the rule and the provisions of the rule do not extend to the private world
Only to the show ring that is where the USEF has jurisdiction
the quotes rule pertains to not converting membership to the proper classification for the purpose of showing.
Not that I want to encourage this to continue as this is obviously some sort of personal vendetta - but I don’t know anyone with a life membership so I don’t know the answer to this question.
If you have a lifetime (or even one of those 5 year) memberships and at the time of applying signed your amateur certification (which seems like that might’ve been iffy in this case at any point, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish), do you have to re-sign your amateur certification each year?
[QUOTE=rothmpp;8768555]
If you have a lifetime (or even one of those 5 year) memberships and at the time of applying signed your amateur certification (which seems like that might’ve been iffy in this case at any point, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish), do you have to re-sign your amateur certification each year?[/QUOTE] When I had a multi-year membership I still had to “sign” the amateur form every year.
[QUOTE=RBABKA;8761612]
No not at all. This is about the right thing to do in this industry from a deontological perspective. I believe that engaging in wider narratives to secure the development of expertise, responsibility and risk management , is important. Please do not misunderstand my view, qualitative viewpoints are by inductive reasoning. However, differences of opinion are important in decision making. I respect your view and the rules.[/QUOTE]
You are almost as hard to understand as Siri. Perhaps you are German also and feel some rivalry towards her? Anyway, the original poster has no doubt already chosen someone to ride with by now. The question was posed in 2009!
[QUOTE=Gestalt;8768640]
You are almost as hard to understand as Siri. Perhaps you are German also and feel some rivalry towards her? Anyway, the original poster has no doubt already chosen someone to ride with by now. The question was posed in 2009![/QUOTE]
some does like commas a little much, don’t, they,?
I have a graduate education and I have no idea what DENOTOLOGICAL means. Ha!
[QUOTE=Janet;8768608]
When I had a multi-year membership I still had to “sign” the amateur form every year.[/QUOTE]
In regards to this discussion, is it ever okay to compete as a amateur while being a professional? I asked the USEF and USDF and both indicated never. It is not fair to the other amateurs in the class. So the individual had a USEF and USDF amateur status and competed up to 1997. So if the individual was an amateur than fine but if the individual was a professional than not very fair to the others who may have lost awards.
Do you have a reason to believe that she was violating the rule in 1997? It sounds like you didn’t even know her then.
[QUOTE=RBABKA;8768707]
In regards to this discussion, is it ever okay to compete as a amateur while being a professional? I asked the USEF and USDF and both indicated never. It is not fair to the other amateurs in the class. So the individual had a USEF and USDF amateur status and competed up to 1997. So if the individual was an amateur than fine but if the individual was a professional than not very fair to the others who may have lost awards.[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. Now you’re just being a pain. Literally no one here thinks that is okay. USEF does not think it is okay. But if no one questioned it 19 YEARS AGO and she has not competed since then, then you need to LET IT GO.
[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8768672]
some does like commas a little much, don’t, they,?
I have a graduate education and I have no idea what DENOTOLOGICAL means. Ha![/QUOTE]
I believe it’s supposed to be Deontological, which is a branch of philosophy concerned with Duty and Ethics. It proposes that an ‘act’ is good or bad in and of itself, regardless of whether the consequences of that ‘act’ are good or bad or nonexistent.
[QUOTE=RBABKA;8768707]
In regards to this discussion, is it ever okay to compete as a amateur while being a professional? I asked the USEF and USDF and both indicated never. It is not fair to the other amateurs in the class. So the individual had a USEF and USDF amateur status and competed up to 1997. So if the individual was an amateur than fine but if the individual was a professional than not very fair to the others who may have lost awards.[/QUOTE]
In regards to this discussion, is it ever okay to offer a Troll a can of Raid, so that they can go into the nearest restroom and kill the giant bug that has crawled up their a$$?
Even if this bug is somewhere no one can see it, touch it, or hear it, I think we all know it exists.
Is that Ontological enough for you?
[QUOTE=csaper58;8769117]
In regards to this discussion, is it ever okay to offer a Troll a can of Raid, so that they can go into the nearest restroom and kill the giant bug that has crawled up their a$$?
Even if this bug is somewhere no one can see it, touch it, or hear it, I think we all know it exists.
Is that Ontological enough for you?[/QUOTE]
You seem to be an angry individual. So, I will shift gears to a research topic. If a boarding facility accidentally kills your horse due to wrong feed by mistake, and is verified by a vet, do you seek restitution or just let it go and turn it in to the insurance?? What would you do.
What kind of research are you doing?
[QUOTE=dotneko;8769359]
What kind of research are you doing?[/QUOTE]
Qualitative not Quantitative…
[QUOTE=RBABKA;8769353]
You seem to be an angry individual. So, I will shift gears to a research topic. If a boarding facility accidentally kills your horse due to wrong feed by mistake, and is verified by a vet, do you seek restitution or just let it go and turn it in to the insurance?? What would you do.[/QUOTE]
What a totally crazy thread.
I think this is now my favourite post of all time, courtesy of Silverbridge:
I personally exude in underscoring a flabbergasting narrative, when it comes to encroaching ill will via expanding etymological corporate systemic derivations.
The best and most achievable outcome is increasingly likely to be placing less emotional weight on widely sourced outliers.
The desired effect is a reduction of the level of excrementatory excess in one’s measurable impactness upon random, nauseous external persons-- many of whom are Internetally reachable (and additionals perhaps later to be encountered).
Thank-you Silverbridge!! I laughed out loud until I had tears in my eyes.
[QUOTE=Rosie B;8769387]
I think this is now my favourite post of all time, courtesy of Silverbridge:
Thank-you Silverbridge!! I laughed out loud until I had tears in my eyes.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your crafted adult comment. I would prefer responses that are not bigoted for my research.
If you re doing ‘research’ using us, do you not think it fair to tell us exactly what it is?
I think most of us are savvy enough not to play whatever game it is you are playing.
Are you contemplating a lawsuit against someone for something?
[QUOTE=dotneko;8769399]
I think most of us are savvy enough not to play whatever game it is you are playing.
Are you contemplating a lawsuit against someone for something?[/QUOTE]
This a qualitative research of the equine industry in the US culture. Do you have a problem with that? Explain to me if you do, because I want to hear it without prolixity.
Troll.
