Stallion Spotlight

BushyGeneology copy

Real Estate Spotlight

Hart_Barn 1
  • 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

  • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

    Except pedophiles.

    I've sat down to dinner with psychiatrists and psychotherapists who have worked in the prison system and in private practice with sex offenders.

    They will all tell you that the only pedophiles who don't reoffend are the ones who got better at not getting caught.
    I have had similar discussions with experts on the topic as you and support the philosophy; not to paint everyone with the same broad brush.

    If you like the distance you see; continue forward. If you don't; stay still and the shorter distance works out. ~GM~

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

      except the "better and fair process" they describe is in contrast to the pretend one they are making up: mich of what they are calling for is actually how safe sport functions.

      Except those who only want to adhere to findings in criminal court.

      One is a strawman, the other is demonstrably insufficient.
      Stating "THEY" - point being; picking a side. It is simply my opinion as your statement is also an opinion; No true resolution will come if people cannot find a way to work together.
      If you like the distance you see; continue forward. If you don't; stay still and the shorter distance works out. ~GM~

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jaegermonster View Post
        Really the jumpers are the only part of this that’s an Olympic discipline. Since there seems to be so much squabbling and bitching and moaning about safe sport and due process and all these other things that people just don’t seem to understand, why don’t the jumpers just split off and they can be under safe sport and whatever else in US EF and whatever and the hunters can split off and go do their own thing since they aren’t an Olympic discipline. I think to me that would probably send the loudest statement because the hunters are governed by the Olympics.
        Ted Stevens Act. That’s what created USEF out of USET and AHSA to begin with. There can only be one NGB for an Olympic sport. Along with the above mentioned issue that would make USHJA subject to SS as well.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

          Except pedophiles.

          I've sat down to dinner with psychiatrists and psychotherapists who have worked in the prison system and in private practice with sex offenders.

          They will all tell you that the only pedophiles who don't reoffend are the ones who got better at not getting caught.
          Good thing GM is not a pedophile then.
          A pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Typically under the age of 11. Someone who has sexually offended against a minor is not automatically a pedophile.

          Plenty of “pedophiles” never offend against children; they may be well aware of their attraction but never seek to act on it. The same way someone may have intense fantasies about [insert a strange / illegal / immoral fetish] and never seek to actually act it out.

          OTOH. Plenty of sexual offenders who have offended against children did so, not because they were attracted to them, but because the victim was in a position to be victimised - similar to prison rape. The offender may not have a same-sex attraction, but “when in jail...”

          As an actual prison psych (and now officer), we see plenty of all of the above: one time offenders, reoffenders, can’t-not-reoffenders. Blanket statements about reoffence rates has no place here.

          The incorrect use of the term pedophile is rampant here. There is no evidence to suggest that GM ever offended against a prepubescent minor.

          Carry on.

          Comment


          • Sure, he's an ephibophile. I already gave that word earlier in the thread Old Mac Donald.

            Let's just say people like George Morris who groom and sexually assault minor children. Better??
            Let me apologize in advance.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ghazzu View Post

              Is a boarding situation as cut-and-dried as an apartment rental, though? It isn't just the stall.
              Also, I've seen contracts that specify "first and last month's board."
              In that case, it seems entirely appropriate for that to be used as specified.
              Great question!

              IMO, the contract should specify. I'll bet it does name and specify what security deposit is for.

              And because that bit of housing law is so well-defined, I think a boarder who got ripped off might just win in court. Again, the contract should specify, precisely because language would have come from contracts that were common in other business like renting apartments versus renting stalls, with board and are.

              And another thing! Housing law tells a landlord exactly how she must handle the tenant's security deposit and what must be done and documented if she will keep some of that. Among other things, in the states whose laws I know best requires that the landlord present a written accounting of the funds kept and what they were fore (e.g. not cleaning the blinds or leaving a room needing to be repainted.)

