Sport Horse Spotlight

Real Estate Spotlight

BB2
  • 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

  • AllOverFarm
    started a topic George Morris on the SS list

    George Morris on the SS list

    Jusr saw something on fb.. can anyone confirm?

  • OverandOnward
    replied
    Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post
    .............
    The thinking that the horse industry is somehow vastly different than any other industry needs to stop. It’s a business and needs to run like one.
    So, so true.

    Good business practices would enhance a professional trainer's own quality of life, and their finances as well.

    And would help them avoid becoming the target of an angry student/client/customer who think they have been hard done by, even if that was never the pro's intention.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dorito
    replied
    My understanding is that Piper Klemm is teaching an online Equine Business class through St. Lawrence University this summer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Denali6298
    replied
    Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

    This is such a good idea. As a parent, I can't tell you the number of times fellow parents and I would be shaking our heads and bemoaning how "unprofessional" a trainer's action was-- not huge major things, but just workaday failures to communicate appropriately or prioritize our interests as clients. Now with more time and experience, I recognize that a lot of these incidents were just because the trainer was young and had just launched her own program, and it is hard and complicated to juggle all the things that trainers must juggle... horses (with all the inherent unpredictability of their behavior and health), riders, parents, veterinarians, farriers, barn staff, other trainers, schedules... yikes, my head is spinning just thinking about it. My daughter's trainer is/was a darn good horse trainer and teacher, and that is the most important thing, but it probably would have been nice for her and her clients if there were educational resources to help with establishing a well-run program.
    Most GOOD trainers I have worked for have told me (when I was younger obviously) to go to college and major in business if I was hell bent on running my own farm or to get a day job. I think only one person didn’t have a day job and a very successful barn but her Mom started the barn (and had a day job) and she still went to college. She now has her own barn and rides for the US Team.

    The thinking that the horse industry is somehow vastly different than any other industry needs to stop. It’s a business and needs to run like one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Horsegirl's Mom
    replied
    Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post

    100% this.

    We have so many clinics to help people be better riders, better horse trainers, to solve horse problems more effectively; so many videos and programs and DVD's; working student positions; and on and on.

    Where are the programs to help young pro's learn how to run a better business? To help veteran pro's improve their business, make it more profitable, understand more about acceptable and unacceptable business practices? From efficient management to business ethics. Specific to the horse industry, not just general business courses from a local educational institution (although that would be a good start). This is desperately needed in this industry.

    Not just to better manage their business, but also to know the expectations of their students, customers and clients, as many of them do have this background in some form or other.
    This is such a good idea. As a parent, I can't tell you the number of times fellow parents and I would be shaking our heads and bemoaning how "unprofessional" a trainer's action was-- not huge major things, but just workaday failures to communicate appropriately or prioritize our interests as clients. Now with more time and experience, I recognize that a lot of these incidents were just because the trainer was young and had just launched her own program, and it is hard and complicated to juggle all the things that trainers must juggle... horses (with all the inherent unpredictability of their behavior and health), riders, parents, veterinarians, farriers, barn staff, other trainers, schedules... yikes, my head is spinning just thinking about it. My daughter's trainer is/was a darn good horse trainer and teacher, and that is the most important thing, but it probably would have been nice for her and her clients if there were educational resources to help with establishing a well-run program.

    Leave a comment:


  • oneequestrienne
    replied
    I posted the following on the People Attempting to Undermine Safesport thread but wanted to ask it here as well:

    ”Does anyone know if Diane Carney is still the USHJA Gold Star Clinic Coordinator as she states on her farm website?
    https://www.telluridefarm.com/about-diane.html

    “If so, is it really appropriate for someone working against USEF and Safesport to be in such a position?”

    Leave a comment:


  • OverandOnward
    replied
    Originally posted by poltroon View Post
    ............

    This is why it's important to me that our industry have a bit of HR training via USEF. SafeSport, to teach about harassment and sexual abuse of minors. But also training about ethics in general - professional ethics with clients, ethics in employment, ethics in showing, ethics in humane treatment of both humans and horses. Too many of our professionals were only taught by one person and his one set of practices and honestly aren't even aware that the way they do things isn't the way everyone does them. Or that there are better ways to be, that are also very successful.
    100% this.

    We have so many clinics to help people be better riders, better horse trainers, to solve horse problems more effectively; so many videos and programs and DVD's; working student positions; and on and on.

