OK, here is me doing research and everything…
Show me where in McGurks post she says anything about Manni…I read it, nothing in it provoked me to think of anyone person, I thought it was a good post.
I was genuinely puzzled to see Mannis reply, threatening to report it…to me at that very point she dragged herself into the limelight…I’m not sure how else to view it?
Senden horse(surprise!) And then KBC started with the ’ if YOU…’ you= you Manni in this context does it not?
I was following this thread fairly closely because the general topic is of interest, plus it was clear there were coded references to past events that were opaque to me and I was trying to figure them out.
At the point Manni jumped in defensively her name had not been mentioned. Subsequent posts make it fairly clear I think that the coded references weren’t to her but to other posters, maybe long gone.
The existence of this coded reference that most posters don’t get has made this thread opaque and non sequential because it isn’t really about its stated topic.
So I can see why someone who has been the central figure in many COTH disputes might also be trying to figure out what this thread is really about, and jump to the conclusion it must be them.
This post was made before Manni reacted to being once again referenced,and brought her very clearly in to it. So not opaque to them it seems and not hard to figure out. She doesn’t need my help here but can we have little intellectual rigour please 
?
'QUOTE=KBC;n9996860]
Yes I did, but I don’t happen to agree, doesn’t mean I am bullying them or you, even if everyone on the thread disagrees with the thought, still not bullying…just stating different views, which is how a forum survives…[/QUOTE]
What the Fruitbat does this even mean? Either I have overdosed on my meds, or maybe entered an alternative universe, but you are losing me here…
It means you two started talking to Manni personally after she said she hadn’t thought it was about her…you made it also about her (you asked so i answered)
Agreed. Sammy 14 lost me a long ways back.
For the future, it really isn’t a good idea to start off posts that appear to be about a general topic but are really just a way to talk about specific individuals in code.
If you want to discuss an actual incident be upfront about it. “In light of our continuing interest in NP I want to discuss how some COTH posters might have crossed a line interacting with him in the past in these ways.”
If you want to discuss a general subject with real or hypothetical examples, explain those examples and the context.
The apparent hidden agenda in this thread is confusing and tiresome and has led to pointless bickering between people who may not fully understand what the others are saying.
:lol::lol::lol: LOL happens often here for me, I don’t have the long history or involvement to ‘get’ all of it, so have to go research threads to try and educamate myself on what is going on…
When I started the thread it was in response to Robert Dover and his speech on bullying, or rather the need to stop bullying, in the equestrian world. There was NO hidden agenda, no intent to talk about anything other than expanding on and discussing the topic similar to Robert Dover’s speech.
We, meaning society in general, have a far end of each side and no sense in the middle when it comes to alleged bullying. Sure, it happens, no doubt about it, but, there isn’t a, forgive the terms, far right and far left, be all end all argument for what is and isn’t bullying. It is the middle of the road debate I was trying to start.
Having the topic take a tangent and insinuating a certain tone/subject to the thread isn’t something that I considered or intended.
Once again because maybe you missed it, McGurks post( that turned out to be a reference to a situation with Manni) is not the subject of MY response.
I already said this in a post to he/she and further explained elsewhere.
If you think there is nobody being ‘‘mean’’ here in this thread, and on this board or to Manni and just in general to anyone unlucky enough to draw attention to themselves somehow,I can only say ‘‘once again’’ that that is untrue . It is untrue of certain posters still here on this board and in this actual thread (this is where the rolleyes belongs )
I do not know how to say it any more clear(ly)
Sorry if it’s confusing and opaque to some, my initial comments were very general, the rest are in response to various attempts to trivialize what I feel is a real issue, and to disparage and belittle people who think differently to those who think ripping on other people is nothing more than a bit of fun.
Ok good to know.
It would have been useful to have a link to Dover’s speech in the first post because it seemed to me from the get go that the post was about NP criticizing Dovers students video on line? In other words backing up into NP territory.
