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 Jealoushe View Post

    CoTH
    Let me apologize in advance.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

      CoTH
      Well played.
      TypaGraphics
      Graphic Design & Websites
      typagraphics.com

      Comment


        Originally posted by downen View Post

        So I'm curious... what would be a Jealoushe-approved source for unbiased, factual news?
        Mel Gibson! If The Road Warrior says it, it must be true!
        Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!

        Comment


          Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

          Well known in the fact checking community that they use their own sites/people to confirm their own Snopes.com. Just some of the drama involving Snopes below;

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle.../#6d9f422e227f

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aud-lying.html

          https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...legal-dispute/
          I have a hard time taking anything that the Daily Mail says wrt *anyone's* veracity without ROTFL.
          "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

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

          Comment


            Originally posted by Ghazzu View Post

            I have a hard time taking anything that the Daily Mail says wrt *anyone's* veracity without ROTFL.
            So this is called the genetic fallacy, or the fallacy of origins.

            Let me apologize in advance.

            Comment


              Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

              I'm not disagreeing with this statement, but she was already fabulously wealthy and running with celebrities, so her behaviour is just who she is.
              Her business mogul father died when she was about 30 (probably suicide) and after his death it was revealed that his business empire was a house of cards and he had looted the company pension funds of hundreds of millions.

              So it’s unclear whether he managed to funnel wealth to his children or whether they received nothing.

              She grew up in a very wealthy family, but it is not clear whether she inherited tens of millions or nothing.

              Comment


                Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                So this is called the genetic fallacy, or the fallacy of origins.
                It is called evaluating one's sources, according to my esteemed Professor Iilardi of blessed memory.
                the rag is one notch above the National Enquirer.
                "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

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

                Comment


                  Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                  It sounds like she did the procuring and the grooming and handed the minors over to Epstein and his buddies, in return for living a lavish lifestyle among the celebrity crowd. Hers was not a secondary role.
                  I would say even more than that.....She not only set up things she actively participated in the abuse at least in several cases as reported by the victims. She should be held accountable as an abuser, because she was. Gross and creepy. If anyone hasn't watched the Epstein doccumentary you should, even though I normally don't have any problem with this topic it made me sick. (I have no history of abuse or trauma but this really upset me emotionally and physically)

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post
                    Maxwell was 30 when her father died, and upon his death she moved immediately into society in New York city so I'm gonna go ahead and stand by my statement. She didn't become a procurer and child rapist because daddy died leaving her destitute. She has always been rich and traveled in these circles
                    I think Robert Maxwell committed suicide in 1991, she moved to NY and was Epstein’s girlfriend from about 93 to 97, then became the manager of his properties and sex procurer.

                    So when Daddy died, she attached herself to Epstein, whose source of wealth is dubious, as mistress then sex procurer. Instead of finding honest work when the heiress thing went bust, she attached herself to someone evil as well as dishonest.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

                      Well known in the fact checking community that they use their own sites/people to confirm their own Snopes.com. Just some of the drama involving Snopes below;

                      https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle.../#6d9f422e227f

                      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aud-lying.html

                      https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...legal-dispute/
                      With no prior opinion on the sources, I looked through each of those links and there is not one word that says that Snopes is not reporting factually.

                      All three articles discuss the legal nastiness of the divorce of the founding couple, at length. But none of the three suggests that this has affected the work that goes on within Snopes itself. The founders do not seem to be as involved in the inner workings any more.

                      Comment


                        Snopes is considered to be an unreliable source by people who don't like what Snopes finds. End of story.
                        "She is not fragile like a flower. She is fragile like a bomb."

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post

                          With no prior opinion on the sources, I looked through each of those links and there is not one word that says that Snopes is not reporting factually.

                          All three articles discuss the legal nastiness of the divorce of the founding couple, at length. But none of the three suggests that this has affected the work that goes on within Snopes itself. The founders do not seem to be as involved in the inner workings any more.
                          Read a little deeper, there is a LOT in there that says Snopes is not following the rule of what a fact checker should be. That alone is enough, although there is more (owned by the one and only Soros and if you don't know who that is well, research it).