    Where are the programs to help young pro's learn how to run a better business? To help veteran pro's improve their business, make it more profitable, understand more about acceptable and unacceptable business practices? From efficient management to business ethics. Specific to the horse industry, not just general business courses from a local educational institution (although that would be a good start). This is desperately needed in this industry.

    Not just to better manage their business, but also to know the expectations of their students, customers and clients, as many of them do have this background in some form or other.

    Leave a comment:


  • poltroon
    replied
    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
    Also, the shocking thing about the HJ trainers on the banned list is not so much the number, but the fact that a number of the “greats” are on the list. That suggests to me that it’s not just a given percent of the population that’s bad, but something systematic in the culture which is contributing.
    I think of Jimmy Williams, George Morris, and Rob Gage as being pretty significant folk in the community. And the first two, in particular, are trainers of trainers. Meaning that there are dozens of professionals who learned what it was to be a professional horseman from them, and more who admired them from afar. (There are other top names that did/do things like drug horses, kill them for money, or cheat clients via improper commissions and sales, and these are problems as well.) I don't think this means that their students grew up to perpetuate the same - in fact we know that particular students turned away from particular nasty practices - but I do think it's made it easier for many people to look the other way and harder for people to say, "Um, no, that's not how this should be." On all the behaviors I mentioned.

    This is why it's important to me that our industry have a bit of HR training via USEF. SafeSport, to teach about harassment and sexual abuse of minors. But also training about ethics in general - professional ethics with clients, ethics in employment, ethics in showing, ethics in humane treatment of both humans and horses. Too many of our professionals were only taught by one person and his one set of practices and honestly aren't even aware that the way they do things isn't the way everyone does them. Or that there are better ways to be, that are also very successful.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tackpud
    replied
    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

    I was thinking Jimmy Williams and GM. Williams is not on the list because he is dead.

    But I’m not in the HJ world, so don’t really know where various trainers stand.
    Actually, Jimmy Williams was never on the SS list since he was dead before they started investigating and they are really only interested in people who pose a current threat to children. USEF put him on the list to send a message.

    Leave a comment:


  • YankeeDuchess
    replied
    Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

    I look at the banned list and I only see 1 person that would be considered "great".
    I was thinking Jimmy Williams and GM. Williams is not on the list because he is dead.

    But I’m not in the HJ world, so don’t really know where various trainers stand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Keep it Simple
    replied
    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post



    Also, the shocking thing about the HJ trainers on the banned list is not so much the number, but the fact that a number of the “greats” are on the list. That suggests to me that it’s not just a given percent of the population that’s bad, but something systematic in the culture which is contributing.
    .
    I look at the banned list and I only see 1 person that would be considered "great".

    Leave a comment:


  • YankeeDuchess
    replied
    Originally posted by Bristol Bay View Post

    Honestly, there are few children in dressage, and that’s the only reason there aren’t more complaints.

    Child molesters go where the kids are—schools, playgrounds, h/j barns.

    My comment about Duncan Macintosh is that his garbage opinions do not represent all the ways he is unsavory.
    It was pointed out that not only are there fewer children in dressage barns, but also that there are fewer dressage riders than HJ riders in USEF.

    However, your argument that child molesters self select into the discipline with children suggests that, after self selection, the concentration of child molesters would indeed be higher in HJ than in dressage.

    Also, the shocking thing about the HJ trainers on the banned list is not so much the number, but the fact that a number of the “greats” are on the list. That suggests to me that it’s not just a given percent of the population that’s bad, but something systematic in the culture which is contributing.

    I don’t know anything about DM other than his support for RG and what he’s posted. I can understand being absolutely devastated at the suicide of a friend, but cannot understand his apparent tolerance of sex with young children.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bristol Bay
    replied
    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


    When I half-jokingly said dressage people were more mannerly and well behaved, I meant that they were less likely to sexually abuse children, and therefore showed up less frequently on the SS list.
    Honestly, there are few children in dressage, and that’s the only reason there aren’t more complaints.

    Child molesters go where the kids are—schools, playgrounds, h/j barns.

    My comment about Duncan Macintosh is that his garbage opinions do not represent all the ways he is unsavory.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdp9
    replied
    Originally posted by specifiedcupcake View Post

    Well I hope someone reports her to SS. I would if I was a USEF member. (Do you have to be a member?)
    I have the unedited screen cap if anyone needs it as backup, where she admits they train with Navarro.

