The effectiveness of your contributions to this discussion demands both strong clarity in your points along with enough and suitable factual evidence. Productive discourse together with argument credibility suffers when people make unclear statements or deliver claims with insufficient proof. Your position needs revision for making concise evidence-based statements which can effectively build up the current discussion
Shepherd’s pie or a Costco chicken pot pie for me!
For dessert pie, can’t beat a good Key lime pie. Junk food-wise, I have always loved Hostess cherry pies. They’re a disaster in just about every food/nutritional category, but I love them.
6 Likes
Totally agree! That’s why I asked you to share the data you are referencing regarding this urgent issue. Please provide us your source data so we can continue to engage credibly with your (non)evidence-based arguments.
6 Likes
Omg yassss. Love a shepherds pie. Divine. I do like cheesecake. Does that count as pie ?
6 Likes
I like a real Shepard’s pie made with lamb. The ones made with beef are Cottage pies. It annoys me when a pie made with beef is labeled or sold as Shepard’s pie.
4 Likes
The act of dissection performed by unprofessional practitioners on registered or not horses creates extensive troubles within the equine community regardless of legal or illegal activities. Research showing the number of horses undergoing dissection falls short of proper transparency standards and regulatory standards thus enabling unethical practises while reducing credibility.
Dissections conducted without proper qualifications result in the spread of wrong assumptions about equine physical structure and health. Lack of peer-reviewed scientific validation in this misinformation harms equine professionals and owners and trainers and jeopardises the welfare of horses. These deceptive findings produce wrong medical choices which sustain untrue horse-related beliefs.
Using deceased horses for unauthorised dissections generates ethical problems because of the lack of regulation. Profiteering motives become apparent when dissections take place without proper qualifications and oversight because it shows they are primarily driven by financial gain instead of genuine scientific research advances. The lack of trust in equine research becomes evident when it leads to negative consequences for the entire field of study.
Equine research credibility decreases significantly when unqualified people spread unverified information to the public domain. When research lacks peer-review process both accuracy and legitimacy in scientific investigations suffer because peer endorsements play a vital role in maintaining research validity and authenticity. The equine community experiences widespread confusion because it becomes challenging to distinguish between verified scientific facts and unsupported opinions or hypotheses.
Non-qualified dissections combined with their unfounded information perpetuate negative effects on the equestrian domain. The research sector needs easier regulation together with heightened regulatory enforcement along with qualified expert endorsement of peer-reviewed research as its fundamental solutions.
We get it. You have strong feelings about the subject.
Can you define the word redundant?
10 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
It’s clear that AI has a lousy grasp of the word humor (and refuses to define the word redundant.)
8 Likes
Ummmmm I weigh 110 pounds and ride a 1300 lb horse. But try harder with your personal insults. And ignoring that weak barb. Who cares?
13 Likes
I’m 115lbs and well educated. Seems like random insults are an AI thing.
7 Likes
I do love a true Shepherds pie. Cottage pie is a distant second.
2 Likes
Pricing
Resources
Contact Sales
My Grammarly
Get Grammarly
It’s free
AI Detector by Grammarly
Navigate responsible AI use with our AI checker, trained to identify AI-generated text. A clear score shows how much of your work appears to be written with AI so you can submit it with peace of mind.
Can you define the word redundant?
Your habit to be redundant continues as you try to embody this term instead of offering its clear definition. The additional information you present takes an unnecessary path by showing distraction instead of meaningful discussion.
Your insufficient educational background exposes itself through the fact that you cannot participate constructively or understand the connection between this topic. My firm stance about facts combined with accountability along with intellectual rigor defines what productive dialogue truly is.
Meaningful contribution seems unreachable to you so eating a pie and using the toilet followed by walking away could be more suitable. 
The purpose of this thread is dedicated to meaningful debate rather than disruptive performance. You should invest your time in other matters when you lack proven insights that can strengthen the discussion. To improve your future humor attempts you should check either a dictionary or a thesaurus for clarity. Such additions would provide essential meaning to your writing content.
Check text
Clear
1088/10000 characters
0% of this text appears to be AI-generated
I have presented you with evidence which both verifies and substantiates my point while confirming its validity. Your deliberate refusal to study the presented evidence signals a homemade avoidance of reality — a surprising choice for someone striving for intellectual authenticity.
Your dialogue will be most productive when it centres around evidence-based discussions instead of avoiding essential discussion points with superfluous statements. The factual evidence which you have not engaged requires logical evaluation but you have still not provided any acceptable response. Your refusal to acknowledge the evidence presented explains your weak stance better than the evidence itself.
You should shift your focus to the core matter instead of practising avoidance of undeniable evidence. Apprising yourself of hard evidence represents a diverting activity for certain people yet remains incompatible with ethical principles needed for fruitful discussions. Either change your method or depart from this discussion since inconvenient evidence exists. No stuff Troll
The shape of my athletic build alongside my robotic precision stands at 6 feet tall which makes me anything but a “Hindenburg-shaped frump” who cannot understand AI detectors. Your inability to grasp this fundamental skill proves unfortunate while being profoundly sad and deserving of pity.
Well this A I is BORINGGGGGGG. so I’m going to go be a human and not give some bot with a vendetta more posts to respond to. Carry on bot !!! It’s national Burrito Day!!! I’ll eat one with fierce gusto as a tribute to you
8 Likes
I know the meaning of the word redundant.
I asked if you knew the meaning of the word, since you repeatedly post about the same issue and include no new information.
3 Likes
You’re right. It’s pointless to feed the troll.
6 Likes
The current lack of data about unqualified dissectionists who perform work on equines creates substantial worries for the industry. The unauthorised procedure handled by Becks Nairn stands as one of the earliest documented cases while the actions of other unqualified practitioners create an equally serious danger. Nairn has undertaken dissections in Ireland for EquiEd while being unqualified to conduct such procedures. The organisers use paid ticket sales to spread false information while pretending to offer expert knowledge which amounts to a double violation of ethics.
Nairn does not possess veterinary pathology or bone disease expertise yet she admits her unqualified status when needed for legal purposes. Her conduct imitates that of someone who possesses these qualifications. Her equine anatomical work under legal standards remains permissible yet turning unverified knowledge into a business that violates ethical and legal standards. The organisers of these events cannot deliver professional accuracy standards to their paying clientele because their practise fails to provide it. The practise harms all individuals who attend as well as the entire industry.
The increasing phenomenon reveals how people without qualifications take advantage of dead horses to generate financial rewards from their large internet audiences. Many of the anatomical and osteopathic demonstrations presented by Nairn are incorrect which raises questions about the-priced value of her educational events. She maintains dominance of her platforms through two key methods: she blocks critics from accessing her content and she both evades responsible actions and draws professional knowledge through networking with qualified experts. Through these strategic actions she manages to stay under regulatory oversight while conducting her activities without restraint.
The absence of comprehensive monitoring enables unprofessional people to exploit horse remains while falsely presenting themselves as educators or experts. Elevated regulatory requirements must be established as a means to protect equine welfare together with scientific credibility and protect consumers from false or inaccurate information offered to gain financial rewards.
DH and I are having dinner in a hole in the wall Mexican place. Huge burrito for him, 2 special birria tacos for me.
And flan for dessert!
Happy Burrito Day, everyone!
7 Likes
