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 chunky munky View Post

    Totally disagree with you. Nobody wants predators to not be addressed. But everybody that has been accused of anything should have the rights to defend themselves. I was personally a victim of a predator trainer at 13 years old. Nobody wants evil perps prosecuted more than I do. But people that want reform to the process are not evil. And to label someone vil because they donated to a group looking for a better system is pretty closed minded.
    With all due respect, I think the folks wanting reform of SafeSport have failed in a couple of senses.

    1. They have not definitively distanced themselves from the less-noble I Stand With George folks, or others in the earlier Rob Gage or Jimmy Williams' scenarios who did everything from shame victims to trot out the "it was a different time" excuse, to "you all killed him," to cries for Due Process without knowing a whole lot about either the SafeSport process, nor anything offered by the justice system.... The list could get longer, but I'm sure you can see my point: It's hard to distinguish people who want their guy to remain well-respected, at all costs, from people who honest-to-God want to go to bat for victims past and future.


    2. None of these folks has suggested any substantive reforms, nor engaged in a detailed and knowledgable discussion of the SafeSport process and where it goes wrong.

    Because of this muddiness on both counts, I can't tell what peoples' motives are. Perhaps some day, when victims of sex crimes regularly get way more credit and help from people, from society and from institutions, I'll believe you when you say that "no one wants predators to not be addressed." But we aren't collectively there yet.

    Speaking to your point about the accuseds' rights-- Those folks are given a chance to present their side of things in a SafeSport investigation, right?
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat

    Comment


      Plus... no need to raise money for” the accused to have access to representation “, just call BN, she does it for free.

      Comment


        What I think is most interesting, and no one seems to have really pointed it out (or caught on?), is that there are TWO equestrian-inspired groups going after SS and soliciting donations. Both need astronomical amounts of money for their goals, and yet they've chosen to split their donor base in two:

        United Athletes = Safe Sport Overhaul FB Group = Kathy Hobstetter: [edit]

        Athletes for Equity in Sport Inc = ISWG FB Group = Diane Carney: [edit]


        I am not on any bandwagon that's going up against SS; I'm just befuddled that these people chose to make their cause more difficult to achieve, rather than come up with a plan to work together towards a common goal. Nor is anyone publicly addressing the fact that they have two competing entities occupying the space of one incredibly niche effort.

        Typical horse industry people. We should not be allowed to run anything.
        Last edited by Moderator 1; Dec. 7, 2019, 09:06 AM. Reason: GoFundMe links
        EHJ | FB | #140 | watch | #insta

        Comment


          Originally posted by mvp View Post

          Speaking to your point about the accuseds' rights-- Those folks are given a chance to present their side of things in a SafeSport investigation, right?
          You are correct. Respondents are given the opportunity to give their side during the investigation as well as know the identity of those who reported them. For an investigation to move towards the point of sanctions, there must be named individuals who will stand by their statements with their name. It is part of the process as outlined by Safesport’s published policy. I also know this because I was a witness who remained anonymous in another case due to fear of repercussions. To be clear, there were multiple other witnesses who came forward and stood by their statements thus allowing their abuser to know their names. It’s a huge risk.

          I am in awe of the victims who had the strength not to remain anonymous in any case. In my case and every other one. Safesport asked me a number of times to not be anonymous. I finally said that I would come forward if the case could not be successful without me. Fortunately for me, those other brave victims were enough. I was shocked by the disgusting public blowback and victim shaming which happened after the RG suicide, which continues to this day as others like GM are banned. My immediate response was to call Safesport and make my statement official.

