Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Bob McDonald Banned from USEF through Safe Sport

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Bogey2 View Post

    RD started a Go Fund Me page for GM, is that not expressing support for a pedophile? And RD was glib about his hot BF not being hit on.


    RDs response to the GM ban was embarrassing. Hugely. Embarrassing to a cringeworthy degree.

    I have been responding to what RD posted in a single FB post. While it was provoked by the McDonald case, the only equestrian he mentioned in the post was his Olympic teammate, Debbie McDonald, and he stated that he loved and supported her.

    In his most recent Go Fund Me appeal, the recipient was a legitimate equal justice fund that focus on injustice across racial lines. As I see it, zero dollars of the GFM appeal will go to any banned equestrian.

    Blue Heron has clarified that my declining to express repugnance that some of Debbie McDonald’s Olympic teammates clicked “like” on a SINGLE FB post of Dover’s makes not only Dover, or the clickers, but also me, guilty of “supporting pedophiles”.

    I understand that pedophiles seldom change their stripes, so to speak, but I thought that Dover changed his response to a friend being banned rather dramatically between the Morris case and the McDonald case.

    Comment


      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

      So you’re explicitly endorsing the position that by declining to express repugnance for an Olympic teammate of Debbie McDonald who “liked” Robert Dover’s you have classified me as anti-SS and a supporter of pedophiles.

      Are you speaking on behalf of just yourself or behalf of everyone?
      I speak for myself and I am saying that liking RD's GFM or MacDonald's claim to innocence shows some degree of support. Like a mini endorsement.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Mardi View Post

        Only since then ? For me he's been a disappointment since the first time I was in his company at a show almost 20 years ago.
        He was high maintenance and condescending back then, and still is today.
        I think you may be quite a bit older than I am.
        I think he is a good clinician and I like what he's done with the young riders program. I am deeply uncomfortable about his defense for GM.

        Comment


          Blue Heron was being sarcastic. Why do you always think people are being mean, vile people? Why do you care who rides with who and their reasons for doing so or not doing so?

          Why do you find it so distasteful that people do not like to support or associate with people who help pedophiles be able to horse show?

          Comment


            Originally posted by Mardi View Post

            Only since then ? For me he's been a disappointment since the first time I was in his company at a show almost 20 years ago.
            He was high maintenance and condescending back then, and still is today.
            Thirty...

            Respect him as a clinician. Not as much as a rider/trainer.
            The Evil Chem Prof

            Comment


              Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

              We’ve all clarified/answered your question. You just don’t like the fact that we disagree with you. As I said pages back, rephrasing the question will NOT change our response to you. Continuing to ignore our “whys” makes for a crappy discussion. I’m not sure why you need everyone to agree with you and RD other than you like seeing your own posts.
              BigMamas response was that SS plays no role at all in the arbitration phase, neither prosecutor and presenter of evidence against the respondent from the SS investigation, nor defendant nor adjudicator.

              That does does solve the initial problem of SS pivoting from role of adjudicator in one phase to prosecutor in another phase, but it has other problems. But it is a coherent position.

              For the fifth time, I do not “agree with RD”. I said that in one aspect of one thing he posted, I thought that there was a glimmer of a legitimate grievance, that his post did not undermine the legitimacy SS, and that I decline to express repugnance at people who “liked”
              his post.

              I could stop restating my position if other posters, including you, stopped mischaracterizing it.

              Actually, I will stop restating my position. The only issue I am interested in is whether anyone who disagrees with me can provide a better explanation of how it makes sense that the role of SS either 1) switches from adjudicator to prosecutor between phases or 2) plays the role of both investigator and investigator in the first phase and no role at all in the second phase.

              I have not been responding to your posts to restate my position in order to change your mind! I know that ain’t happening!

              Comment


                Originally posted by blue_heron View Post

                I speak for myself and I am saying that liking RD's GFM or MacDonald's claim to innocence shows some degree of support. Like a mini endorsement.
                So you know that the most recent GFM was for Equal Justice Initiative which supports a good cause and zero dollars are going to RM?

                Comment


                  Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                  BigMamas response was that SS plays no role at all in the arbitration phase, neither prosecutor and presenter of evidence against the respondent from the SS investigation, nor defendant nor adjudicator.