    Unless they operate as non USEF members as well? It kind of makes me scared for all the local circuit kids whose parents may no know about stuff like that.
    Tom Navarro operates his farm (River Chase) and simply does not attend USEF shows. He only goes to local schooling shows, where SafeSport does not have jurisdiction. The client in this post also is not a USEF member; she also only shows at the local level.

    So yes, it is outrageous, but nothing to "report" because it is irrelevant to USEF.

    Leave a comment:


  • mvp
    replied
    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

    Two points:

    1. In general, one can understand the law, abide by the law, but not agree with the law and state that you think the law should be different. As a different example, if, pre-1973, one lived in a state that did not permit abortion, as long as one follows the law, not performing or having an abortion, it is nevertheless OK not only to disagree with the current law, but to openly state your reasons for disagreeing with the law.

    The major difference between advocating for abortion in a non-abortion state and DM’s discussions of sex with barely pubescent adolescents is that even in 1973, advocating for abortion rights was not only mainstream, it was the majority view, soon to be endorsed by the Supremes. Fortunately, DM is in a tiny minority with his views, and his position is repugnant to most people. But that is a matter of degree, and doesn’t change the principle, which is that in the US (I’m assuming you’re Canadian), it is generally OK, and often protected, to openly say “I don’t think this behavior should be illegal.” Abortion. Smoking weed. Drinking alcohol. Non standard sex positions.

    And don’t forget, for the side that was and is opposed to abortion being legal, they view abortion as not the abuse of young defenseless children, but the murder of really young, really defenseless children.

    2. USEF has about 100,000 members. Aside from the sheer number of members, USEF pretty much has to accept as a member anyone who applies, pays the dues, and is not on the SS list. It is not a public or private school that goes over your criminal record, credit report, and 3 references before deciding to hire you. Your school can and should decline to hire DM, based on what he has written. Your school evaluates the performance of its staff and is in a position to know DM was problematic (had they hired him), and can fire him if they think he is a risk.

    Saying USEF is legally liable for the crimes of any of its 100,000 members is preposterous. Now its employees, that’s a bit different. USEF is responsible for providing the training, preventing people from participating in showing if they don’t take it, and enforcing any bans and suspensions from SS. That’s it.

    It has also been suggested that DMs words be taken down and used in evidence against him, should there be a report on him in the future (for actual abuse, or failure to report abuse). But that smacks of J Edgar Hoover having “files” on various people and using them for blackmail.

    I’m sticking with my original position. “SS certified” just means they took the test and checked the right boxes; they know what the rules are, and they know that SS may come after them if they violate the rules (unlike in the past, when everyone looked away). That’s not nothing.

    But I don’t see how SS or USEF can “do” anything about DM’s appalling views.
    Thank you for explaining the problem better than I could.

    FWIW, I don't think SafeSport "is out there saying" that McIntosh is fine because he passed their training. Rather, SafeSport doesn't have anything to say on this matter at all until someone files a report on him and asks SafeSport to weigh in on the problem of a USEF member making gnarly comments on Social Media. Any USEF member sufficiently interested can, I suppose, start the ball rolling on this test if they wish.

    I just thought that it was a waste of time, money and effort.

    Leave a comment:


  • YankeeDuchess
    replied
    Originally posted by FitzE View Post

    I think they would want to look sharp regarding a "knew or should have known" standard in a law suit. With the public postings of Duncan McIntosh no group would have much standing to say they didn't know and couldn't have known. That's what made me initially think his posts would lead to an automatic report and discipline situation with respect to SS. SS is out there saying he passed training for the season and yet...his public spew suggests otherwise (i.e., if I only saw the public posts I would assume he hadn't taken the training as his posts are in such direct opposition thereto).
    Two points:

    1. In general, one can understand the law, abide by the law, but not agree with the law and state that you think the law should be different. As a different example, if, pre-1973, one lived in a state that did not permit abortion, as long as one follows the law, not performing or having an abortion, it is nevertheless OK not only to disagree with the current law, but to openly state your reasons for disagreeing with the law.