              So I think a BO might find herself on the wrong side of the law if she couldn't prove that she had used the Security Deposit the right way. Again, I'd think (and I'd argue to a judge) that *if* the security deposit were to be used for unpaid board or damages, interchangeably, then the contract should have specified that since the relevant area of law does not have those so combined.


              I have never been asked to leave either a Security Deposit or Last Month's Board by any boarding contract I have signed. But you can bet I'd read that part carefully and have a conversation with the BO in order to make sure that we were on the same page about how money and moving out were going to happen.
              The armchair saddler
              Politically Pro-Cat

              Comment


              • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                No, there are different rules specific to human housing. In general, there are many more and specific protections for tenants around housing rentals, including legal obligations to keep deposit money available to return to the tenant. There are also specific government agencies that can help you fight a problem landlord.

                A horse boarding agreement is just a contract and there are no special mechanisms to help you enforce it.

                I am among the many who have been stiffed a deposit by a barn owner, and more than once. It's happened when I chose to move and it's happened when management chose our group to move. It's maddening.
                So, so tired of boarding being the unregulated wild west.

                But take heart, and/or a note from history: Rental housing used to be this way, too. And, by and large, tenants have only won the protections they have gotten via the courts. It might be, then, that boarding will be just as crappy and one-sided until boarders stand up and refused to be mistreated by the BOs. If tenents-- usually poorer than landlords-- can do this, so can horse owners.

                On that note and the proper topic of this thread: This business will only be as clean as you pay for. If you pay for bad treatment, you will get it. If you insist on better for your money, you will get better.
                The armchair saddler
                Politically Pro-Cat

                Comment


                • A secondary difference that we haven't discussed between a criminal proceeding and an administrative one is that cases of sexual misconduct, assault, and bullying are different in a workplace, a school, or in this case, an athletic community, also come with specific rights entitling the victim to participate.

                  - Public schools are both semi-mandatory and entitlements.
                  - Colleges and workplaces have obligations to ensure people are not harassed out of a job or an education. (Colleges have the additional challenge of managing housing.)
                  - Athletes have protections meant to ensure their ability to participate even if their national federations find them annoying. (These come from the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and was a response to some specific obnoxious actions by the AAU; they are reinforced by the amendment that created SafeSport.)

                  One of the facts recognized by these processes is that with an accusation of sexual misconduct, there's not really a neutral position: someone is going to lose their ability to participate, whether through action or inaction. Choosing not to act has the impact of taking rights and opportunities away from the claimant in favor of the accused.

                  For years, this was not acknowledged. And the effect was that a person who was abused ended up having to leave the community because action was not taken against the abuser and because being in a small community with the abuser was intolerable.

                  (In a criminal case, the stakes for the accused are higher, in that they can lose their freedom entirely and become a convicted felon, but also in general the accuser has more opportunities to avoid interaction with the accused regardless of outcome. Not always in practice.)

                  Then of course, for the most part the accused ALSO has these rights. In our sport that would be most so when it involves two athletes and not when one party is exclusively a coach.

                  So to take one of the harder cases, drawn from a real life example in wrestling, A credibly claims that B entered her hotel room while she was sleeping and assaulted her in her bed. Let's say it's credible and likely it happened that way but there's not enough evidence to convict in a court of law.

                  A no longer feels safe traveling with the team if B is selected. (B may also feel unsafe traveling with A on the team.)

                  So, now you have to choose. You only get one of these team members going forward. Which will it be?

                  That is among the problems making these cases so hard.


                  ----


                  One thing happening here is that we are seeing only the hardest cases. Situations that can be informally mediated are (that's right in the SafeSport procedures). Situations where the offenses are less, or the accused less well-known, don't get as much attention. Situations where a criminal conviction is obtained are simple. And we see only the name of the accused - so we are unconsciously choosing between someone we know, or know of, and an unknown number of blank slates that could be one or many.