          Elitism certainly plays a part in the massive denial going on in H/J land but so does fear. Fear of wondering who will be the next one called out. They portray it as a “witch hunt” but the truth is that there are so many who know they could be next, not because they are innocent but because they know what they did and thought they got away with it.
          Last edited by oneequestrienne; Dec. 6, 2019, 08:41 AM. Reason: Typo

          Comment


            Originally posted by dags View Post
            What I think is most interesting, and no one seems to have really pointed it out (or caught on?), is that there are TWO equestrian-inspired groups going after SS and soliciting donations. Both need astronomical amounts of money for their goals, and yet they've chosen to split their donor base in two:

            United Athletes = Safe Sport Overhaul FB Group = Kathy Hobstetter: [edit]

            Athletes for Equity in Sport Inc = ISWG FB Group = Diane Carney: [edit]


            I am not on any bandwagon that's going up against SS; I'm just befuddled that these people chose to make their cause more difficult to achieve, rather than come up with a plan to work together towards a common goal. Nor is anyone publicly addressing the fact that they have two competing entities occupying the space of one incredibly niche effort.

            Typical horse industry people. We should not be allowed to run anything.
            It would be funny if it weren’t so sad and typical of the equestrian world. I’ve been trying to find a link between the two entities but I guess I’m not the only one who can’t find any. Another reason why they will fail.
            Last edited by Moderator 1; Dec. 7, 2019, 09:07 AM.

            Comment


              Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

              And your point is????
              Take a deep breath. I was not attacking you.
              My point was you had an opportunity to share your experience with a group of open-minded people who have shown to respond to those offering to educate them on something they have not had first-hand experience and you clammed up.
              Why not share what your experience was like? Educated others on what the interview process was like. Did they tell you what the charge was? Did they mention names? Several people on this thread have also been through the interview process and have shared their experiences with SafeSport was like. It sounds like the system worked in the case which you were interviewed. Why not share that?
              From the posts I have read from the people that want reform, they want transparency. They want to know the allegations, they want to know what the alleged abuse was so they can form their own opinion. You protected the person and the circumstances in the case in which you were questioned. Apparently you felt they were entitled to that privacy. So, guess what, we found some common ground.
              I believe everyone should have assistance in their defense, however another untruth is that the victims have SafeSport as their lawyers and they do not pay a cent for representation. This is not true. The victims are witnesses not a party in the case. The case is SS against the Responding Party. The lawyer represents SafeSport not the Reporting Party/victim. The SS lawyer will tell you, and he told me more than once, he does not represent me; I can get my own attorney. He represents SS. As the Reporting Party, I am not privy to all the information in the case. I do not get representation in pre-hearing conferences. I do not get to see the witness list. I do not get to see the evidence. I do not get to see/read the final arbitration decision. Safesport does not share that information with the Reporting Party or the other witnesses they present.
              Last edited by Keep it Simple; Dec. 6, 2019, 09:45 AM.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

                I believe everyone should have assistance in their defense, however another untruth is that the victims have SafeSport as their lawyers and they do not pay a cent for representation. This is not true. The victims are witnesses not a party in the case. The case is SS against the Responding Party. The lawyer represent SafeSport not the Reporting Party/victim. The SS lawyer will tell you, and he told me more than once, he does not represent me; I can get my own attorney. He represents SS. As the Reporting Party, I am not privy to all the information in the case. I do not get representation in pre-hearing conferences. I do not get to see the witness list. I do not get to see the evidence. I do not get to see/read the final arbitration decision. Safesport does not share that information with the Reporting Party or the other witnesses they present.
                Thank you for clarifying this. I also was never privy to other reporting party’s names or what they said. I knew who some might be but did not know who else was actually involved. Safesport did not tell me anything about other reporting parties.

                It wasn’t until later that I heard personally from other victims who told me themselves that they had reported our abuser.
                Last edited by oneequestrienne; Dec. 6, 2019, 09:43 AM. Reason: Added last sentence

                Comment


                  Originally posted by dags View Post
                  What I think is most interesting, and no one seems to have really pointed it out (or caught on?), is that there are TWO equestrian-inspired groups going after SS and soliciting donations. Both need astronomical amounts of money for their goals, and yet they've chosen to split their donor base in two:

                  United Athletes = Safe Sport Overhaul FB Group = Kathy Hobstetter: [edit]

                  Athletes for Equity in Sport Inc = ISWG FB Group = Diane Carney: [edit]


                  I am not on any bandwagon that's going up against SS; I'm just befuddled that these people chose to make their cause more difficult to achieve, rather than come up with a plan to work together towards a common goal. Nor is anyone publicly addressing the fact that they have two competing entities occupying the space of one incredibly niche effort.

