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 skydy View Post

    It would be good if you would go back and find the posts where you have said that SS should not have announced the names of banned people before arbitration. You don't even seem to remember that you have said that, yet you want other people to search through your many many posts to remind you of your own contradictions?

    Again, if you would not "endeavor" to post in such a long winded and convoluted manner, you may more easily remember what you have said, and that you have frequently contradicted yourself.

    If you would take the time to read your posts on this thread (it will take some time) you might realize why condensing your thoughts (and thus your words) would help you to realize why you aren't able to communicate as well as you'd like.



    One problem: I never said that.

    Comment


      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

      One problem: I never said that.
      I'm sure you believe that you didn't, but you did. That is why you should read your posts again and not expect other people to do it for you.

      You do realize that this thread is not all about you?

      Comment


        Wow.... 5 pages since I last checked this and what did I miss? Nothing really. RD doesn't like SS because his friend's husband is banned and due process and yada yada. YD believes SS does not do what SS actually does, and can't keep track of everything they said in lengthy posts. The rest of us wonder how the heck people can actually defend any of this. Oh and Monty Python is always fun.

        Nothing to see here, I'll come back in a few days. lol

        Comment


          Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post
          Wow.... 5 pages since I last checked this and what did I miss? Nothing really. RD doesn't like SS because his friend's husband is banned and due process and yada yada. YD believes SS does not do what SS actually does, and can't keep track of everything they said in lengthy posts. The rest of us wonder how the heck people can actually defend any of this. Oh and Monty Python is always fun.

          Nothing to see here, I'll come back in a few days. lol
          That is what I started doing. Hash and rehash.
          “My horses are my friends, not my slaves” — Reiner Klimke

          Comment


            And this is why playing devils advocate is both gross and foolish. Because you are arguing things you ostensibly dont believe, you dont even remember what you've said.


            It's good advertising for having well-reasoned convictions.
            Let me apologize in advance.

            Comment


              Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
              And this is why playing devils advocate is both gross and foolish. Because you are arguing things you ostensibly dont believe, you dont even remember what you've said.


              It's good advertising for having well-reasoned convictions.
              I’m not playing devil’s advocate. In another thread on this topic, I once said, “Give the devil his due”, which is different.

              Taking Diane Carney as the devil, what that means is that as an adversarial technique in debate, it is more effective to acknowledge the truth of some limited statement in order to demolish the overall position.

              In the case of Carney’s AES letter, she had this odd sentence to the effect of “Contrary to what you may have heard, RM did not receive a hearing prior to the announcement.”

              While I 100% view the overall SS process as fair to the respondent, it is consistent with my position that he possibly has NOT received a formal hearing YET.

              I have already stated that the devils sneaky ploy of making this SOUND like a criticism can be deflated, and exposed as an invalid criticism.

              What is your strategy in deflating Diane Carney? If she is stupid enough to lie outright and say there has been no formal hearing when there has been, someone could find out from RMs lawyer as to when the hearing was held, and you can throw that in her face: Yeah, well, the hearing was held on this date, in this building, and lasted 7 hours.

              If you could demolish the devil by
              throwing a lie back in her face, why don’t you do it?

              I think a formal hearing has probably not occurred YET, partly because I think the arbitration phase is meant to be the adjudication phase, and partly because it would be dumb of AES to falsely assert that no formal hearing had been held when that could be so obviously refuted.

              Your approach is not either of those two.

              Your approach is to fulsomely pronounce that in this thread and others, you are carrying on the sacred duty of calling out anyone who disagrees with you — not on the issue of the legitimacy of SS, but on the issue of the best way to refute the underminers of SS— by writing
              ​​​​​​ You are incorrect.
              Your position is incorrect.
              You are absolutely incorrect. It is OK to be incorrect.
              Your position is disgusting and gross.

              I just don’t see that debate style as changing anyone’s minds. It plays well to the home crowd, but it does nothing to persuade someone who disagrees with you. It doesn’t even explain what your position is, beyond “SS good/ pedophiles bad”. It’s like a 5 year old shouting “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

              Re: my posts being contradictory. With apologies to 5 year olds everywhere, just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so. But if you and others in the group repeat it 12 more times, maybe some of your cohorts will believe it.