                  Feel the difference when you're talking about Jimmy Williams with some anonymous girls, versus Jimmy Williams with Carol Creamcheese, versus Jimmy Williams with Anne Kursinski. Whether we mean to or not, we're inclined to make rather grotesque choices not based on what he did but on who he did it to and if we know or love that person. I've crassly said the only reason Anne could come out is because she had more Olympic medals than Jimmy and I don't think I'm wrong. Even all of the other girls who have spoken on the record would not be enough to have swayed opinion as much as her testimony did.

                  What we say when we do this is that Jimmy is worth more than all those girls put together. (Ironically, there seem to be people who believe this even though he's dead.) And that's just ugly.

                  Horse and rider training is not so rarified a skill that it can only be obtained from abusers.

                  If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jaegermonster View Post
                    Really the jumpers are the only part of this that’s an Olympic discipline. Since there seems to be so much squabbling and bitching and moaning about safe sport and due process and all these other things that people just don’t seem to understand, why don’t the jumpers just split off and they can be under safe sport and whatever else in US EF and whatever and the hunters can split off and go do their own thing since they aren’t an Olympic discipline. I think to me that would probably send the loudest statement because the hunters are governed by the Olympics.
                    Odd that this poster would have forgotten dressage and eventing, and there are several more sports regulated by the FEI for international competition. But, as Keep it Simple points out, the law is much broader in scope.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by vineyridge View Post

                      Odd that this poster would have forgotten dressage and eventing, and there are several more sports regulated by the FEI for international competition. But, as Keep it Simple points out, the law is much broader in scope.
                      Odd that that poster would wish to find a solution by allowing the Hunters-- arguably the most child-inhabited of the disciplines-- to just get out from under the SafeSport umbrella. But the post confused me a bit, so I'm not sure I understood just what problem this creative suggestion was meant to solve.
                      The armchair saddler
                      Politically Pro-Cat

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mvp View Post

                        Great question!

                        IMO, the contract should specify. I'll bet it does name and specify what security deposit is for.

                        And because that bit of housing law is so well-defined, I think a boarder who got ripped off might just win in court. Again, the contract should specify, precisely because language would have come from contracts that were common in other business like renting apartments versus renting stalls, with board and are.
                        It's not that you won't win in court but that the cost to bring the case is significant, possibly as much as you are out or more, and then you still have to collect the judgement. There's also the cost of your time. Even small claims court - you'd probably have to take a couple of days off from work to bring the case.

                        With housing, the amounts are larger and there are government agencies that have some nice bitey tools to quickly and easily bring bad actors in line in the most egregious cases. The lesser cases (you put a mark on the wall so I'm docking you $300) less so.


                        I have never been asked to leave either a Security Deposit or Last Month's Board by any boarding contract I have signed. But you can bet I'd read that part carefully and have a conversation with the BO in order to make sure that we were on the same page about how money and moving out were going to happen.
                        Well, if you find yourself in this situation I wish you the best. IME everyone is professional when you move in, and about half the time, not so much when you move out. The only time moving out went well was when I was moving 600 miles away - the manager's attitude immediately went from frosty to pleased for me and helpful. Trying to correct the bad actors was too hard a problem for me.
                        If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                        Comment


                        • A little off tangent, but I have often wondered if pedophiles get into coaching, directing, priesthood, etc. because of the plethora of young girls/boys, or are they already in the sport/profession and think, “Oh, what a bonanza “?

                          I guess it is probably both. I often wonder when the “light-bulb moment” occurs.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ohnoO View Post
                            A little off tangent, but I have often wondered if pedophiles get into coaching, directing, priesthood, etc. because of the plethora of young girls/boys, or are they already in the sport/profession and think, “Oh, what a bonanza “?

                            I guess it is probably both. I often wonder when the “light-bulb moment” occurs.
                            Access....
                            "You can't really debate with someone who has a prescient invisible friend"
                            carolprudm

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                              A secondary difference that we haven't discussed between a criminal proceeding and an administrative one is that cases of sexual misconduct, assault, and bullying are different in a workplace, a school, or in this case, an athletic community, also come with specific rights entitling the victim to participate.

