the E-ticket... How many horses get whacked annually?

Yeah the bad planners, the ones who did not expect that accident that left them disabled, or who had a spouse or family member become ill and rack up zillions in med bills, or those idiots that were downsized out of a job, those whose crystal ball was at the shop when they found out they have unexpected, unavoidable expenses that force them to choose between the kids and the horse.

Your arguments allow no room for this, which is of course unrealistic- Reality is where most of us reside. However I am sure there are far fewer horses whacked annually because of your eloquence on this BB. Great way to help your cause.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 10:56 PM
Especially if all their money goes into their horses! So the horse has to go and go NOW.
So... based on this logic... let us now suppose that PV was a pisspoor money-manager and really, really needed the cash. What the hell... I've paid the ins. Co. gazillions of dollars over the years...I deserve this payout.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 10:57 PM
Reality is where most of us reside
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 10:59 PM
Great way to help your cause.
Could you please stop with the innuendo and conjecture... what exactly is my cause?

BaliBandido
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
So... based on this logic... let us now suppose that PV was a pisspoor money-manager and really, really needed the cash. What the hell... I've paid the ins. Co. gazillions of dollars over the years...I deserve this payout.

I suppose that goes with someone who thinks just because they want something they should have it. No matter if it belongs to someone else, is out of their price range, etc. It is also illegal- slaughter at this time may be many things but it is still legal. PV, I am sure is not the only person in the world who thought he deserved a payout- however he is one of the minority who actually went forward with it. Or does that not matter?

BaliBandido
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Great way to help your cause.
Could you please stop with the innuendo and conjecture... what exactly is my cause? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate and discontent, maybe?

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:01 PM
not unlike the employee that embezzles... I deserve it... so what is your point?

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:02 PM
Hate and discontent, maybe?
of what?

BaliBandido
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
not unlike the employee that embezzeles... I deserve it... so what is your point?

No point, and no point in trying to continue. You are right on every level. I go with Harry on this one- GOD BLESS PAUL VALLIERE!

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:06 PM
is embezzles a word... Bali? Correct that usage.

BaliBandido
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
is embezzles a word... Bali? Correct that usage.

I would never presume to correct you, xegeba. Buh bye!

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:10 PM
wait... Bali!!! Don't go! I need to know what i hate and the reason behind my discontent.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:11 PM
Fine... be that way. Spew and Run.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:13 PM
is hate a cause? or an emotion? perhaps one fuels the other.

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:29 PM
. It is also illegal- slaughter at this time may be many things but it is still legal.
well then... slaughter must be moral and ethical! Phew. What a relief. I had myself all worked up over this slaughter thing... but now I know it is legal! Thank You Bali. I have one thing I can check off the confession list. "Father... no need to forgive, because it is legal" Hail Mary!

xegeba
Feb. 8, 2006, 11:43 PM
I hardly think anyone ever feels bested.
I like being bested. Nothing compares to that "you've been bested" feeling. Besting. Sunrises. Sunsets. sublime.

Sheila H
Feb. 9, 2006, 04:31 AM
I think the illegality arguement is the flimsiest of all. If insurance fraud were legal, you'd have no problem with it? What if PV were pardoned?

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 9, 2006, 06:54 AM
X & Sheila....oh, forget it. Where's my tinfoil hat?

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 9, 2006, 07:00 AM
...and why would you know "more than all of us put together"? I grew up with these folks, rode with most of them...I make no bones as to who I am and where my farm is located. I admit to mixed feelings on this issue, friendships with PV, BW etc.... and WAS THERE, SHOWING, when this sh*t started going down. Put your money where your mouth is...or don't expect to be taken seriously as to your opinions and "immense knowledge" of every BNT's situation.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 9, 2006, 07:04 AM
Plus, no matter what anyone thinks, the man will continue to do business as he has for the past 10 years. (sorry Jodes http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

X and Sheila, are you on the wrong side of the bed these past few days? Or just looking for a good fight?

Jodes, Aefvue Farms Bartender
Feb. 9, 2006, 07:33 AM
radio: I'm honored http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

You go Thongpenders!!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

baleofhay
Feb. 9, 2006, 08:27 AM
You know, I just scanned the list of those that have signed the petition. I am surprised more trainers are not on there. I think it is our responsibility to ask our trainers point blank, Why have you not signed the petition? Without your signing you are condoning what PV and others have done.