    The major difference between advocating for abortion in a non-abortion state and DM’s discussions of sex with barely pubescent adolescents is that even in 1973, advocating for abortion rights was not only mainstream, it was the majority view, soon to be endorsed by the Supremes. Fortunately, DM is in a tiny minority with his views, and his position is repugnant to most people. But that is a matter of degree, and doesn’t change the principle, which is that in the US (I’m assuming you’re Canadian), it is generally OK, and often protected, to openly say “I don’t think this behavior should be illegal.” Abortion. Smoking weed. Drinking alcohol. Non standard sex positions.

    And don’t forget, for the side that was and is opposed to abortion being legal, they view abortion as not the abuse of young defenseless children, but the murder of really young, really defenseless children.

    2. USEF has about 100,000 members. Aside from the sheer number of members, USEF pretty much has to accept as a member anyone who applies, pays the dues, and is not on the SS list. It is not a public or private school that goes over your criminal record, credit report, and 3 references before deciding to hire you. Your school can and should decline to hire DM, based on what he has written. Your school evaluates the performance of its staff and is in a position to know DM was problematic (had they hired him), and can fire him if they think he is a risk.

    Saying USEF is legally liable for the crimes of any of its 100,000 members is preposterous. Now its employees, that’s a bit different. USEF is responsible for providing the training, preventing people from participating in showing if they don’t take it, and enforcing any bans and suspensions from SS. That’s it.

    It has also been suggested that DMs words be taken down and used in evidence against him, should there be a report on him in the future (for actual abuse, or failure to report abuse). But that smacks of J Edgar Hoover having “files” on various people and using them for blackmail.

    I’m sticking with my original position. “SS certified” just means they took the test and checked the right boxes; they know what the rules are, and they know that SS may come after them if they violate the rules (unlike in the past, when everyone looked away). That’s not nothing.

    But I don’t see how SS or USEF can “do” anything about DM’s appalling views.

    Leave a comment:


  • charlieTBD
    replied
    Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
    As far as a cynical take on Safe Sport simply amounting to a liability mitigation strategy for the NGBs?

    Well... I understand thinking that way. I am a naturally cynical sand suspicious person. And frankly... USA Gymnastics does face some liability questions when it comes to both Nassau and John Geddert. To the best of my knowledge... these matters aren’t resolved yet and bankruptcy is a distinct possibility for the NGB.

    But I think having an entirely naive and positive view of Safe Sport, or a totally cynical one both are too extreme. The truth lies in the middle. It’s kind of like the MAAP policies. It serves to partially protect athletes (there is no foolproof way of protecting the innocent... sadly), but also shields coaches and other adults involved in sports who AREN’T predators from potential false allegations, etc.

    I hope that makes some sense. I don’t think it’s a perfect law, nor is Safe Sport foolproof... But I think it’s a major step in a better direction.
    In some sports there is a lot of bad abuse between athletes too, even junior athletes. I will say track and field has a real problem with that in my experience. And then there are the financial abuse of high earning juniors or women, by spouses or parents who are mangers and coaches.. Tennis, golf, ice skating have all had issues. Serena Williams has spoken out about this although she never said who abused her, and she is so smart and strong if it can happen to her it can happen to any athlete who starts as a child and knows little of the real world. It tells a story that she did not marry another athlete in the end I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Denali6298
    replied
    Originally posted by mvp View Post

    You have indeed missed my point about how this might be done for all USEF members (or even those who were reported by others) at not cost. But life is too short to try and explain again. You win.
    I think you are missing the real world application. No one cyber stalks anyone. I certainly don’t. But I see DMs comments on the articles posted by CoTH. It’s the same for teachers or the military or any other profession where saying things will get you at minimum a conversation with your boss. In the age of Facebook where people “friend” others just because they are aware of their presence IRL one doesn’t need to stalk pages. Many people send and accept friend requests without a thought. While doing that they don’t take into consideration those people can see what they post.

    I have been a Facebook member since before it was open to the public. I could post my name here and people still won’t be able to find my profile because that’s how I set my security settings. People don’t think about what they post on Facebook. TPTB for any profession don’t need stalk their employees pages.

    Leave a comment:


  • mvp
    replied
    Originally posted by FitzE View Post

    I would urge you to let go of the hyperbole like “cyber stalking” and “McCarthy-esque.” I think it can all be discussed by reasonable and interested people using just normal language descriptive of the issues in question without the emotional labels.