              I know I’m not going to change the minds of the handful of posters active over the last few pages. My posts are addressed to other readers with more open minds who might understand my point whether they agree with it or not. Your own mind is like a steel trap.

              I think I may have upset you with my assertion that the continued yammering that the respondent receives a full fledged formal hearing prior to the announcement is aiding the devil by enabling her to make SS look bad when that is not your intention. Oddly, no one, including you have addressed that point substantively, and everyone is pointedly ignoring it and resorting to ever more desperate ad hominem attacks on me.

              I’ve made my point. Perhaps some readers will understand it, perhaps not.







              Comment


                Jealoushe thought we were all posting in the third person now? Was Jealoushe wrong?

                Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                Comment


                  Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
                  And this is why playing devils advocate is both gross and foolish. Because you are arguing things you ostensibly dont believe, you dont even remember what you've said.


                  It's good advertising for having well-reasoned convictions.

                  I do remember what I’ve said, and I never said that charges should be kept secret pending arbitration. I said the opposite.

                  I understand it’s a standard COTH tactic to baselessly accuse a poster of something and then have other posters bandy the accusation around like a volleyball, with no one ever documenting the accusation.

                  Skydy’s tactic of attempting to bully me into spending MY time to document HER claim that I said something I didn’t, is so pathetic it’s amusing. Hey Skydy - no need to find a nonexistence statement of mine on secrecy; Ladyj79 is willing to believe your sayso.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post
                    Jealoushe thought we were all posting in the third person now? Was Jealoushe wrong?

                    Ladyj79 commented that my using the third person to be cute was contributing to people misunderstanding my posts and I thought she was right, so I dropped it.

                    Anything to contribute on SS or Bob McDonald?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                      Ladyj79 commented that my using the third person to be cute was contributing to people misunderstanding my posts and I thought she was right, so I dropped it.

                      Anything to contribute on SS or Bob McDonald?
                      Jealoushe thinks BM is a piece of garbage
                      Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                      Comment


                        BigMama does not understand what the past 26 pages were about. If the “formal hearing” doesn’t take place until the arbitration phase, but the accused should still be removed from teaching and publicly named before the arbitration, then who cares if the initial investigation / decision process constitutes a “formal hearing” or not? Why would someone spend so much time advocating for something that apparently makes zero difference to the outcome or the fairness of the process? BigMama is confused. And hungry. BigMama is going to make a sandwich.

                        Comment


                          Once again, we don't have any concrete evidence linking the YankeeDuchess account to any others, past or present. Her email address listed with her account easily links to a real-live person who is not anyone that anyone has "accused" her of being at any point that I'm aware of. It's obviously easy to create multiple accounts, and I'm not guaranteeing anyone's authenticity, but we have ZERO evidence to suggest that she's using an alter to post under multiple identities.

                          So please move on from that line of discussion.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by BigMama1 View Post
                            BigMama does not understand what the past 26 pages were about. If the “formal hearing” doesn’t take place until the arbitration phase, but the accused should still be removed from teaching and publicly named before the arbitration, then who cares if the initial investigation / decision process constitutes a “formal hearing” or not? Why would someone spend so much time advocating for something that apparently makes zero difference to the outcome or the fairness of the process? BigMama is confused. And hungry. BigMama is going to make a sandwich.
                            The issue is that:
                            1) If the formal hearing adjudicating whether the respondent doesn’t happen until the arbitration phase, then Debbie McDonald should not be criticized as a pedophile supporter until AFTER her pedophile husband has had his formal adjudication. You, Jealoushe, and I can decide at this point that he is “as good as” convicted because we all assume the ban will be upheld, but at the same time, I think it is unfair to Debbie McDonald to put her down as a pedophile supporter if for the next 30 days she chooses to give him the presumption of innocence.

                            2) I think the overall process is eminently fair to the accused. However, Diane Carney, a devil for whom I am not advocating, seems to think she can criticize SS as unfair by saying, “Contrary to what you may have heard, McDonald did not receive a hearing prior to the announcement.” You can only puncture the implication (false) that SS is unfair by saying, No, the adjudication occurs in arbitration. SS doesn’t pretend to be neutral wrt its own investigation, the respondent’s safeguards lie in the fact that SS has the burden of proof to establish his culpability in front of a retired judge independent of SS.