Ignoring the assorted noise that’s cropped up, in response to this thread/intent behind creating it:
The fact that Robert Dover brought this up is impressive to me on several levels. First, it’s a topic that’s relevant to our sport (not that “equestrian sport” is necessarily a festering hotbed of bullying that doesn’t exist anywhere else in society/world, but that bullying is an omnipresent component of social engagements and it keeps evolving with the popularity of internet, social media, and other components making it easy for things to “go viral”). Secondly, and more broadly, those being bullied still face the stigma of being “too soft” and/or otherwise just not “tough enough” to take it. Even bringing up discussions of bullying, depending on the venue, can still end up being shouted down with that sort of backwards ideology.
Now, having brought up social media/internet in particular when I talk about how bullying is evolving in how it manifests in social engagements, I think that we really need to take a very acute look look at what constitutes bullying (and harassment, etc). Most definitions of bullying and harassment that show up in codes of conduct, rules, legalese, etc, (at least that I’ve seen) are outmoded to the point of being grossly inefficient. Schools have been trying to wrangle this in the past few years but I don’t know that anyone has really come up with a satisfactory approach.
With wider audiences, there’s a wider pool for engagements - this can be positive or negative. And then it’s also worth identifying that every negative engagement is not inherently bullying, which I think has been brought up earlier in the thread (downvoting something).
Ultimately I think that one of the most productive ways to take this behavior on is to work on constructing a largely agreed upon definition (replete with examples) of what behavior is considered bullying, and then in the industry itself, work on accountability. Some of this might mean figuring out what code of conduct is the standard for professionals. This also means diagnosing how bullying shows up in our sport (do we have a problem of professionals bullying amateurs? Is it interactions at shows that ends up demonstrating the behavior? What part do online communities - which is more nebulous, as no governing body really has control over them - play in it?) and then after we diagnose where it’s happening, figure out reasonable ways to approach it to both discourage the behavior (incentivize better behavior/punitive measures towards poor behavior, limit the opportunity bad behavior has to take place, etc) and enact reasonable repercussions for those who end up demonstrating it.
There’s an Ignore List option in User Settings > Account now.
But it doesn’t seem to work, unfortunately, else I’d have skipped this thread’s most recent and bizarre detour to some la-la land where second person pronouns are offensive or something.
Just curious, you and others are complaining about the missing ignore button.
But really couldn’t you and others just ignore everything specific posters write???
Who is forcing you to read it if you don’t like it??
I think in this thread it would have avoided a lot of misunderstandings if you and others would just make the personal decision to ignore specific posters even without an official button.
lol, yes Abbie…not that I know George Morris from a hole in the wall, but yes- those kinds of people. Not my personal experience necessarily. I wasn’t following the post but am catching up now…Speaking of bullies, I just dumped my riding instructor of 4 yrs because I was tired of how she taught with a lot of criticism and demeaning comments. I guess it works for some but I grew tired of it. Get more bees with honey and all that stuff…
I think we also need a more nuanced vocabulary for describing disruptive antagonistic and rude behavior online and IRL.
If the only available phrase is “bullying” which has a specific definition, then either every rude action gets labeled bullying which defeats the usefulness of the term. Or else people rightly point out that their negative behavior doesn’t meet the cutoff for bullying and is therefore ok.
there are all kinds of behavior that promotes extends and creates interpersonal conflict that is not bullying but damaging to chat groups and wearying to onlookers. When you have multiple people apparently enjoying being engaged in this kind of thing, there’s not much more reasonable folk can do but walk away.
Or the mods can step in of course.
Wow, those are a lot of assumptions and many incorrect too. You must be the 1 “like” on all of Manni’s posts.
Leave people’s race, socioeconomic status, age, gender or anything else OUT of this when you don’t know and it’s not related to the topic. AT ALL.
I very much agree with you!! And BTW I love your last posts!!
There is no true definition for different degrees of rude actions or maybe bullying and therefore its very difficult to address the problem.
I would cal it bullying in any case where the person being bullied feels bad or humilated.
Not every person has the same sensitivity. So maybe some people are tougher then others. And for sensitive persons it might take only very little to feel belittled or humiliated… And I think that should be the main cause for a definition of bullying to protect the victims…
And you are making assumptions as well… How do you know who liked my posts 
You don’t know and its not related to the topic… I think that is very personal and is only supposed to belittle MVP´s post because obviously its bad to like my posts… And this discussion is getting more interesting all the time…
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