BaliBandido
Feb. 9, 2006, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Racetb Aefvue Farm Ltd.:
X & Sheila....oh, forget it. Where's my tinfoil hat?
I made mine last night, I shall make one for you, it shall have bling and a pointy top for better reception. I will send it through the wires to you.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 9, 2006, 08:44 AM
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif..

Jodes, Aefvue Farms Bartender
Feb. 9, 2006, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by baleofhay:
Without your signing you are condoning what PV and others have done.

not what that means at all. Some just remain silent, while others....well, quite the opposite http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

N&B&T
Feb. 10, 2006, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by xegeba:
See, I can wrap my peabrain around the lack of morals and greedy thing. I simply cannot give a thumbs up to the person that sends the 25 yr. old mare off to the slaughterhouse cause she no longer makes sense. I do not understand people who dump the dog on the 101. I want to shoot the dog owner who gives away the 10 yr. old dog...cause they are moving. People who don't pull over for the stray that is in the middle of the road... disgusting excuse for a human.

You know, xebega, I find myself agreeing with you--mostly http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif--on the above.

I suspect that quite a few people on this board do also. If you look, you will find a number of threads about horse slaughter; I urge you to read and participate in those threads and to take whatever action you feel you can to oppose slaughterhouses--and to find a solution to the problem of how to deal humanely with unwanted horses (however they came to be in that category).

I think the fact that you--and others--are raising the issue of slaughter on this thread in a less than clear manner is confusing people. Maybe, for some of you, your intention *is* to toy with people's emotions--in that case, may I suggest a finding a different way to while away your time?

If not, if the above is sincere, please realize that a lot of people who may in fact agree with you, are, in addition, *just* as appalled about the horse-killing incidents as you are about animal abandonement.

The petition--and this thread, by the way--is about the horse-killings. ALL of them. As has been stated *numerous* times, the petition now available names only one individual *because* the opportunity to apply for reinstatement comes up one at a time.

One more time--the individual named will not be prohibited from making a living in training and sales. His expertise will be available to anyone who wishes to work with him. He simply will not be able to operate under the aegis of the USEF.

I can well believe that those who know this individual may feel conflicted about supporting the no reinstatement petition. For those people, I will say that I have a connection--in an entirely different field--who has been banned from practising his profession for offenses that, while serious enough to warrant the consequence, are *far, far* less serious than the horse-killings. I have a debt of gratitude to this connection, and am, in a personal sense, concerned and saddened about his future. But I cannot in good conscience say that the consequences should have been withheld simply because I know him.

I hope that in future posts, people will stay on topic and refrain from extreme and non-constructive remarks.

My sock basket is available to all who feel they may need help with that. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

filly3
Feb. 10, 2006, 07:07 AM
xegeba..I absolutely admire you for your very vocal opposition to slaughter and the callous way that we humans deal with "unwanted" animals. It's appalling. There are many, many people who feel the same way that you do. When Congress overwhelmingly passed the slaughter bill recently, more Americans contacted their congressmen and representatives opposing slaughter than those oppossing the war in Iraq! There are a lot of people out there who share your beliefs and concerns. I hope that you contact your representatives, animal protection organizations, newspapers and anyone else who will listen to voice your care and concern. There's a lot to be done and the animals NEED people like you to speak up for them We are their only voices. Good luck and many thanks!

xegeba
Feb. 10, 2006, 08:26 PM
even if we take the slaughter out of the country... can we take the slaughter mindset out of the people that choose that route?Although , a bullet through the head is far better than the stockyard. Thinking out loud here.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 10, 2006, 08:33 PM
I, in turn, want my horse to be with oxer. As long as he does not reach menopause, or contract diabetes.

xegeba
Feb. 10, 2006, 08:45 PM
harry... get off my menopause... It is a disease... it requires total kindness, understanding and SUBMISSION on the part of the male partner who is forced to deal with it. However... there is a point when the male species is allowed to end the collective misery.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 10, 2006, 08:50 PM
xegeba, my menopause statement was not directed in your way. It was intended for those who equate menopause to drug addiction.

Erin
Feb. 10, 2006, 09:00 PM
Keep it on topic, and keep it civil, or this one gets locked too.

Lisamarie8
Feb. 10, 2006, 09:10 PM
Erin, I'm sorry, but this:


Originally posted by xegeba:

harry... get off my menopause...

Slays me.

