My thoughts exactly.
6 Likes
Since
@ladyj79
brought it up, here is what she is “not engaging” YD on.
At about the same time as the RD post, AES released a public letter on the McDonald announcement.
Surprisingly, the letter did not have the usual inarticulate ranting about due process, constitutional rights, etc. I see that as progress.
The only thing in the AES that could be interpreted as a criticism of SS was the statement to the effect that contrary to what the public may have heard, RM had not yet received a hearing.
There was no denial that he was allowed to consult a lawyer, or that he was permitted to offer his own statement and submit evidence during the investigation, so AES presumably acknowledges that he was permitted to do those things.
The statement was simply that despite what the public may have heard (heard from whom? Anonymous posters on COTH, among other social media outlets?), RM had not received a hearing prior to the announcement.
Is that really a legitimate reason to complain that RM has not been treated fairly by SS?
No. It’s not.
I think that if YD were to respond to the single complaint in the AES letter using her IRL name, she would say:
“Well, no, SS doesn’t claim to be the impartial third party adjudicator of whether the respondent did or did not commit the acts of misconduct in the allegations. They have completed their role of investigating the allegations, and based on their investigation, they have announced that they have found the allegations to be credible.
“RM is welcome to avail himself of the arbitration process, during which time a retired judge with no ties to SS will determine whether SS can meet its burden of proof on the issue as to whether RM did or did not commit the misconduct described in the allegations.
“So no, he has not received a hearing on the allegations yet. He will receive the hearing within 30 days.
“The lifetime ban is effectively immediately. Since the ban will be lifted if RM wins in arbitration, even though SS calls it a lifetime ban commencing June 11, one could just think of it as an interim suspension pending the arbitration. That part is just words.”
I don’t see that AES would have a good comeback to this. Or any comeback.
However, if there are a bunch of posters on COTH and Facebook yammering about condemning not only RM, but also anyone who clicks on a post by RD saying a mix of not compelling by also not stupid things, and entrenching themselves in the position that they don’t need to wait 30 days to open the flood gates of condemnation, and insisting that SS has not only completed a thorough investigation but also concluded an impartial adjudication of the respondent’ guilt or innocence, that is the yammering that enables Diane Carney to make the statement that “He has not yet received a hearing” sound like a criticism of SS.
You could just stop enabling Diane Carney in her faux criticisms of SS if you were simply willing to delay the condemnation of RM for 30 days. Once he’s had his hearing in front of the retired judge and the ban proposed by SS is upheld, condemn away to your heart’s content.
So, @ ladyj79 what is your academic speciality, if it doesn’t compromise your anonymity too much?
1 Like
The Star Trek author from the 80’s? Or did you spell your name wrong?
What does your actual name have to do with anything? Seems you’re receiving a fair “condemnation” here without your name involved.
Oh, right-- the op ed from December?
4 Likes
I’m fascinated by the logic that those of us who are condemning pedophiles and pedophile apologists are the ones assisting Diane CARNEY et al. in their quest to dismantle Safe Sport.
I’m also fascinated by the deleted post.
10 Likes
Oh, oops, should have quoted the whole post.
1 Like
I’m not following your references to Star Trek or “the op ed from December”.
Diane Carney is the President of AES. I am not Diane Carney IRL, and I have not disclosed my IRL name. This post was explaining how I would counter Diane Carney’s faux criticism of SS, given that@ladyj79
rather obliquely brought up the issue of Carney’s AES letter regarding the SS announcement on RM.
YD did not delete the post. In one instance, Diane Carney’s name was misspelled, and when YD edited the post to correct the misspelling, the post went into unapproved. A well known glitch.
It was a longish post, so hopefully it will be released and you can see it then.
You misread the post if you think I’m Diane Carney or that the post implied that I was Diane Carney.
I completely am utterly opposed to Diane Carney and AES, have stated as much in the SS threads, and was explaining how I would REBUT her faux criticism of SS. Also explaining how posters who are too impatient to delay their condemnation of pedophiles by a mere 30 days enable her faux criticism.
I missed LadyJ’s reference to the AES. D.Carey was an author for the Star Trek series. Here’s the op ed from December. I’d love to see your post when it is approved.
3 Likes
Nope.
See her post #422. She made the reference very obliquely; I’m not sure why.
The post disappeared when I corrected “Carey“ to “Carney”.
I look forward to seeing all of your edited posts, @YankeeDuchess . I agree that my joke about your anonymity was unclear. I’ve seen you do nothing but argue Carney’s points here, so if you were of some relation, I would simply have to roll my eyes.
6 Likes
After YD said yesterday she was going to leave the thread for three days, she proceeded to drag the “Attempts to Undermine Safe Sport” thread back to the first page to continue her tangent. The poster she quoted didn’t bite.
9 Likes
OK. It was rather dismaying to think, even momentarily, that someone could think I was Diane Carney. Yuck.
Thanks for the expln. As mentioned, it was rather oblique.
4 Likes
You might ask yourself why that might possibly be the case.
14 Likes
It was but I wanted to clarify since it went into the realm of conspiracy a la YD.
2 Likes
Oh, that dastardly Duchess. She made a comment on a DIFFERENT SS thread, and crouched in the bushes waiting for Ladyj79 to make an oblique reference to it in THIS thread. Which Ladyj79 obliged her by doing.
If you aren’t on that thread, sorry for the seeming vagueness.
But a number of us are on that thread, because we --maybe just the royal we–have to stay on top of some of these avid anti-safe sporters, if only to demonstrate that everyone in the horse industry isn’t unhinged or awful, or even an apologist or devil’s advocate for, well, devils.
I mean that literally, I think that sexual predators are evil, as are their apologists.
12 Likes
Yes, a “conspiracy a la YD” that involves posting on a different but related thread! My goodness!
