Stallion Spotlight

Feinrich-Nr_1-12-18-10-074 Beelitz

Real Estate Spotlight

100_7261
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

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

George Morris on the SS list

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

  • Age of consent -- if someone is of the age of consent it does not mean that any and all sexual contact with them is legit. It means they have the legal capacity to consent. If the consent is missing, is coerced, is given under duress, if the person is incapacitated and cannot consent-- then the sexual contact is done without consent-- i.e. assault, rape, and so forth.

    Somehow this seems to go missing in the discussions of the age of consent, and it really disturbs me.
    A canter is a cure for every evil. ~Benjamin Disraeli

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Max123 View Post

      You get five days to say you want to appeal. You don't have to present your entire case within 5 days.
      I agree with Palm Beach that a 5 day window is too short. Not everyone is connected 24/7/365. I regularly go on trips that last longer than 5 days where I have little or no contact with the outside world. And there’s always the possibility of the person being ill and in a hospital. A 30 day window to file an intent to appeal would seem more reasonable.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

        Exactly. I have no idea why anyone thinks it would be "better" for an accused trainer to have the investigation start with an arrest, or why they think dealing with the criminal justice system is going to be easier, better, more convenient, or fairer than Safe Sport.

        But I'm thinking they're the same people who said that the accusations against Jimmy Williams were unfair since he wasn't alive to answer them, and who are now curiously ungrateful that this mistake has not been repeated.
        I share your cynicism, but I will also note that an astonishing number of people have never had any actual personal experience with the legal system (either civil or criminal). Their knowledge of how the legal system works is seemingly drawn from Perry Mason reruns. So some of them may honestly (but mistakenly) believe that a criminal investigation would be less damaging than a SafeSport investigation carried out away from the public gaze. (As someone who has been named in a civil lawsuit, I think otherwise, but than that experience has left me biased.)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hut-ho78
          It didn't do much for me - and, spoiler alert, it's a blog.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sunflower View Post
            Age of consent -- if someone is of the age of consent it does not mean that any and all sexual contact with them is legit. It means they have the legal capacity to consent. If the consent is missing, is coerced, is given under duress, if the person is incapacitated and cannot consent-- then the sexual contact is done without consent-- i.e. assault, rape, and so forth.

            Somehow this seems to go missing in the discussions of the age of consent, and it really disturbs me.
            Good post. Also missing is the fact that one party has authority over the other, which in many cases can result in the fear of retaliation if the authoritative party is rejected. The younger party, or the party in the subordinate position may be afraid that rejection will result in a loss of opportunities, maybe even eviction. Young adults, even not-so-young adults, struggle with this, which is why many companies have nonfraternization (is that a word) rules.
            "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him."

            Comment


            • Sex with young children was never accepted. but there's a thought process called 'othering' which is the idea that those who commit such acts are not 'us' - they are 'others'. Choose whatever scapegoat you like - different races, guys in white vans with bags of candy, skeevy dudes who pull kids into alleys, but not our brothers, neighbors, or trainers whom we 'know' would never do anything like that. So it's easy to think that it's 'them' committing such acts and not 'us', which is one reason why rape and sexual assault was shoved under the rug for so long and why it's so hard for people to believe that a 'nice guy' they know well could do such a thing. Again - "i was alone with him, and he never did a thing" (so he would never...) is a common theme.

              Going right along with that is the idea that anyone who got molested, especially a woman, was 'asking for it' - wearing short skirts, taking off their panty hose (remember the William Kennedy Smith case?). Even very young girls could 'act slutty', wear - gasp - makeup or 'do anything for a ribbon'. Boys who got molested? well, maybe there was something, y'know - off - about them that made those Catholic priests - those choir boys! - or their trainers finally snap. Besides, they too, could 'do anything for a ribbon'.

              The sexualization of younger and younger children plays right into that idea. Think about poor Jon-Benet Ramsay. There was a time when children were considered to be non-sexual beings, which is why Lewis Carroll was able to take pictures of naked girls and it was OK (check those pictures he took of the real Alice in Wonderland). Look at pictures from the '40's and '50's of little girls in those short dresses that showed their panties. That would be unacceptable today, but it was OK then, because they simply weren't considered to be sexual - or so the idea ran.