On Topic? Hell no. But without a little posting liberty, that Gem would have NEVER seen the light of day.

BaliBandido
Feb. 10, 2006, 09:29 PM
Okay, I have a question that I am not sure has been asked yet. What would have happened with these horses (killed for insurance), had they not been insured?

Obviously it was felt that for whatever reason the horse was not living up to its billing, or was not performing well enough for a certain rider or whatever reason that made killing them seem to them like a viable alternative. If they had not been insured and therefor no way to recoup the costs, what would have been done then? Would they still have died mysteriously because they were an embarrasement (percieved) or as a way to hide the fact that they were not as good as buyer had been led to believe? Would they have been sold down, given away, what?

What made me think of this question is that we say the horses were killed for the insurance- but they were not- most of the owners of the horses did not need the money so really they were killed because they did not meet expectations and the insurance money was a way to not have a big financial loss or to have the trainer have to do alot of explaining.

I think this is where the real issue is for me- I have had horses that I just couldn't get to do the job I wanted them to do, but I found them other jobs and other people. I agree that re-homing or grooming these horses for a different job was not exactly what I had planned but have accepted that sometimes my crystal ball is on strike and I still have to find something for those horses to do. It has made me extra careful about horses that I buy for clients because when it comes right down to it, they look to me to be the final decision maker on suitablity.They rely on my professional experience to guide them in the transaction. So when I give my go ahead I do so after really checking the horse out, checking out the horse/rider match and all the other myriad details that go into making the new horse work out for what we want and need, that is my job. I do this because I know that if I pick the wrong horse, ultimatly I have to explain my mistake and then deal with the consequences whether that be I lose the client or I have to now find a suitable job for that horse and resell it at a price that comes damn close to the price paid by my clients or I am up the creek and out of a job. So for me the consecquences of a bad decision have a very real effect on my life and my livlihood.

Perhaps if PV et al had done the proper homework prior to having their buyer purchase a horse- this would not have happened. Why did it happen, surely PV et al were good enough horse trainers to evaluate an animal properly? What would they have done if the 'easy way out' was not available?

Sheila H
Feb. 10, 2006, 11:06 PM
you're talking gems? Why not twist that one a bit more?

In any case, I am not a crook. I've earned everything I've got.

N&B&T
Feb. 11, 2006, 08:55 AM
How disappointing to see the other thread locked.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 11, 2006, 09:18 AM
It is my belief that a couple of posters were intent on getting it shut down.

RNB
Feb. 11, 2006, 09:22 AM
And it seems they got their wish. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

N&B&T
Feb. 11, 2006, 09:39 AM
Yes, but if they were not responded to in kind, this might not have happened.

Passing sock basket, zipping flame suit--see you tomorrow, I hope.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 11, 2006, 09:45 AM
I agree N&B&T, and I am one of the guilty ones.

big dawg
Feb. 11, 2006, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by filly3:
xegeba..I absolutely admire you for your very vocal opposition to slaughter and the callous way that we humans deal with "unwanted" animals. It's appalling. There are many, many people who feel the same way that you do. When Congress overwhelmingly passed the slaughter bill recently, more Americans contacted their congressmen and representatives opposing slaughter than those oppossing the war in Iraq! There are a lot of people out there who share your beliefs and concerns. I hope that you contact your representatives, animal protection organizations, newspapers and anyone else who will listen to voice your care and concern. There's a lot to be done and the animals NEED people like you to speak up for them We are their only voices. Good luck and many thanks!

To be correct, the "slaughter bill" did not stop Horse slaughter houses in the States--they just did not fund the USDA inspectors...BIG Victory for you animal rights terrorists...

Erin
Feb. 11, 2006, 10:27 AM
big dawg, if you want to argue about slaughter and call people terrorists, go start your own thread.

Stay on topic. Stay civil. Is that REALLY that difficult for you people?

big dawg
Feb. 11, 2006, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Erin:
big dawg, if you want to argue about slaughter and call people terrorists, go start your own thread.

Stay on topic. Stay civil. Is that REALLY that difficult for you people?

Hey, I just responded to the post about the horse slaughter bill passed by Congress... Keep up with the topic or go to another thread that is a bit simpler for you...

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 10:36 AM
Big Dawg! I think we've alled learned our lessons no one will respond to your outrageous posts and Erin will have reason to shut this one down.

Mind your manners children!