                            Instead of saying that, posters here are saying squishy things like, maybe there’s no fancy formal
                            hearing, but he can talk to a lawyer and submit evidence to SS during the investigation, and the person writing the report is a different person than those conducting the investigation so that’s close enough to an actual impartial hearing. It’s that narrative that Carney can exploit to make the statement “He did not receive a hearing prior to the announcement” SOUND like SS is unfair. Why provide the narrative for her to exploit?

                            My saying DM should not be condemned for declining to denounce her husband as a pedophile prior to his “day in court” is NOT REMOTELY THE SAME THING as saying that the allegations should be kept secret until after the “day in court”. Both depend on the specific point in the process which is considered the “day in court”, but they are completely different statements. It is crucial that the respondent be publicly identified PRIOR to the “day in court”, even if this causes public humiliation and even if he is not deemed a current risk, because the public announcement brings other victims out of the woodwork and that helps SS, in its adversarial role, mail the dirt bag.

                            In your “confusion”, you falsely accused me of advocating that the charges should be kept secret pending the arbitration, and other posters are repeating the claim.

                            Are you a.”big” enough person to admit that perhaps that is something you mistakenly extrapolated from my fixation on the timing of the adjudication, and not something I actually said?

                            Comment


                              How long did Morris' appeal take to be done with? Was it like six months? I feel like the initial decision was handed down in summer and appeal denied in winter?

                              Also this is why people start posting recipes
                              Let me apologize in advance.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                The issue is that:
                                1) If the formal hearing adjudicating whether the respondent doesn’t happen until the arbitration phase, then Debbie McDonald should not be criticized as a pedophile supporter until AFTER her pedophile husband has had his formal adjudication. You, Jealoushe, and I can decide at this point that he is “as good as” convicted because we all assume the ban will be upheld, but at the same time, I think it is unfair to Debbie McDonald to put her down as a pedophile supporter if for the next 30 days she chooses to give him the presumption of innocence.

                                2) I think the overall process is eminently fair to the accused. However, Diane Carney, a devil for whom I am not advocating, seems to think she can criticize SS as unfair by saying, “Contrary to what you may have heard, McDonald did not receive a hearing prior to the announcement.” You can only puncture the implication (false) that SS is unfair by saying, No, the adjudication occurs in arbitration. SS doesn’t pretend to be neutral wrt its own investigation, the respondent’s safeguards lie in the fact that SS has the burden of proof to establish his culpability in front of a retired judge independent of SS.

                                Instead of saying that, posters here are saying squishy things like, maybe there’s no fancy formal
                                hearing, but he can talk to a lawyer and submit evidence to SS during the investigation, and the person writing the report is a different person than those conducting the investigation so that’s close enough to an actual impartial hearing. It’s that narrative that Carney can exploit to make the statement “He did not receive a hearing prior to the announcement” SOUND like SS is unfair. Why provide the narrative for her to exploit?

                                My saying DM should not be condemned for declining to denounce her husband as a pedophile prior to his “day in court” is NOT REMOTELY THE SAME THING as saying that the allegations should be kept secret until after the “day in court”. Both depend on the specific point in the process which is considered the “day in court”, but they are completely different statements. It is crucial that the respondent be publicly identified PRIOR to the “day in court”, even if this causes public humiliation and even if he is not deemed a current risk, because the public announcement brings other victims out of the woodwork and that helps SS, in its adversarial role, mail the dirt bag.

                                In your “confusion”, you falsely accused me of advocating that the charges should be kept secret pending the arbitration, and other posters are repeating the claim.

                                Are you a.”big” enough person to admit that perhaps that is something you mistakenly extrapolated from my fixation on the timing of the adjudication, and not something I actually said?
                                Debbie should not be condemned as a pedophile supporter period, unless it can be shown she was aware of abuse and didn’t report it. Until then she shouldn’t even be part of the conversation. Which is what almost everyone in this thread has said all along, with very few exceptions. That is what your 26 pages of rambling was about? Good to know, because clearly I wasn’t the only one struggling to figure it out.