                  Typical horse industry people. We should not be allowed to run anything.
                  Would these same ISWG people be so up in arms about "reforming" SafeSport if Joe Smith (random name here) with a 5-horse boarding stable and lesson program, who takes his students to MAYBE 3 AA-rated shows/year, was the banned party? Instead of high-profile icons like George, Tommy Serio, and, to a lesser extent, Rob Gage? Somehow I don't think they'd start a FB page called "I Stand With Joe". It's only the "cool kids" who get that kind of blind loyalty and support.

                  All of those groups need to kick Jim Giorgio out, btw. Even a loose association with a convicted pedophile does them no favors, and I can't believe they don't see that.
                  Last edited by Moderator 1; Dec. 7, 2019, 09:09 AM.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

                    Perhaps I used an incorrect description. I did not depose anyone. I spent a half hour answering questions. Short of that I don't wish to reveal much else about my experience.
                    You don't have to say anything about the case if you don't want to. But if you had your deposition taken in a civil case, that means this was a court case and not a SafeSport process. It's really apples and oranges and not what that page referenced purports to be about. I am not pressing you to reveal details about your testimony but I do think it is worth reiterating that CIVIL LITIGATION is not coextensive/the same/necessarily related to the SAFESPORT proceeding. Apples and oranges (if that is indeed what you were involved with).
                    ~Veronica
                    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
                    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

                    Comment


                      Heard something today that offers a little more clarity, to me, anyway ...

                      It's the difference between asking the accuser:

                      "How did you come to be in a relationship with GM when you were so young?"
                      vs. asking
                      "What did GM do to encourage and develop this relationship with you when you were so young?"

                      Even those skeptics / deniers who admit there was a relationship do not seem to want to ask the second question.

                      That's a problem. Because it is the adult who has to take the responsibility for a relationship with a minor.

                      An insistence on putting even part of the onus for the relationship onto the minor is a major gap in their discussion. A gap that they seem to have no intention of trying to bridge. That is stopping any meaningful reconciliation of the two sides, no matter what is done with SafeSport.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by chunky munky View Post

                        Totally disagree with you. Nobody wants predators to not be addressed. But everybody that has been accused of anything should have the rights to defend themselves. I was personally a victim of a predator trainer at 13 years old. Nobody wants evil perps prosecuted more than I do. But people that want reform to the process are not evil. And to label someone vil because they donated to a group looking for a better system is pretty closed minded.
                        what I fail to understand is all of this fund raising became to come about 1) after Bob Gage killed himself and 2) George Morris was initially banned. There was very. very little issue with Safe Sport until "big names" started being investigated and set down

                        I am in full support of improving the process but at no point should the lobbying and fundraising take away or limit Safe Sports current practices.

                        Those that have been found guilty and banned from the club by Safe Sport have all been thoroughly investigated and proven of actions by trained law enforcement professionals. It's sad that Bob Gage took the path to end his life that he did; but are we more sad for him having chosen that path or are we sad for all the victims he inappropriately touched and shared a bed with and equally upset with him for having done those dirty, sick deeds?

                        Just as there is in everyday life, people are wrongly accused of things. It does not surprise me, nor will it ever, that people are wrongly accused within Safe Sport. But it is Safe Sport's job to sort through those and dismiss them accordingly. I think that they have done a pretty fair job in doing so thus far; have they not?

                        What I have a problem with is donating money to a cause to help people fight the process because they have been "wrongly accused". So are you putting forth your hard earned money to potentially support a child molester who is lying through their teeth that "they didn't do it". Say said person gets found guilty have review of significant evidence. Could you sleep at night knowing your money went to the pocket of someone who inappropriately touched and slept with children for their own physical benefit?