                              - Public schools are both semi-mandatory and entitlements.
                              - Colleges and workplaces have obligations to ensure people are not harassed out of a job or an education. (Colleges have the additional challenge of managing housing.)
                              - Athletes have protections meant to ensure their ability to participate even if their national federations find them annoying. (These come from the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and was a response to some specific obnoxious actions by the AAU; they are reinforced by the amendment that created SafeSport.)

                              One of the facts recognized by these processes is that with an accusation of sexual misconduct, there's not really a neutral position: someone is going to lose their ability to participate, whether through action or inaction. Choosing not to act has the impact of taking rights and opportunities away from the claimant in favor of the accused.

                              For years, this was not acknowledged. And the effect was that a person who was abused ended up having to leave the community because action was not taken against the abuser and because being in a small community with the abuser was intolerable.

                              (In a criminal case, the stakes for the accused are higher, in that they can lose their freedom entirely and become a convicted felon, but also in general the accuser has more opportunities to avoid interaction with the accused regardless of outcome. Not always in practice.)

                              Then of course, for the most part the accused ALSO has these rights. In our sport that would be most so when it involves two athletes and not when one party is exclusively a coach.

                              So to take one of the harder cases, drawn from a real life example in wrestling, A credibly claims that B entered her hotel room while she was sleeping and assaulted her in her bed. Let's say it's credible and likely it happened that way but there's not enough evidence to convict in a court of law.

                              A no longer feels safe traveling with the team if B is selected. (B may also feel unsafe traveling with A on the team.)

                              So, now you have to choose. You only get one of these team members going forward. Which will it be?

                              That is among the problems making these cases so hard.


                              ----


                              One thing happening here is that we are seeing only the hardest cases. Situations that can be informally mediated are (that's right in the SafeSport procedures). Situations where the offenses are less, or the accused less well-known, don't get as much attention. Situations where a criminal conviction is obtained are simple. And we see only the name of the accused - so we are unconsciously choosing between someone we know, or know of, and an unknown number of blank slates that could be one or many.

                              Feel the difference when you're talking about Jimmy Williams with some anonymous girls, versus Jimmy Williams with Carol Creamcheese, versus Jimmy Williams with Anne Kursinski. Whether we mean to or not, we're inclined to make rather grotesque choices not based on what he did but on who he did it to and if we know or love that person. I've crassly said the only reason Anne could come out is because she had more Olympic medals than Jimmy and I don't think I'm wrong. Even all of the other girls who have spoken on the record would not be enough to have swayed opinion as much as her testimony did.

                              What we say when we do this is that Jimmy is worth more than all those girls put together. (Ironically, there seem to be people who believe this even though he's dead.) And that's just ugly.

                              Horse and rider training is not so rarified a skill that it can only be obtained from abusers.
                              Good post. I think it's necessary to acknowledge that there are many, many shades of gray here including battleship, flea-bitten and grulla! Here are the biggest problems I have with SS as things now stand:

                              (1) There should be a reasonable statute of limitations, perhaps corresponding to that in the judicial district where the alleged abuse took place. I've heard all the contrary arguments, but if there is no evidence of any improper activity in say the past 20 years, I'm not seeing any point in setting down elderly people for ancient history--all it does is open a window for people to weaponize SS for vindictive purposes. No child is being "protected" from George, or JW who's been dead a quarter century, now. The person way up thread who stated "It should be about moving FORWARD from here" was spot on.

                              (2) I do not believe in banning the dead, nor memory-holing their accomplishments, an Orwellian reference if you are unfamiliar. This involves removing all acknowledgment of their careers as though they had never lived, ripping their names off trophies, arenas, scholarships, etc. They've already done it to JW, and will probably try it with GM, though I think his many fans might make that tougher. Regardless of whether negative aspects of personal lives later come to light, and regardless of whether in the realm of sports, film, art, music, or any other sphere of public life, their accomplishments should stand. With an asterisk, perhaps, like we're now appending to Christopher Columbus or Thomas Jefferson. As in fallible men, NOT "gods."