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 11, 2006, 10:41 AM
Snowy is right, Me thinks Big Dawg has no clue who Erin is!!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

big dawg
Feb. 11, 2006, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Big Dawg! I think we've alled learned our lessons no one will respond to your outrageous posts and Erin will have reason to shut this one down.

Mind your manners children!

Quit being disparaging about someone posting who has a point of view that isn't just like yours...read the post about the Congress slaughter bill--I did not post it--just replied...

big dawg
Feb. 11, 2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division:
Snowy is right, Me thinks Big Dawg has no clue who Erin is!!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'm Scared!

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 10:52 AM
And, well you should be! Civil right to freedom of speach is as defined by Erin and the ruless of the BB. This is not public property we are the guests of the Chroncicle.

Erin
Feb. 11, 2006, 11:00 AM
Banned.

Next?

Erin
Feb. 11, 2006, 11:02 AM
Drop it people. Get back to the topic at hand, please.

filly3
Feb. 11, 2006, 11:06 AM
Since it was my post that started this I just want to say that nowhere in the post did I say that slaughterhouses were stopped or that slaughter was stopped. I just talked about the bill as it was.

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 11:12 AM
Let's put a new addendum up for consideration.

Do we want to include other criminal elements in our campaign? Such as someone who confessed to killing a horse owner? Or was convicted of killing a barn manager? or someone who has been convicted of fraud in horse sales? Where do we want to put the line in the sand?

What about multiple charges of having a horse found positive for the use of drugs on horses?

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 11, 2006, 02:05 PM
Bali had a good question. If these horses had not been insured would this have happened? Probably not. They also would not have been at PV's barn in the first place. Expensive horses normally = insurance. To protect said buyer.

As for the slaughter issue. Did anyone of you see the NY Times yesterday page 5? Here's a small quote of the article. "This horse was not raised to be someone's dinner". Full page top to bottom. Giving "5 reasons why horse slaughter is an American disgrace." Done by the National Horse Protection Coalition. It is EXCELLENT!!!

CBoylen
Feb. 11, 2006, 03:13 PM
Expensive horses normally = insurance. To protect said buyer.
Well, not as often as you would think. The premiums are so costly as to make it a difficult decision.
There are maybe five horses out of twenty-five insured in my current barn. My last barn; I think it was about two out of twenty. None of my horses have ever been insured.
There are of course lots of people that do insure horses, but it's certainly not so common as you can say an uninsured horse wouldn't be present in a top barn.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 11, 2006, 03:39 PM
I have to say this is true. Cheaper horses in my barn are insured. The fancy ones usually are not, as the premiums become too prohibitive. I've found the same in the racing industry...Mr. Mellon's animals were not insured, nor were any expensive strings of horses, with a single owner, ever insured.

Zanny
Feb. 11, 2006, 04:00 PM
Maybe this was for tax shelter reasons to not insure? If the horse dies, it would be written off as a loss. No need to insure. But if a horse is a hobby...

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 04:10 PM
Interesting glass house of worms there. Anyone on that petition ever do OK at tax time because of a horse that got sent down the river??

Zanny
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:12 PM
Sure, but it wasn't intentional. I think the point of the petition is people who intentionally create a loss for profit are worms.

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:15 PM
??

Somebody accidentely whacked a horse? Or somebody accidentely claimed a tax deduction?

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:18 PM
That's an interesting question. So could it be likely that a horse is insured if there is reason to be suspicious that it could have a problem? IF a horse was injured already but by something not covered by loss of use that could mitigate the actions.

You see there are just too many unknowns to have an intelligent opinion. This leaves us with a confession and a public reason and a conviction that we all know happened.

Zanny
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:24 PM
I think horse killers are trying to say they "accidently" whacked a horse and then "accidentley" claimed a deduction. But the petition is not an accident nor are the signatures. I think worms in a glass "wish" they were accidents, please let them go....

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:27 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I havent heard any horse killers weigh in on this topic.

Except the ones who boast about having signed the petition.

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:33 PM
Not that you know of Sheila! But do you know who everyone is that posts here on this thread? Do you even know if the same person is posting under many alters? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gifhttp://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:36 PM
Zanny...No, broodmares used to be an excellent tax shelter...no more! With a string of expensive horses..you end up paying the horse's worth in insurance premiums in 3 or 4 years...it just makes more sense not to insure.

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:41 PM
Racetb you raise an interesting question how long had they had the hoprse or better yet how long had they had the insurance premium?