                          Imagine Safe Sport was run this way? They would absolutely get torn apart.

                          A fact checking website that is not transparent, owned by a world billionaire media pusher, that is used to verify the very facts their media outlets put out? With no way to fact check the fact checker? Come on Coth, you're smarter than that.

                          SillyHorse your own personal fact checking is wrong on that one! I don't have any agenda when it comes to Snopes other than - its bought and paid for garbage. Ask on any forum other than Coth, it seems the equestrian community is the last to accept this for some reason lol What's my angle? I was merely pointing out that Snopes is no longer considered a viable fact checking site.

                          Remember when Snopes fact checked that Epstein wasn't transporting young girls to his private island for private parties? They claimed that was 100% false. It was 2016.....funny that is all scrubbed from their site now. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
                          Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

                            (owned by the one and only Soros and if you don't know who that is well, research it).
                            Well, you just shot *your* credibility in the foot with that one...
                            "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

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

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Ghazzu View Post

                              Well, you just shot *your* credibility in the foot with that one...
                              It's true though lol oh wait, Snopes fact checked it and said it wasn't I don't want to make this thread about Snopes, or Soros, just trying to share that it is not a respected fact checking site anymore and when people use it, it takes away from the point.
                              Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post
                                Remember when Snopes fact checked that Epstein wasn't transporting young girls to his private island for private parties? They claimed that was 100% false. It was 2016.....funny that is all scrubbed from their site now. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
                                Do you have actual proof of Snopes saying that the report about Epstein's island was wrong as you presented it? Some source that is not conspiracy driven? That rather takes away from your point. It has been "known" for a very long time that Epstein's private island parties and partiers were sketchy and suspect.

                                Also, Snopes does not use percentages in their investigations. When Snopes' findings agree with with other fact-checking sites, that sort of proves you wrong, Jealoushe. Do I rely on just Snopes for fact checking? Of course not. I seek out a wide variety of sources.

                                You actually drag Soros into this - as he is apparently the evil behind every little thing out there - so you completely shot your own level of avowed expertise and credibility. You obviously buy into assorted conspiracy theories. I am no stable genius but I am not sucked into the conspiracy theory merry-go-rounds. I am far too skeptical and cynical for that. I would take Snopes over assorted Fox talking heads (or other left-leaning talking heads) - or even the esteemed expertise of Jealoushe.

                                Snopes (and other fact checkers) always provide extensive other links to back up their findings - are all those sources also wrong?

                                Here is a giant hint - George Soros is not behind Everything Out There and does not have his ancient fingers into everything right down to the bottom level. Especially everything that some on the Right are suspicious of. He is just a convenient excuse that some who are gullible and paranoid use for anything and everything these days... the man has been given powers that he has never had - and will never have.

                                You better get after Politifact and Factchecker - seeing as your expertise is knowing better than any other fact-checking organizations.

                                Comment


                                  ARRRGH!!! I have a post that will appear up there ^ at some point. But I stupidly made an edit to fix a few typos - and that slammed the post into Unapproved Purgatory. There HAS to be some way to fix this!!!!

                                  Comment


                                    I avoid using Snopes bc it seems to be a trigger for some people, more so those that demean the idea of triggers.

                                    Bringing up Soros is a litmus test as far as I’m concerned.

                                    carry on...
                                    The Evil Chem Prof

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Jealoushe
                                      [Snopes is] owned by the one and only Soros and if you don't know who that is well, research it.
                                      Boy, I'd love to see your proof of this!
                                      "She is not fragile like a flower. She is fragile like a bomb."

                                      Comment


                                        What’s your problem with Soros?
                                        Banter whenever you want to banter....canter whenever you want to canter.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by NotGrandPrixYet View Post
                                          What’s your problem with Soros?
                                          I have a problem with all wealthy people using their money to influence political and social causes. But, hey, that's the way life goes. The rest of us "regular" people who aren't uber-wealthy often bear the brunt of these individuals' influences in a negative manner.
                                          “My horses are my friends, not my slaves” — Reiner Klimke

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X