[QUOTE=suzy;7109223]
Meup, you have a tendency in your posts to go off in different directions and try to tackle too many topics at once, so I’m not always clear what your specific question is, so here is my best attempt at answering what I think your question is. 
I’m okay with blunt. In an earlier post, I made the distinction between “blunt” and “rude.” IMO, CHS is blunt. Other people believe she is “rude.” I think you are among them, and there’s nothing I can say that will change your mind, so this is why we have to agree to disagree, okay? No harm, no foul; it’s just what it is.
P.S. YOU did not “get reamed” unless you are one of those trainers who can’t teach the basics. If you are secure in your own knowledge and ability to convey it to others, you have nothing to worry about.[/QUOTE]
Bolded is a failure of reading comprehension.
The question is not whether or not CHS was rude.
The question is whether or not you, in your defense of her behavior, are applying the SAME STANDARDS to her as you are to everyone else. I thought it was hypocritical ON YOUR PART to criticize other posters for the same type of critique that CHS leveled.
My thoughts on CHS, her riding, what she wrote, whatever, are completely independent of the idea that standards of critique should be the same for WHOEVER is doing the critiquing. They can be harsh standards or very moderate standards, but they should be the same across the board.
I have not wavered from this point, although you have squirmed around admirably to avoid saying, “Yeah, probably if I (Suzy) think is unfair of people to be harsh on the photo it was also unfair of CHS to paint the general trainer populace of the United States with a floridly worded harsh brush.”
I have not indicated much at all about CHS herself. I have said I find YOU to be applying inconsistent standards of “critique fairness” depending on whose side you are on.