    It is is absolutely not cyber stalking for someone to notice and re-post here the posts of a high-profile trainer who is making this stuff public on his public page where he shares all kinds of personal and professional information. Calling noticing the posts of BNTs cyber stalking is utterly nonsensical. These are people who actually seek to drive traffic to their SM presence as part of their professional lives. Calling it cyber stalking not only doesn’t make sense and is bizarre, but also disingenuous as you would then have to say anyone who notes and discusses any public posting of anyone on here is cyber stalking. But you don’t suggest that with respect to other such postings. The thread where someone links to Piggy’s SM post saying farewell to Red doesn’t attract a charge of cyber stalking, does it? Of course not. Bc it’s public and meant to be read by any and everyone who wants to.

    Similarly, DM’s posts are public and are literally written as him putting out there for the interested public his personal view of the situation. It is at least an attempt at what we call persuasive writing. He is giving examples, personal anecdotes, etc. in support of the theory he has about children and sexuality and whether or not adults should be sanctioned. He’s like other ISWGers who are writing publicly to outline their opposition to what SS is doing. Noting it is the opposite of cyber stalking. He is putting out propaganda for his view of the issue and people are doing what he intends: reading it and discussing it. If it was just the usual railing about process that’s one thing. He’s discussing very young people and their bodies and sexual experiences and it’s profoundly disturbing and highly questionable.

    If such behaviour was reportable, other SS members would dutifully report it at no cost whatsoever to SS. then SS could decide whether they wish to look into it and take any action from re-training to a warning letter to suspension. There is no barrier whatsoever to having this kind of disturbing stuff inform SS certification.

    Again, defer to more experienced posters who know this is not reportable behaviour according to SS. Disagree that it shouldn’t be and that if it were it would amount to “thought policing” “cyber stalking” “McCarthyism” or any other exaggerated term or would over burden SS. It seems highly relevant.
    You have indeed missed my point about how this might be done for all USEF members (or even those who were reported by others) at not cost. But life is too short to try and explain again. You win.

    Leave a comment:


  • FitzE
    replied
    Originally posted by mvp View Post

    And if you were in charge of this and you'd do all you say, how would you hope to gain knowledge of what every adult member of the USEF was publishing on their social media pages?

    I think you'll have to explain that before you can claim distance between your plan and anything McCarthy-esque. Again, if you see this all as (among other things) a big CYA action by SafeSport or the USEF, I plead with you to spend their money in a different way. This cyberstalking one sounds expensive!
    I would urge you to let go of the hyperbole like “cyber stalking” and “McCarthy-esque.” I think it can all be discussed by reasonable and interested people using just normal language descriptive of the issues in question without the emotional labels.

    It is is absolutely not cyber stalking for someone to notice and re-post here the posts of a high-profile trainer who is making this stuff public on his public page where he shares all kinds of personal and professional information. Calling noticing the posts of BNTs cyber stalking is utterly nonsensical. These are people who actually seek to drive traffic to their SM presence as part of their professional lives. Calling it cyber stalking not only doesn’t make sense and is bizarre, but also disingenuous as you would then have to say anyone who notes and discusses any public posting of anyone on here is cyber stalking. But you don’t suggest that with respect to other such postings. The thread where someone links to Piggy’s SM post saying farewell to Red doesn’t attract a charge of cyber stalking, does it? Of course not. Bc it’s public and meant to be read by any and everyone who wants to.

    Similarly, DM’s posts are public and are literally written as him putting out there for the interested public his personal view of the situation. It is at least an attempt at what we call persuasive writing. He is giving examples, personal anecdotes, etc. in support of the theory he has about children and sexuality and whether or not adults should be sanctioned. He’s like other ISWGers who are writing publicly to outline their opposition to what SS is doing. Noting it is the opposite of cyber stalking. He is putting out propaganda for his view of the issue and people are doing what he intends: reading it and discussing it. If it was just the usual railing about process that’s one thing. He’s discussing very young people and their bodies and sexual experiences and it’s profoundly disturbing and highly questionable.

    If such behaviour was reportable, other SS members would dutifully report it at no cost whatsoever to SS. then SS could decide whether they wish to look into it and take any action from re-training to a warning letter to suspension. There is no barrier whatsoever to having this kind of disturbing stuff inform SS certification.

    Again, defer to more experienced posters who know this is not reportable behaviour according to SS. Disagree that it shouldn’t be and that if it were it would amount to “thought policing” “cyber stalking” “McCarthyism” or any other exaggerated term or would over burden SS. It seems highly relevant.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X