My insurance agent will insure for 30 days on a phone call.

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Not that you know of Sheila! But do you know who everyone is that posts here on this thread? Do you even know if the same person is posting under many alters? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gifhttp://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Of course I know who everyone is! As I've said many times, I know most of the pros and all of the cons!

meadow lark
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA:
Bali had a good question. If these horses had not been insured would this have happened? Probably not. They also would not have been at PV's barn in the first place. Expensive horses normally = insurance. To protect said buyer.



Only one horse was at PV's barn.

Zanny
Feb. 11, 2006, 05:58 PM
In my experiences, hunters in flux were insured and we spent many a penny on x-rays to help the "sell". And yes I'm talkin the 80-95 era, and yes some of the old timers have signed. The USEF knows, but like Snowbird and WarA we've seen it before. I am glad the internut has brought us all together alias or otherwise.

Zanny
Feb. 11, 2006, 06:05 PM
I hope we can resolve this "in house" because it is a media "no brainer". Lucky for us our wellies and sh8ty smell will make news if this gets out. Think about it...our most popular video for our sport is when we fall. Go ahead and eat cake ringside, just keep an eye for the camera, which by the way is as small as the button of your shirt.

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 06:10 PM
Actually, as a sport, its all non-news no matter what happens. The real media only cares when there is an angle that exposes the filthy lucre of the rich and (semi) famous.

Zanny
Feb. 11, 2006, 06:32 PM
Exactly Shelia H, when we are standing in the middle of a stall somebody walks in with a camera and wants to know how YOU feel about such and such...just b/c your in wellies and have a horse on a public showgrounds. It happened to me about another trainer in another discipline in another county and not one of "their" shows. Splaining to the rest of the world about what and why we do is hard enough, let alone felony crimes forgiven.

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 07:26 PM
Clearly the thing to do in that situation is tell the truth: my boss would never defraud an insurance company (at least not on a horse claim), but when it comes to tax deductions or new siding for his home, anything goes.

Kap
Feb. 11, 2006, 07:37 PM
I don't think it's ever actually right to defraud an insurance company. To me it makes no difference whether one makes a false horse claim or cheats on their taxes. Crime is crime. No one who cheats the insurance companies or federal gov't can ever complain about how high rates or taxes are these days. It's partly because of the insurance scammers that everyone else has to suffer high insurance rates.

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 07:42 PM
Well said Kap; That is what everyone forgets one way or another we all are charged for crimes. That's why we should be able to police ourselves.

Yes! it has been so very nice finding out there are other people who remember the good old days when this was a sport. Sort of like an old boys club you think? "Those were the days" when I was young and gullible.

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 07:43 PM
Well Sheila therein is the big problem as a social event it just doesn't cut it if we all have to make nice with horse killers; people killers a sales frauds.

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 07:47 PM
Funny - I would have said the big problem was illiterarcy.

Snowbird
Feb. 11, 2006, 07:51 PM
illiterarcy. Please explain I don't understand that word.

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 07:59 PM
ask Xebgba - she will explain it to you.

Zanny
Feb. 11, 2006, 08:00 PM
I think the whole skip, hem, and awe comes from the 1986 tax reform when you had to start claiming actual hours for horse write-offs. Suddenly some horses met an early demise...Yes, not everybody was "caught", but Yes, if you were caught, it was a time out..then out of the game, or so society would think. But past experiences have led us to the petition. If you were acting like such a jerk the FBI singled you out as an informant and you "turned over", sorry...your Henry Hill in a no where land eating ketchup noodles with the rest of us "schmucks", life is true. It catches up, and it's horse killer for insurance fraud time...just deal. I think it is better for USef to do it now...before it's later. Really...known convicts of horse killing do not belong in a "membership" of horse people.

Kap
Feb. 11, 2006, 08:00 PM
So far you have not been able to spell xegeba's name right, you know. The last time I noticed this was when you called her "xebra"

Sheila H
Feb. 11, 2006, 08:02 PM
dont worry - I will never spel your name wrong.

Erin
Feb. 11, 2006, 08:12 PM
Ahem. On topic. Civil.

Are you people capable of this or not?