                        George Morris had the chance to appeal and stand before Safe Sport and provide his side of the story. And yet, Safe Sport upheld their decision given the evidence before them. We need to keep in mind that most of those fighting the bob Gauge and GM issue are fighting it because they believed their cases should be dismissed on the grounds that they performed such acts years ago. that type of rhetoric is about as sick and disturbing as the pedophile who committed the acts originally.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post
                          Heard something today that offers a little more clarity, to me, anyway ...

                          It's the difference between asking the accuser:

                          "How did you come to be in a relationship with GM when you were so young?"
                          vs. asking
                          "What did GM do to encourage and develop this relationship with you when you were so young?"

                          Even those skeptics / deniers who admit there was a relationship do not seem to want to ask the second question.

                          That's a problem. Because it is the adult who has to take the responsibility for a relationship with a minor.

                          An insistence on putting even part of the onus for the relationship onto the minor is a major gap in their discussion. A gap that they seem to have no intention of trying to bridge. That is stopping any meaningful reconciliation of the two sides, no matter what is done with SafeSport.
                          Yup. As a parent, who is also a survivor of abuse, and consequently more watchful and skeptical and protective of my kids than many of my friends (not saying this to imply I’m a better mother... just acknowledging that I am vigilant/hyper vigilant because of my own experiences) I think of it on an even more basic level...

                          If an adult teacher, or coach, or adult from our church, or next door neighbor, or even extended family member shows an intense interest in developing a one on one relationship with my child/tween/teenager (my kids aren’t quite teens yet)...

                          I pause and think “What is that all about?”

                          I am really tired of seeing articles and puff pieces everywhere talking about how important these adult - child relationships are, and how much they add to the kid’s lives. That may be true in certain cases... and the child was never exploited or abused by that adult. But when it comes to examples of kids and teens who WERE exploited or abused by adult coaches and mentors, the majority of those situations were in fact preceded by these unique, intense adult-child mentoring/super close relationships.

                          At what point are we ready to decide that our sport and community at large is better off if we just support and encourage coaches to be good, professional coaches, and stop lionizing this extra special, extra curricular aspect of it all, which turns the coach into a mentor/close friend/confidant of the minor athlete? Because it’s really only one more step to go from that sort of relationship, to an emotionally and sexually inappropriate relationship.

                          And yes... I am aware of the benefits of barn rat and working student positions. I think these positions and situations can continue... coaches should simply follow MAAP guidelines, and be professional. It’s not complicated. Coaches who choose not to, and who continue to have these intense, mentoring, extra close relationships with students? People really need to pause and ask themselves why an adult is doing that. Good professionals should be far too busy for that sort of thing, and should be primarily interested in spending free personal time related to friendships and romantic relationships with their own adult peers. Not minors who are also students.
                          Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Dec. 6, 2019, 01:07 PM. Reason: typos

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Mara View Post

                            Would these same ISWG people be so up in arms about "reforming" SafeSport if Joe Smith (random name here) with a 5-horse boarding stable and lesson program, who takes his students to MAYBE 3 AA-rated shows/year, was the banned party? Instead of high-profile icons like George, Tommy Serio, and, to a lesser extent, Rob Gage? Somehow I don't think they'd start a FB page called "I Stand With Joe". It's only the "cool kids" who get that kind of blind loyalty and support.
                            I think the ISWG movement is a way to feel that one is somehow nobly and effectively connected to the elite of the sport, perhaps for the first time . A no-name trainer wouldn't get passing notice.
                            The armchair saddler
                            Politically Pro-Cat

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
                              ...............
                              At what point are we ready to decide that our sport and community at large is better off if we just support and encourage coaches to be good, professional coaches, and stop lionizing this extra special, extra curricular aspect of it all, which turns the coach into a mentor/close friend/confidant of the minor athlete? Because it’s really only one more step to go from that sort of relationship, to an emotionally and sexually inappropriate relationship.