                  That does does solve the initial problem of SS pivoting from role of adjudicator in one phase to prosecutor in another phase, but it has other problems. But it is a coherent position.

                  For the fifth time, I do not “agree with RD”. I said that in one aspect of one thing he posted, I thought that there was a glimmer of a legitimate grievance, that his post did not undermine the legitimacy SS, and that I decline to express repugnance at people who “liked”
                  his post.

                  I could stop restating my position if other posters, including you, stopped mischaracterizing it.

                  Actually, I will stop restating my position. The only issue I am interested in is whether anyone who disagrees with me can provide a better explanation of how it makes sense that the role of SS either 1) switches from adjudicator to prosecutor between phases or 2) plays the role of both investigator and investigator in the first phase and no role at all in the second phase.

                  I have not been responding to your posts to restate my position in order to change your mind! I know that ain’t happening!
                  Your interpretation of how it works is wrong. I suggest you read on the SS website, educate yourself and then reconsider RD’s position. No one is going to answer your questions because they have nothing to do with SS.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by TheMoo View Post
                    Blue Heron was being sarcastic. Why do you always think people are being mean, vile people? Why do you care who rides with who and their reasons for doing so or not doing so?

                    Why do you find it so distasteful that people do not like to support or associate with people who help pedophiles be able to horse show?


                    I did not detect any sarcasm in her post 371. She explicitly endorsed a rather extreme position.
                    Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Jun. 24, 2020, 10:49 AM.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

                      Your interpretation of how it works is wrong. I suggest you read on the SS website, educate yourself and then reconsider RD’s position. No one is going to answer your questions because they have nothing to do with SS.
                      I understand you think my interpretation of how it works is wrong. Based on the confidence various people have expressed, especially BigMama, on how they correctly understand how it works, I asked for clarification on what I view as an inconsistency in their vehemently expressed position.

                      I understand the reluctance to address the inconsistency I brought up.



                      Comment


                        Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                        So you know that the most recent GFM was for Equal Justice Initiative which supports a good cause and zero dollars are going to RM?
                        From the bottom of my heart... bro... this is f'ing laffable. I am laughing right now.

                        You know DFW that I was talking about the endorsement for George Morris. I wasn't really being sarcastic, and I feel zero remorse, nor do I think I have an extreme POV, in saying that endorsing pedophiles contributes to pedophelia.
                        Binary thinking is going to be the death of you.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                          I understand you think my interpretation of how it works is wrong. Based on the confidence various people have expressed, especially BigMama, on how they correctly understand how it works, I asked for clarification on what I view as an inconsistency in their vehemently expressed position.

                          I understand the reluctance to address the inconsistency I brought up.


                          Get your clarification from Safe Sport. Constantly misinterpreting posts you don’t agree with will not help you with clarification.

                          Comment


                            As I said to someone else regarding this conversation

                            Oceanographers: the ocean is made of water.

                            YD: that's your opinion regarding the chemical composition of what you call "the ocean", and what you interpret as "water". In my opinion, and analysis and belief, that amorphous body is lemon curd. My interpretation might differ, but it is no less valid than yours, and in fact, you are biased, as so-called experts in this field, you are really too close to this subject to be called on or relied upon to provide an unbiased opinion as to the composition of this object.
                            Let me apologize in advance.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


                              Yes, we all agree that we can condemn and avoid the trainers who are banned at the point that SS makes the announcement. I have immense faith in SS and for myself, assume that RM is guilty as hell, to use the legal term. Same with GM, RG, etc.

                              I think it is a somewhat more complicated and subtle issue as to whether we should condemn/look down on/refuse to train with someone who has NOT been banned but expresses some degree of support, even indirectly, for a banned person. Such as DM saying “He is innocent” prior to his appeal. Or Adrienne Lyle “liking” a post that mentions DMs name but not her husbands, and suggests (uselessly, because it won’t happen) that the standard of proof used by SS be raised.

                              It appears to me that for everyone other than me, this second issue if neither complicated nor subtle but is back and white. Merely clicking on Dover’s post or failing to express repugnance toward those who clicked makes you anti-SS and a pedophile supporter.