Zanny
Feb. 11, 2006, 08:12 PM
The last two posts (previous Erin) posts are so..."topic"...just a bump/pointer for the NO REINSTATEMENT.

meadow lark
Feb. 12, 2006, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Sheila H:
Clearly the thing to do in that situation is tell the truth: my boss would never defraud an insurance company (at least not on a horse claim), but when it comes to tax deductions or new siding for his home, anything goes.

so your boss has a case of no moral compass.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 12, 2006, 07:00 AM
In regard to the people who mentioned that insurance premiums on expensive horses were too high to make them worthwhile, I am sure you realize that the risk involved in insuring them have driven the rates up. Insurance prices are calculated based on history, if a significant number of horses in that price or age group results in claims, the premiums are going to go up. If it becomes apparent to the insurance company that horse people are prone to fraudulent behavior, the premiums will go up.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 12, 2006, 07:04 AM
Plus to add to Harry's thought, aren't the premiums based on the value of the horse? Horse prices have gone up thus the premiums go up.

VirginiaBred
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:52 AM
They are realted to the value (purchase and current).

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:59 AM
All those factors drive the insurance industry up on everything. Including other material entities as well.

Duffy
Feb. 12, 2006, 10:18 AM
The mortality on the ones I own is less than their "value". I have it mainly for the major med. On the one I lease, I have to maintain the mortality for the full value. (ouch!)

meadow lark
Feb. 12, 2006, 10:54 AM
Insurance premiums are based on two main factors--losses experienced by the ins company and yield on their invested $. And it also depends on how many lines of insurance they are in as well as what geographic areas--you don't want to just insure homes in Fla!

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 08:33 PM
Posted Feb. 11, 2006 12:29 AM
Okay, I have a question that I am not sure has been asked yet. What would have happened with these horses (killed for insurance), had they not been insured?

Obviously it was felt that for whatever reason the horse was not living up to its billing, or was not performing well enough for a certain rider or whatever reason that made killing them seem to them like a viable alternative. If they had not been insured and therefor no way to recoup the costs, what would have been done then? Would they still have died mysteriously because they were an embarrasement (percieved) or as a way to hide the fact that they were not as good as buyer had been led to believe? Would they have been sold down, given away, what?
First... the buyer in PV case was PV. So ... the only thing he was dealing with was his own bad roll of the dice. Second... if there was no insurance policy... the horse goes to the killers... just like every other horse that is lucky enough to be owned by an a**wipe who thinks of them as a commodity and does not have enough money to insure them. some of these people are in good standing with USEF.

BaliBandido
Feb. 12, 2006, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
First... the buyer in PV case was PV. So ... the only thing he was dealing with was his own bad roll of the dice. Second... if there was no insurance policy... the horse goes to the killers... just like every other horse that is lucky enough to be owned by an a**wipe who thinks of them as a commodity and does not have enough money to insure them. some of these people are in good standing with USEF.

Do you think he would have sent the horse to the killers and take that big loss? Wouldn't sheer greed make him find an excuse to sell him down the road for maybe less than he paid but surely more than a killer price, or would ego have been to much for that?

How about if it was a client horse? How does one explain that decision to someone who has paid big bucks for a horse that now is only worth killer price?

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:09 PM
Obviously it was felt that for whatever reason the horse was not living up to its billing, or was not performing well enough for a certain rider or whatever reason that made killing them seem to them like a viable alternative. If they had not been insured and therefor no way to recoup the costs, what would have been done then? Would they still have died mysteriously because they were an embarrasement (percieved) or as a way to hide the fact that they were not as good as buyer had been led to believe? Would they have been sold down, given
perhaps I've missed your point... why don't you answer your own question? What would have happened to PV's horse if he chose not to insure said POS?

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:11 PM
How about if it was a client horse? How does one explain that decision to someone who has paid big bucks for a horse that now is only worth killer price?
Did PV off a client's horse? without permission?

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:17 PM
Do you think he would have sent the horse to the killers and take that big loss? Wouldn't sheer greed make him find an excuse to sell him down the road for maybe less than
HUH? Are you saying that if Bali bought a horse and horse turned out to be a loser... that selling him down the road (for a loss)would be a product of "sheer greed"? Bali... help me out here.

BaliBandido
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Obviously it was felt that for whatever reason the horse was not living up to its billing, or was not performing well enough for a certain rider or whatever reason that made killing them seem to them like a viable alternative. If they had not been insured and therefor no way to recoup the costs, what would have been done then? Would they still have died mysteriously because they were an embarrasement (percieved) or as a way to hide the fact that they were not as good as buyer had been led to believe? Would they have been sold down, given
perhaps I've missed your point... why don't you answer your own question? What would have happened to PV's horse if he chose not to insure said POS? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I am trying to ask a legitimate question- must you always be so difficult? the only way I can answer my own question is if I am talking about myself-which I am not. I asked in the orignal post what would have happened if PV had not insured the horse. I was wondering if there would have been an alternative ending?