              Central to all those thought processes is the idea that men simply cannot be expected to control their sexual urges. Actually we've kinda heard that arguement here with the whole 'blue balls' discussion. If they are offered something - or even think its been offered - of course, they can't resist. If they did they might not even be considered 'real men'. It's ingrained in our culture, unfortunately. "The woman tempted me and I did eat" is still a viable defense in the minds of many people. Most famously 'she was drunk, so what did she expect'?

              And the truth is sometimes kids do offer. They have crushes on their trainers, they idolize them. They compete to be picked out for favours and ride the best horses. With young kids, it's probably not sexual, no matter how it's perceived, but maybe with older teens, it is, maybe even on an overt level. But it's WRONG. And here's the thing - they can't consent. They're too young and 'real men' know that. Someone here is supposed to be a grownup. It's not their payoff. Trainers are getting paid - in money, prestige, pride in a job well done. But please - not in sexual exploitation of children. That's not part of the job description and anyone who thinks so should be in a different profession.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotaPonyDoc View Post

                Science already knows why.... if he's actually been exposed and isn't infected with HIV, then he's an HIV elite controller. Meaning he can suppress HIV viral loads without antiretroviral therapies.

                And yes, science is already harvesting antibodies from elite controllers to work on vaccines for other HIV patients. There's like a 0.3% chance of being an elite controller or 1 in 300, it's not too special.....
                Can these elite controllers transmit the virus to others?
                Save a life...be an organ donor! Visit www.Transplantbuddies.org

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rah View Post

                  I was assured yesterday it has been removed, just trying to confirm.



                  It's still on their website and slideshow as the George H Morris arena. I just looked

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Groom&Taxi View Post

                    It didn't do much for me - and, spoiler alert, it's a blog.
                    I'm kind of disappointed, I really wanted to like something written by someone that calls themselves the Engineering Equestrian but I looked at a few of the posts, they weren't very well written.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Silk View Post

                      Can these elite controllers transmit the virus to others?
                      That really depends on how well of an elite controller a person is... some people will have viral spikes over time (maybe associated with a common cold when their immune system is weaker) and could transmit the disease then.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BlueMoonJumper View Post
                        [h=1]

                        For example: Potty training a puppy. (Because we're all animal lovers here and I think this scenario will be relatable to most of us)
                        New puppy pees on area rug. I absolutely do not want this behavior, I don't like this behavior, I'm not cool with it. It's gross and I don't want to live with it. I definitely feel a certain way about it. As far as my action? I take the area rug out of the house and replace it.

                        Puppy pees on new area rug. I continue to have those strong feelings that I don't like it, I'm not cool with it, it's gross and I don't want to live with it. Toss the new area rug in the trash.

                        Puppy pees on the third rug and the fourth. I continue to be grossed out and unhappy. Never take any action other than throwing away area rugs.

                        What's going to be the result? We all know - the puppy is going to continue to pee on the fresh new area rugs I provide to it.

                        There was no discernible objection from me. There was no correction. By failing to turn my feelings into corrective action, I have accommodated the undesirable behavior and allowed it to become the norm.
                        Your analogy is interesting but I see it a different way. To me, you did not accept the puppy's peeing. Accepting it would have meant that you left the first rug in place, to be peed on repeatedly. Instead, you removed the rug. Did you stop the peeing? No. But you protected your rug.

                        Upthread, someone spoke of a sibling who was raped and talked about their family moving away. They did not deal with the rapist and there could have been a dozen reasons for that. Is it ideal to ignore the rapist? As far as the community goes, no. But as far as the family goes, maybe, probably, especially back then. In general, sex wasn't spoken of as easily as it is today. Remember, Hollywood enforced the Hays Code (censorship) for movies until the mid '60s or so.

                        When most people are threatened, they circle the wagons and protect their own first. The welfare of society in general is not their first thought. Not dealing with a pedophile back then was not "accepting" rape. As I said earlier, many people did deal with the issue, just not in the same way we might now. They did not "accept" kiddie rape. That would have meant leaving the "rug" in place.