                              (3) The big, BIG problem is with "aiding and abetting." You're right, getting kicked out of an elite private club is NBD and it's possible to operate thriving equine businesses without USEF membership. However, the A&A clause crosses a line into restraint of trade and infringes on freedom of association, which every American posesses by law. SS set him down and they publicized it; if after that clients still want to send their horses and even their children to him for clinics or whatever, that's THEIR business and not SS's. For instance, I have no juniors at my barn and and do not consider GHM even remotely a danger to me or my clients. Should we wish to invite him for a clinic, I should think WE accept the choice and any theoretical liability that comes with it. For any event not directly sanctioned by USEF, they should have no jurisdiction. Equine business is different than many sports in that it IS a living for so many people, and nothing less than the force of U.S. law should (or does!) have the power to deny someone the ability to make a living.

                              (4) It is utterly impossible to "micro-monitor" the activities of every person who comes on the premises of a busy stable. The vast majority of grooms, muckers, veterinarians, farriers, delivery truck drivers, repairmen, lawn crews, etc. are not under the moment-by-moment "control" of the barn owner or trainer, nor under the obligations or jurisdiction of SS. How about encountering people out on trails? No barn owner or trainer can possibly guarantee that no "abuse" is possible on their premises. To be held to that standard is non-workable in the real world. Very different than supervising juniors at a school swimming pool or basketball court. So how about SS insert language the holds PARENTS or GUARDIANS ultimately responsible for supervision of their minor participants?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mvp View Post

                                Odd that that poster would wish to find a solution by allowing the Hunters-- arguably the most child-inhabited of the disciplines-- to just get out from under the SafeSport umbrella. But the post confused me a bit, so I'm not sure I understood just what problem this creative suggestion was meant to solve.
                                "Perhaps the final test of anybody's love of dogs is their willingness to permit them to make a camping ground of the bed" -Henry T. Merwin

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Old Mac Donald View Post

                                  Good thing GM is not a pedophile then.
                                  A pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Typically under the age of 11. Someone who has sexually offended against a minor is not automatically a pedophile.

                                  Plenty of “pedophiles” never offend against children; they may be well aware of their attraction but never seek to act on it. The same way someone may have intense fantasies about [insert a strange / illegal / immoral fetish] and never seek to actually act it out.

                                  OTOH. Plenty of sexual offenders who have offended against children did so, not because they were attracted to them, but because the victim was in a position to be victimised - similar to prison rape. The offender may not have a same-sex attraction, but “when in jail...”

                                  As an actual prison psych (and now officer), we see plenty of all of the above: one time offenders, reoffenders, can’t-not-reoffenders. Blanket statements about reoffence rates has no place here.

                                  The incorrect use of the term pedophile is rampant here. There is no evidence to suggest that GM ever offended against a prepubescent minor.

                                  Carry on.
                                  Semantics, but if it makes you feel better, then carry on

                                  Comment


                                  • @ CrashingBoar
                                    For instance, I have no juniors at my barn and and do not consider GHM even remotely a danger to me or my clients. Should we wish to invite him for a clinic, I should think WE accept the choice and any theoretical liability that comes with it.
                                    I have a feeling your insurance company may have a problem with that. They may not care if you accept the liability, but they may not wish to insure you against it. Just a thought.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Crashing Boar View Post
                                      (2) I do not believe in banning the dead, nor memory-holing their accomplishments, an Orwellian reference if you are unfamiliar. This involves removing all acknowledgment of their careers as though they had never lived, ripping their names off trophies, arenas, scholarships, etc. They've already done it to JW, and will probably try it with GM, though I think his many fans might make that tougher. Regardless of whether negative aspects of personal lives later come to light, and regardless of whether in the realm of sports, film, art, music, or any other sphere of public life, their accomplishments should stand. With an asterisk, perhaps, like we're now appending to Christopher Columbus or Thomas Jefferson. As in fallible men, NOT "gods."
                                      I don't think anyone is "memory-holing" Jimmy Williams' accomplishments, which are many.