BaliBandido
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about if it was a client horse? How does one explain that decision to someone who has paid big bucks for a horse that now is only worth killer price?
Did PV off a client's horse? without permission? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily talking about PV, he was not the only one who had this done, so again why did you even reply?

BaliBandido
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you think he would have sent the horse to the killers and take that big loss? Wouldn't sheer greed make him find an excuse to sell him down the road for maybe less than
HUH? Are you saying that if Bali bought a horse and horse turned out to be a loser... that selling him down the road (for a loss)would be a product of "sheer greed"? Bali... help me out here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you did not understand- what I was trying to say was wouldn't greed make him at least try to sell the horse for more than he could get at a killer sale. That question was brought about by your statement: Second... if there was no insurance policy... the horse goes to the killers... just like every other horse that is lucky enough to be owned by an a**wipe who thinks of them as a commodity and does not have enough money to insure them.

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:32 PM
Okay, I am trying to ask a legitimate question- must you always be so difficult? the only way I can answer my own question is if I am talking about myself-which I am not. I asked in the orignal post what would have happened if PV had not insured the horse. I was wondering if there would have been an alternative ending?
and am I asking a legitimate question? is that being difficult? Clearly... I'm not coming up with a good answer... so help me out. Stop assuming that i'm trying to trap you. This issue has no right answer...no happy ending.

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:34 PM
Bali... i'm just really confused right now. Help me out.

Snowbird
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:36 PM
OK! let me try! A Real person like me would probably not be able to afford the insurance so if it wasn't working out we'd sell it to whoever was willing to take it for whatever we could get without lying about it's talent.

Now! on the other hand a big roller would buy it, discover it was not working for him and then take out insurance so he he could off it and get his money back knowing that otherwise it was too big a loss for him or maybe even make a big profit thinking it was at my expense.. AND just maybe some trainer would get hold of the horse prove he was an idiot by beating him with his own horse. The latter being the most serious risk.

He might even have bought the same horse I sold thinking he knew better than me and then found out he was wrong.

BaliBandido
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
[and am I asking a legitimate question? is that being difficult? Clearly... I'm not coming up with a good answer... so help me out. Stop assuming that i'm trying to trap you. This issue has no right answer...no happy ending.
Okay, I'll give you that- it has been a long thread! I guess I wonder if the fact that there was a way 'out' so to speak by having the insurance money made this whole situation possible in the first place. Not that insurance isn't a good thing, but had it not been there maybe the prices would not have been so inflated to start, then the pressure of explaining why horse was not acting like a big $ horse, then coming up with a solution to make the situation resolve.

If there was no way to get your money out of a horse by killing it for insurance- would the impetus been there to first buy an animal that earned its pricetag and then find a way to resell it when it no longer fit you.

I know my clients always want to know if what we are buying will hold a good value for resale.

You are right of course- there are no good answers. It seems like whenever a loop hole is closed, someone finds another one to exploit. Leaves the good guys always behind the ball.

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:43 PM
OK! let me try! A Real person like me would probably not be able to afford the insurance so if it wasn't working out we'd sell it to whoever was willing to take it for whatever we could get without lying about it's talent.
Snowbird... are you saying that PV has never sold a horse that was not working out? or he has only sold a horse that he had to lie about? Are you saying that the only loser that PV has ever sold was one that he lied about? And the horse that he killed could not be sold no matter how good the lies were? Was this before trailer transport to the opposite coast was available.?

FuzzyLogic
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by BaliBandido:

Do you think he would have sent the horse to the killers and take that big loss? Wouldn't sheer greed make him find an excuse to sell him down the road for maybe less than he paid but surely more than a killer price, or would ego have been to much for that?

How about if it was a client horse? How does one explain that decision to someone who has paid big bucks for a horse that now is only worth killer price?

I don't understand why you're asking xegeba or other posters these questions. I'd call that speculating, because the only person who can give you the real answer would be PV himself, and as far as we know, he doesn't read this BB. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:51 PM
and where would horse sales be without the greedy bastards that sell them?