                              And yes... I am aware of the benefits of barn rat and working student positions. I think these positions and situations can continue... coaches should simply follow MAAP guidelines, and be professional. It’s not complicated. Coaches who choose not to, and who continue to have these intense, mentoring, extra close relationships with students? People really need to pause and ask themselves why an adult is doing that. Good professionals should be far too busy for that sort of thing, and should be primarily interested in spending free personal time related to friendships and romantic relationships with their own adult peers. Not minors who are also students.
                              THIS. Every word. ^^^^^^^^

                              I'm all for healthy mentoring relationships. They are invaluable life experience. They capture knowledge and learning that is never scribed into any book.

                              But when did horse trainers come to be seen as providers of supplemental parenting? How are they qualified to fulfill that role? Just from questions trainers have posted on COTH about this or that issue with a child student, it's not a default assumption that trainers have the background and child-teacher education to guide children through life in a way that a child would understand.

                              One of the best role-model examples a pro trainer can offer to their young students is professional behavior and standards. Including appropriate professional relationships and boundaries with each type of client they have in their program. And conducting themselves professionally at shows, organizational gatherings, and other contacts with the horse community while the student/client is present.

                              That would be a good thing to be promoting and encouraging in the horse world. Hopefully it's not a stretch.

                              Comment


                                All of this fundraising and the accusations of unfairness seem to me to be in anticipation of trouble, coming for either the people involved or for their friends.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post
                                  Heard something today that offers a little more clarity, to me, anyway ...

                                  It's the difference between asking the accuser:

                                  "How did you come to be in a relationship with GM when you were so young?"
                                  vs. asking
                                  "What did GM do to encourage and develop this relationship with you when you were so young?"

                                  Even those skeptics / deniers who admit there was a relationship do not seem to want to ask the second question.

                                  That's a problem. Because it is the adult who has to take the responsibility for a relationship with a minor.

                                  An insistence on putting even part of the onus for the relationship onto the minor is a major gap in their discussion. A gap that they seem to have no intention of trying to bridge. That is stopping any meaningful reconciliation of the two sides, no matter what is done with SafeSport.
                                  To me, these questions are not necessary. The question to the accused, "Did you have a relationship with this minor?" If the answer is yes. End of story. The other questions are great for gathering information on the tactics used to manipulate or groom the minor, but the reasons are not necessary to determine if the accusations are valid.

                                  I agree the adult is the one to take responsibility. I don't care how much a minor flirts or "throws themselves" at an adult. The answer is no. If married and someone throws themselves at you, the answer is no. If you are a trainer and your student pursues you, then answer is No. If your employee comes on to you, the answer is No. If your employer comes on to you, the answer is No.
                                  Last edited by Keep it Simple; Dec. 6, 2019, 08:47 PM.

                                  Comment


                                    I had an AA show judge take me to his hotel room when I was 16. At that point in my life I thought that was AWESOME. I now know it was not ok on so many levels. I never told anyone until after he died in a car crash because, yes, I still think it was my fault. I am 53 now fwiw
                                    "You can't really debate with someone who has a prescient invisible friend"
                                    carolprudm

                                    Comment


                                      Oh, and for those that are going to say :where were your parents??" My widowed mom was working 24/7 so I could afford to show
                                      "You can't really debate with someone who has a prescient invisible friend"
                                      carolprudm

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by mroades View Post
                                        Oh, and for those that are going to say :where were your parents??" My widowed mom was working 24/7 so I could afford to show
                                        Indeed. And it bums me out that we want to find someone else to blame-- if not the trashy victim then his or her trashy parents, but never the perp.
                                        The armchair saddler
                                        Politically Pro-Cat

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by mroades View Post
                                          I had an AA show judge take me to his hotel room when I was 16. At that point in my life I thought that was AWESOME. I now know it was not ok on so many levels. I never told anyone until after he died in a car crash because, yes, I still think it was my fault. I am 53 now fwiw
                                          It is NEVER your fault. I think that is another way predators assault their victims. They put the blame on the victims. I am so sorry you went through this.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X