                        One more thing - you could have removed the "puppy". That happened back then too. Just quietly, without a lot of fanfare. And as someone else pointed out, there was a charge of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". I remember that charge being used.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by cloudyandcallie View Post
                          Ok I obviously lived in a different world,Savannah and Atlanta and Staunton Va and Berkeley in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s cause sex with underage children was reported and prosecuted. (And credit cards? Hell in the 60s in college in Va Rich's in Atlanta sent me my unsolicited card followed by American Express. My parents never were notified. )

                          And how do I know about sex crimes? In the 70s and 80s and 90s I tried hundreds of cases in Atlanta That was 1/12
                          /'of all felony cases in Fulton county's cities and county. I got 1/12 of all the murders and rapes and child molestations etc during those years. I took the kids to chuckie cheese and to meet the judges etc. And as the first woman hired by the DA, I made sure I put child molestors in prison. Where,btw,my defendants who committed other crimes,exacted additional punishment.

                          idahorider's post is good. Quit arguing about olden times. The assaults on children were handled then as they are now. And btw unless GW is senile now, he hasn't changed. I tried guys who had completed their sentences and reoffended.
                          This is a great post. It's a tremendous relief to hear from a direct source that so many sex offenses against children were prosecuted in that time frame.

                          I don't have stats but I'll wager that for every case that saw justice, a landslide of others did not, due to being unreported for countless reasons ('Othering'...a new word and insight for me, thanks for that dannyboy).

                          Would that be fair to say?

                          Which is how this all ties in with GM and the young people in his sphere that have recently come forward, for me anyway.

                          I got shivers reading IdahoRider's post. With you there.
                          Last edited by ohmyheck; Aug. 15, 2019, 03:22 PM. Reason: sp
                          One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.
                          William Shakespeare

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tiramit View Post
                            Thinking through to the future of our sport, how can we help protect the children? History has exposed ours as a culture of gossip and pathetically little action, so how do we protect kids outside of USEF shows? Those kids riding on the local circuit whose well-meaning but clueless parents don't know that the trainer was banned by SS (and either don't know or think to look at the list)?

                            Another question to ponder, are local circuit managers in any way responsible for allowing known sexual predators at their shows? Could someone sue them in the future? Obviously if the person is criminally found guilty of sexual abuse in another state, that could make it easier to identify the person, but only if someone knows to look. Is there a reciprocal process in place for, say, a Virginia trainer who was found guilty in NY?

                            Short of posting a sign of current SS banned offenders at the show office (not possible because of Constitutional rights and potentially a libel suit), I can't think of how those local kids could be protected from the likes of local hero predators?

                            Would licensing trainers be a start?

                            Is there a solution?
                            As interesting and therapeutic as it is to debate the past, it doesn't do a heck of a lot to help the kids who ride and compete at events outside of SS's reach. Given that the kids showing at rated shows are only a percentage of all kids riding and showing, shouldn't we think about our industry as a whole if protecting kids is really our goal? I posed the above pages back but it didn't seem to catch notice.

                            We know these predators exist within our sport. We can expect them to stay within the industry. For the non-Gods, that means teaching lessons and showing at non-USEF events. How do we protect those kids? The kids who don't have bigger bank accounts and are looking to make every opportunity count?
                            "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you are right." -Henry Ford

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=atl_hunter;n10455032]

                              But wasn't the age of consent in GA 14 until 1995? And isn't it currently 16? So I guess the question is "what is an underage child?" The date the state says is the age of consent or the Age 18? And if the age of consent was 14 in 1995 and an adult engaged in sexual activities with a child of consenting age, does that make it right? Can SS go after an adult who had sex with a consenting 14 YO back in 1994? Also, isn't the SS legal age 18? How can SS have a different age of consent than a state? Does that violate state's rights or does a federally mandated law overrule state's rights? Is this in federal jurisdiction to mandate an age of consent or is that the right of the state? The ages of consent are in conflict it seems[/QUOTE

                              Many different sex crimes had different ages. And some sex crimes had no age limits. Like for example it was illegal for adult married couples to engage in oral sex. OMG I was in law school when Prof Mack Player asked me what I thought of 1 to 20 years in prison for oral sex and I blurted out in front of my all male classmates that I thought it was foreplay.