                                Regardless of what Diane Carney says, he has had a fair hearing and has been punished accordingly. You can argue with yourself about what constitutes a “hearing” but the end result is the same. AES purposely mis-states how the process works and those who buy into it and support Carney are supporting abusers. Glad we cleared that up.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
                                  How long did Morris' appeal take to be done with? Was it like six months? I feel like the initial decision was handed down in summer and appeal denied in winter?

                                  Also this is why people start posting recipes
                                  Roughly three months. August to November. Source- NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/s...ual-abuse.html

                                  on a side note, these turkey, lemon, feta meatballs are excellent. https://www.latimes.com/recipe/caram...rkey-meatballs
                                  Last edited by Peggy; Jun. 25, 2020, 01:34 PM. Reason: Added units.
                                  The Evil Chem Prof

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Peggy View Post


                                    on a side note, these turkey, lemon, feta meatballs are excellent. https://www.latimes.com/recipe/caram...rkey-meatballs
                                    I bought a ninja foodi maybe a month ago. Life changing. Like that lemon paste is something i would never ever consider doing because holy time consuming. But having recently (and accidentally) I might have pressure cooked a lemon. Now I'm thinking I could short circuit a lot of the steps by pressure cooking the lemons 😂😂😂 and judiciously skipping a couple other steps.

                                    I might endeavour! Looks amazing!
                                    Let me apologize in advance.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by BigMama1 View Post

                                      Debbie should not be condemned as a pedophile supporter period, unless it can be shown she was aware of abuse and didn’t report it. Until then she shouldn’t even be part of the conversation. Which is what almost everyone in this thread has said all along, with very few exceptions. That is what your 26 pages of rambling was about? Good to know, because clearly I wasn’t the only one struggling to figure it out.

                                      Regardless of what Diane Carney says, he has had a fair hearing and has been punished accordingly. You can argue with yourself about what constitutes a “hearing” but the end result is the same. AES purposely mis-states how the process works and those who buy into it and support Carney are supporting abusers. Glad we cleared that up.
                                      Speaking of the number 26, some of this thread reminds me of Act V, Scene 5, lines 26-28 of Macbeth.
                                      "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

                                      ...just settin' on the Group W bench.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by BigMama1 View Post

                                        Debbie should not be condemned as a pedophile supporter period, unless it can be shown she was aware of abuse and didn’t report it. Until then she shouldn’t even be part of the conversation. Which is what almost everyone in this thread has said all along, with very few exceptions. That is what your 26 pages of rambling was about? Good to know, because clearly I wasn’t the only one struggling to figure it out.

                                        Regardless of what Diane Carney says, he has had a fair hearing and has been punished accordingly. You can argue with yourself about what constitutes a “hearing” but the end result is the same. AES purposely mis-states how the process works and those who buy into it and support Carney are supporting abusers. Glad we cleared that up.
                                        So no, you’re not a big enough person to admit that I never said the charges should be kept secret pending arbitration.

                                        If he has had a fair impartial hearing, why don’t you demolish Carney by throwing the lie in her face?

                                        ”Debbie should not be condemned as a pedophile SUPPORTER period, unless it can be shown she was aware of the abuse and didn’t report it.”

                                        Even if she clicks “like” on a single post by RD expressing support for her? Even if she declines to condemn her teammates who did so click? Even if she states “He is innocent!” regarding RM, given that in your view RM has already had his impartial hearing?

                                        So on what basis does Ladyj79 and a few others claim that that I am a pedophile supporter, given that I was not aware of RM or any other banned athlete’s abuse and fail to report it?
                                        Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Jun. 25, 2020, 02:29 PM.

                                        Comment


                                          Click image for larger version  Name:	sealion only.jpg Views:	0 Size:	17.4 KB ID:	10679022



                                          I'll just leave this here (scroll slightly to see first image). A new term to which I was introduced after several of these painful threads.

                                          https://twitter.com/himmapaan/status...176709?lang=gl

                                          ETA: YankeeDuchess - fixed it for ya!
                                          Last edited by FitzE; Jun. 25, 2020, 10:33 PM.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X