                              This is the post of mine thatblue_heron
                              explicitly endorsed by responding in post #371
                              saying, “Yep, you’ve got it figured out ...”

                              The statement that “clicking “like” on a post makes you anti SafeSport and a pedophile supporter” clearly refers to Dover’s recent post, not to posts concerning George Morris.

                              If you now disavow your post #371, you can always delete it.
                              Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Jun. 24, 2020, 12:34 PM.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
                                As I said to someone else regarding this conversation

                                Oceanographers: the ocean is made of water.

                                YD: that's your opinion regarding the chemical composition of what you call "the ocean", and what you interpret as "water". In my opinion, and analysis and belief, that amorphous body is lemon curd. My interpretation might differ, but it is no less valid than yours, and in fact, you are biased, as so-called experts in this field, you are really too close to this subject to be called on or relied upon to provide an unbiased opinion as to the composition of this object.
                                So the oceanographers are SS who are experts and can be impartial, is that your point?

                                This is an excellent point. Suppose the top 8 oceanographers in the world are academics at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA. The widely acclaimed top oceanographer, Professor XYZ, writes a paper in his specialty within Oceanography and submits it to a prestigious journal, which requires peer review.

                                In all the world, who is most qualified and most expert to assess the validity and contribution of the paper? Professor XYZ is the leading oceanographer in the world overall, the leading scientist in that subfield, an expert in the recent literature in the area (having written some of the important recent papers), and clearly the most knowledgeable about that particular paper.

                                Does the journal ask him to assess his own paper?

                                His colleagues, co-authors and recent grad students are the next most “expert”, having worked in the particular subfield and written papers on the topic. Are they asked to review the paper?

                                Why not?
                                Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Jun. 23, 2020, 06:25 PM.

                                Comment


                                  Her point is, that despite being presented with factual information that really isn’t up for interpretation, you will argue because you believe facts are debatable.

                                  Ie., the ocean is made up of water but you will debate the merits of that because you believe it’s really lemon curd.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
                                    Actually, I will stop restating my position.
                                    Actually, you said this many pages and an even greater number of posts ago... so you could have saved yourself a lot of Sisyphean angst and typing in the meantime. That is not being condescending or whatever other label may be slapped on me - it is just a quiet observation.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by TheMoo View Post
                                      Her point is, that despite being presented with factual information that really isn’t up for interpretation, you will argue because you believe facts are debatable.

                                      Ie., the ocean is made up of water but you will debate the merits of that because you believe it’s really lemon curd.
                                      (Or really that the one thing she can be sure of is it isnt water.)

                                      It could be lemon curd, or maybe chocolate pudding. Who knows?! I'm just telling you my interpretation. But not water, that's for sure. That's like an oceanographer plot, and like, of course they say it's water! They would probably say the desert was water just to support their own position.

                                      It could be cardboard! It could be an illusion! But not water!


                                      (This is also what it feels like when people lecture me about my own academic specialty which given the general popularity of the subject matter happens endlessly and at the strangest times, from people with absolutely no education or experience in the field)
                                      Let me apologize in advance.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by smoofox View Post

                                        Actually, you said this many pages and an even greater number of posts ago... so you could have saved yourself a lot of Sisyphean angst and typing in the meantime. That is not being condescending or whatever other label may be slapped on me - it is just a quiet observation.
                                        Too true. As did a few others.

                                        I am out as of this moment. Perhaps in three days, I’ll look at the thread.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
                                          As I said to someone else regarding this conversation

                                          Oceanographers: the ocean is made of water.

                                          YD: that's your opinion regarding the chemical composition of what you call "the ocean", and what you interpret as "water". In my opinion, and analysis and belief, that amorphous body is lemon curd. My interpretation might differ, but it is no less valid than yours, and in fact, you are biased, as so-called experts in this field, you are really too close to this subject to be called on or relied upon to provide an unbiased opinion as to the composition of this object.
                                          And one can also be too inexpert in a field to be able to credibly evaluate a claim.

                                          Look, I have a PhD in this kind of stuff. I'll debate epistemology with you all.day.long.

                                          But it's not true, in any knowledge system worth having, that all claims are equally valid.
                                          The armchair saddler
                                          Politically Pro-Cat

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X