                                      But do you want to win an award with his name on it today, knowing that among his accomplishments are raping an 11 year old girl? I really don't. Going forward, I am not going to react with pleasure to see that award given out.

                                      And having little kids ride in an arena named for him doesn't sound nice to me either.

                                      If you want to honor his accomplishments, maybe it would be better to name those things for one of his students or one of his horses.

                                      Hmm. Interestingly, neither he nor GM really had iconic horses that you associate them with. Maybe their legends kind of overshadowed the horses.
                                      If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Crashing Boar View Post
                                        (1) There should be a reasonable statute of limitations, perhaps corresponding to that in the judicial district where the alleged abuse took place. I've heard all the contrary arguments, but if there is no evidence of any improper activity in say the past 20 years, I'm not seeing any point in setting down elderly people for ancient history--all it does is open a window for people to weaponize SS for vindictive purposes. No child is being "protected" from George, or JW who's been dead a quarter century, now. The person way up thread who stated "It should be about moving FORWARD from here" was spot on.
                                        You don't know when their most recent evidence dates to.

                                        There's an assumption that elderly men stop abusing people sexually. In fact, this is not an idea well supported by the evidence.

                                        A pattern of abuses over many years and many athletes may not be apparent without looking back many years. The single case that comes to light in the last 10 years looks wholly different when you add in three more decades before. That's what we've seen in the Catholic Church cases and that's what we've seen with cases like Mainwaring.
                                        If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                                        Comment


                                        • Here are a couple of additional practical suggestions beyond those for tweaking up SS:

                                          (1) Parents need to teach their children, from the time they're old enough to understand, which actions by adults are normal and safe and which are never to be tolerated (red light!). They need to have an escape plan, and to know they can ALWAYS bring even the slightest suspicion that someone's a "little off" to YOU--and YOU WILL BACK THEM UP. 50 years ago we didn't have that; today, we should. "Teach Your Children Well." Way more effective than having some 4th party adjudicate the thing 51 years after the incident.

                                          (2) Do not dump your kids off at the barn at 0800 and expect the management to entertain them for the next 10-12 hours. If your child is old enough and competent enough for a working student arrangement, that should be in writing with SS protocols incorporated so everyone understands the deal. Parents should not otherwise use the stable as an unpaid babysitting service. Idle hands are the devil's workshop, and this eliminates opportunity to be "groomed" by any personnel not under direct supervision of trainer.

                                          (3) For the love of God, STOP sexualizing children. The 12-year old daughter of two Yalies, one a clergyman, that I knew actually let their pubescent daughter run around in hot-pink tights with the word "JUICY!" embossed in rhinestones across the butt! A child doesn't know any better, but parents should. Maybe the promotion of 9-year-old "drag queens" and Jon-Benet Ramsey style dress-up/makeup is not a good choice. Let's stop promoting with our fashion dollars the "bimbo" culture and the idea that taking your clothes off for a camera lens, anyone's lens, is EVER a good idea. Steaming manure like the "Good Boys" movie just released is beyond appalling; one more example of Hollywood's race to the bottom of the muck-choked trough of so-called modern "culture." Go read a synopsis if you haven't yet heard of it, and protect your children from ideas like this that can't possibly end well.

                                          (4) Get rid of social media for impressionable youth entirely. A flip-phone will do fine for emergencies and calling home.
                                          Parents are enabling all the pathologies that accompany unfettered, 24/7 internet access. Most adults can't handle it, let alone youth.

                                          (5) Raise your children with a sense of personal responsibility, which seems to have been replaced by "self esteem" and "activism." You will be judged by your actions in the world both good and bad, as GHM is being judged now. Use the current news cycle as a teaching moment, and do not make excuses for anyone.
                                          Last edited by Crashing Boar; Aug. 21, 2019, 07:37 PM.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X