                              So so it all depends on how the state and federal judges interpret SS. I clerked for the Chief U.S. District Judge in Savannnah eons ago. A good example is that a person can be acquitted of murder in a state court and then tried and convicted of violating the dead person's civil rights with no double jeopardy. So let GW use the court system and get cross examined on all his claims from "Unrelenting."

                              Name those 10,000 sex partners. More than Mick Jagger

                              Comment


                              • I don't think licensing trainer is particularly helpful with regards to protecting children. It's true that equestrian, things are pretty wide open, but trainers in many other sports are required to have some sort of credentials and that doesn't weed out the bad apples, although it may raise the quality of instruction.
                                I think the biggest benefit to SafeSport, although it doesn't deal directly with lower-level trainers, is the increased awareness. Didn't SafeSport expect only a few hundred complaints across all disciplines and instead they got thousands? The more people are aware that this kind of thing happens, the better off we all are at all levels.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by prairiewind2 View Post

                                  Your analogy is interesting but I see it a different way. To me, you did not accept the puppy's peeing. Accepting it would have meant that you left the first rug in place, to be peed on repeatedly. Instead, you removed the rug. Did you stop the peeing? No. But you protected your rug.
                                  I have to disagree with your counter-argument, because she removed the "damaged/injured" rug but then replaced it with another rug. If she had removed the rug to protect it but had left the area bare (or put some protective measures in place like a puppy pad in this continued example)...okay I can see an argument for safety of the family in silence. But to remove one rug and either intentionally put another in the same place or unintentionally allow for the space to be filled by an equally vulnerable rug - unacceptable because it is, in a way, acceptance. Which I think is what the original poster was trying to show.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by aredhel View Post
                                    I agree with Palm Beach that a 5 day window is too short. Not everyone is connected 24/7/365. I regularly go on trips that last longer than 5 days where I have little or no contact with the outside world. And there’s always the possibility of the person being ill and in a hospital. A 30 day window to file an intent to appeal would seem more reasonable.
                                    I think it safe to assume that GM would not be conducting a clinic in the middle of the Amazon jungle and from early on in the investigation would have decided whether or not to appeal.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by alicen View Post

                                      I think it safe to assume that GM would not be conducting a clinic in the middle of the Amazon jungle and from early on in the investigation would have decided whether or not to appeal.
                                      Especially since he had been aware of the investigation for over a year, long enough to threaten potential witnesses and their families.

                                      Let me apologize in advance.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by springdaisy View Post

                                        I have to disagree with your counter-argument, because she removed the "damaged/injured" rug but then replaced it with another rug. If she had removed the rug to protect it but had left the area bare (or put some protective measures in place like a puppy pad in this continued example)...okay I can see an argument for safety of the family in silence. But to remove one rug and either intentionally put another in the same place or unintentionally allow for the space to be filled by an equally vulnerable rug - unacceptable because it is, in a way, acceptance. Which I think is what the original poster was trying to show.
                                        Well, I didn't think she was talking of a family where one child would be removed and deliberately replaced with a sibling. I thought she was talking of a community-wide problem where the pedophile moves to the next child. Of course, her analogy breaks down at this point because we cannot train pedophiles to quit their behavior (and I think she was asking us to train the puppy instead of removing rugs). So it was always a limited analogy but I was working with it as best as I could.

                                        Of course, irl, one sibling is often replaced by another if a family doesn't know, or denies, that there is a problem. But one family does not a community make. One family's indifference does not indicate that a society "accepts" child rape. Which is the only thing I have been debating.

                                        Comment


                                        • I'm curious about those threats. No doubting it at all, but I haven't seen any direct quotes or to whom. "Accidents happen, y'know" or "I'm going to hire someone to rub out your family, Si Jayne-style" or what?

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X