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:56 PM
Now! on the other hand a big roller would buy it, discover it was not working for him and then take out insurance so he he could off it and get his money back knowing that otherwise it was too big a loss for him or maybe even make a big profit thinking it was at my expense..
So every "big roller' that buys a loser... takes out the IP AFTER he figures out it is a loser and then the horse dies? Does this happen much?

FuzzyLogic
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
OK! let me try! A Real person like me would probably not be able to afford the insurance so if it wasn't working out we'd sell it to whoever was willing to take it for whatever we could get without lying about it's talent.

Now! on the other hand a big roller would buy it, discover it was not working for him and then take out insurance so he he could off it and get his money back knowing that otherwise it was too big a loss for him or maybe even make a big profit thinking it was at my expense.. AND just maybe some trainer would get hold of the horse prove he was an idiot by beating him with his own horse. The latter being the most serious risk.

He might even have bought the same horse I sold thinking he knew better than me and then found out he was wrong.

And, sometimes it's simpler than that...someone could buy a horse only to find out the horse doesn't perform as well for him, then said person gets injured, isn't able to ride for a while, have someone else show the horse, only to find out the horse starts winning again....then ego kicks in before greed. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:58 PM
That's baiting the trap xegeba! Of Course I'm not saying that PV never sold a horse that didn't work out. I gather from the skuttle but this was his own money!

Most horse traders lie about the horses for sale which is why it is still a capital offense to sell a crooked horse and get caught. That's can be the "death penalty" if anyone chooses to enforce the law still on the books.

We're concerned only with the horse he admitted to have had murdered. We're not dealing in suppositions or maybe or never or every time. Hey! I'm not in his head only in what he admitted. I only know what he was convicted for doing and he confessed he did. That's enough for me to say he shouldn't be dealing horses or showing horses or training horses. He lost that right when he made the decision he made and confessed to what he confessed and wore a wire to catch the other guys to save his own neck.

I see no remorse! I see a man bending and stretching the rules still thinking he's above the rules we all have to live by. He and all 23 convicted and I'd throw in Joe Plemmons who admitted voluntarily that he shor Helen Brach in the head twice and then disposed of her body. I even have room for Joshua Cardine and Ken Berlin on my list of unacceptable in my horse world.

I might not mind having dinner with them or chatting but they don't belong on the show grounds of our NGB; our US Equestrian Federation sanctioned shows.I'd even help them find work in some other business.

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 09:59 PM
and Snowbird has never omitted any quirks of her sale horses.

Snowbird
Feb. 12, 2006, 10:01 PM
No sir! I am Sainted and Venerable! But, I'm not rich just honest. Like Jesus said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.

Now it's been a standing joke that at Snowbird there might be classes for one hump Camels and two hump Camels. You bet if there's a market I'll have them. I love mules and donkeys and think it a shame they're not allowed to compete becaue some horse not properly conditioned will have a fit. We had a mule here and during shows and not one horse was upset when he did that weird thing that's a cross between a bray and a whinny.

No different than spanish people speaking spanish and americans speaking our version of english.

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 10:05 PM
Posted Feb. 13, 2006 12:58 AM


Most horse traders lie about the horses for sale which is why it is still a capital offense to sell a crooked horse and get caught. That's can be the "death penalty" if anyone chooses to enforce the law still on the book
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif
I might not mind having dinner with them or chatting but they don't belong on the show grounds of our NGB; our US[/quote]
Admirable. LIKES IT.

Snowbird
Feb. 12, 2006, 10:10 PM
My friend xegeba; I am a people person and I like people and I like to know all kinds of people even you could be interesting. Life is an adventure but that doesn't mean you close your eyes when you know something is a no-no!

Probably why no one does any of their dirty deeds where I can see them. Can you imagine I've never been invited to a party where people were doing drugs. Do you suppose that why? Never been invited to a sex orgy either. I feel as if there's a whole part of life I missed.

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 10:12 PM
can we all agree that PV killed his horse because it was easy money? he needed the cash now? For whatever reason? He was lazy,... the horse was a total loser... his strip club tab was out of control...

xegeba
Feb. 12, 2006, 10:14 PM
My friend xegeba; I am a people person and I like people and I like to know all kinds of people even you could be interesting. Life is an adventure but that doesn't mean you close your eyes when you know something is a no-no!
kinda like having dinner with Scott Peterson? He seems like an interesting guyguy.