Blue Heron was being sarcastic. Why do you always think people are being mean, vile people? Why do you care who rides with who and their reasons for doing so or not doing so?
Why do you find it so distasteful that people do not like to support or associate with people who help pedophiles be able to horse show?
Thirty…
Respect him as a clinician. Not as much as a rider/trainer.
BigMamas response was that SS plays no role at all in the arbitration phase, neither prosecutor and presenter of evidence against the respondent from the SS investigation, nor defendant nor adjudicator.
That does does solve the initial problem of SS pivoting from role of adjudicator in one phase to prosecutor in another phase, but it has other problems. But it is a coherent position.
For the fifth time, I do not “agree with RD”. I said that in one aspect of one thing he posted, I thought that there was a glimmer of a legitimate grievance, that his post did not undermine the legitimacy SS, and that I decline to express repugnance at people who “liked”
his post.
I could stop restating my position if other posters, including you, stopped mischaracterizing it.
Actually, I will stop restating my position. The only issue I am interested in is whether anyone who disagrees with me can provide a better explanation of how it makes sense that the role of SS either 1) switches from adjudicator to prosecutor between phases or 2) plays the role of both investigator and investigator in the first phase and no role at all in the second phase.
I have not been responding to your posts to restate my position in order to change your mind! I know that ain’t happening!
So you know that the most recent GFM was for Equal Justice Initiative which supports a good cause and zero dollars are going to RM?
Your interpretation of how it works is wrong. I suggest you read on the SS website, educate yourself and then reconsider RD’s position. No one is going to answer your questions because they have nothing to do with SS.
I did not detect any sarcasm in her post 371. She explicitly endorsed a rather extreme position.
I understand you think my interpretation of how it works is wrong. Based on the confidence various people have expressed, especially BigMama, on how they correctly understand how it works, I asked for clarification on what I view as an inconsistency in their vehemently expressed position.
I understand the reluctance to address the inconsistency I brought up.
From the bottom of my heart… bro… this is f’ing laffable. I am laughing right now.
You know DFW that I was talking about the endorsement for George Morris. I wasn’t really being sarcastic, and I feel zero remorse, nor do I think I have an extreme POV, in saying that endorsing pedophiles contributes to pedophelia.
Binary thinking is going to be the death of you.
Get your clarification from Safe Sport. Constantly misinterpreting posts you don’t agree with will not help you with clarification.
As I said to someone else regarding this conversation
Oceanographers: the ocean is made of water.
YD: that’s your opinion regarding the chemical composition of what you call “the ocean”, and what you interpret as “water”. In my opinion, and analysis and belief, that amorphous body is lemon curd. My interpretation might differ, but it is no less valid than yours, and in fact, you are biased, as so-called experts in this field, you are really too close to this subject to be called on or relied upon to provide an unbiased opinion as to the composition of this object.
This is the post of mine that@blue_heron
explicitly endorsed by responding in post #371
saying, “Yep, you’ve got it figured out …”
The statement that “clicking “like” on a post makes you anti SafeSport and a pedophile supporter” clearly refers to Dover’s recent post, not to posts concerning George Morris.
If you now disavow your post #371, you can always delete it.
So the oceanographers are SS who are experts and can be impartial, is that your point?
This is an excellent point. Suppose the top 8 oceanographers in the world are academics at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA. The widely acclaimed top oceanographer, Professor XYZ, writes a paper in his specialty within Oceanography and submits it to a prestigious journal, which requires peer review.
In all the world, who is most qualified and most expert to assess the validity and contribution of the paper? Professor XYZ is the leading oceanographer in the world overall, the leading scientist in that subfield, an expert in the recent literature in the area (having written some of the important recent papers), and clearly the most knowledgeable about that particular paper.
Does the journal ask him to assess his own paper?
His colleagues, co-authors and recent grad students are the next most “expert”, having worked in the particular subfield and written papers on the topic. Are they asked to review the paper?
Why not?
Her point is, that despite being presented with factual information that really isn’t up for interpretation, you will argue because you believe facts are debatable.
Ie., the ocean is made up of water but you will debate the merits of that because you believe it’s really lemon curd.
Actually, you said this many pages and an even greater number of posts ago… so you could have saved yourself a lot of Sisyphean angst and typing in the meantime. That is not being condescending or whatever other label may be slapped on me - it is just a quiet observation.
(Or really that the one thing she can be sure of is it isnt water.)
It could be lemon curd, or maybe chocolate pudding. Who knows?! I’m just telling you my interpretation. But not water, that’s for sure. That’s like an oceanographer plot, and like, of course they say it’s water! They would probably say the desert was water just to support their own position.
It could be cardboard! It could be an illusion! But not water!
(This is also what it feels like when people lecture me about my own academic specialty :lol: which given the general popularity of the subject matter happens endlessly and at the strangest times, from people with absolutely no education or experience in the field)
Too true. As did a few others.
I am out as of this moment. Perhaps in three days, I’ll look at the thread.
And one can also be too inexpert in a field to be able to credibly evaluate a claim.
Look, I have a PhD in this kind of stuff. I’ll debate epistemology with you all.day.long.
But it’s not true, in any knowledge system worth having, that all claims are equally valid.
How dare you :lol:
Totally off topic, but whatever happened to RD’s vegan tack line?
I mean, it exists.
He’s totally like Tesla and Mercedes :lol::lol:
https://www.robertsquared.com/about
Like, it doesn’t seem like you can buy anything, but you can be a wholesaler:rolleyes:
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
