[QUOTE=CaitlinandTheBay;8104435]
I want to know how people know who is reading the thread.
Also, what time does Chipotle open? I think today is a burrito for breakfast kind of day.[/QUOTE]
If you look up the user name, in the profile it shows “Current Activity: Viewing XYZ Thread.”
And Chipotle opens at 11.
[QUOTE=ybiaw;8104450]
If you look up the user name, in the profile it shows “Current Activity: Viewing XYZ Thread.”
And Chipotle opens at 11.[/QUOTE]
You are perfect. Bless you.
[QUOTE=red mares;8104406]
Based on other threads/posts by the PO, somebody will have to drive up in a gold-plated trailer and have passed the Pony Club curriculum with flying colors before she lets the pony or any of her horses go.
I got the impression she’s a bit persnickety.:)[/QUOTE]
Good Lawd do I feel stooped for not have a clue who PO is…
[QUOTE=Ambitious Kate;8104404]
I agree, laura. Especially since we all pretty much all know who the PO is. I think she’s smart to just take a bemused look and shake her head and go on being a good poster, and good business owner.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of an old thread (think I’ve mentioned it) where a farm sitter posted a scathing post about a farm owner and her horses.
I personally knew the farm sitter and her husband/boyfriend and they were both batsh!t crazy. She was a compulsive liar. The farm owner came and posted her side, but thought better of it and deleted the post. I didn’t get personally involved in the thread because nothing good would come of it, but I did PM the barn owner with my sympathy and support. The BF/husband was a VERY scary guy…both appearance and personality.
Farm sitter died last year. BF/husband claims she had a seizure, hit her head and never recovered from a coma. BF/husband had a history of arrest for domestic violence, farm sitter had complained to both me and my daughter that he beat her. It was alleged that he beat her to death. Looking at the photos…I don’t know how he escaped being charged, but he did. I
t’s hard to tell when what you’re reading is the truth or an outburst from a vindictive whacko. Having met my fair share in this business (dogs are worse), I take it all with a big old salt shaker of salt.
[QUOTE=french fry;8104434]
I think everyone can agree that it would have been ideal if the PO had said something more like, “I’m screening potential homes very carefully, let’s talk more tomorrow in person and see if your family will be a good match for (Pony.)”
But again, nowhere in the conversations that have been posted is there any evidence that the PO was all, “the pony is yours! This is a done deal! Come load her up!”
You can still be #teamponyowner while acknowledging that the PO didn’t lay out crystal clear expectations.[/QUOTE]
I’m there. I kind of think the PO OP deserve on another.
Never mind horses here is basic business courtesy.
If someone tells you they are going way out of their way to come pick up something from you, have the decency to tell them the interview process is not complete.
“You can stop by but I reserve the right to not send the pony with you, OK”
I think it is complete bs to let someone go through that to pick up a horse and have “unspoken reserves”. We would be furious if we went to Home Depot to pick up a saw and they made us buy a hammer also or decided not to sell us the saw because we don’t know how to use it. If there is reserves on the sale, they should be made public or it can be a legal issue. Selling and “giving away” are both transactions with defined boundaries. A dollar is still a sale.
Judge it this way, if most sellers did this kind of business, they would be out of business. If you advertise a horse for sale and do not list the reserves that would prevent the sale, then you are wasting peoples time.
The posted correspondence did not say anything about reserves of the deal or warn the OP that the deal was not a sure thing. From a business point of view, this is not good practice.
Some posters have been very cruel based on extrapolated ideas about the OP and using it as an excuse for poor buisness. There is always two sides to a story. But based on the info given (which is all the info supplied), the business practices were not good, regardless.
I feel bad for the OP, if there were no other major factors left out of the story.
I agree with being picky about placing a horse, but let the buyer/new owner know ahead of time so they can plan accordingly or look somewhere else. The saddle excuse is very poor, if it was an excuse and not just someone that was trying to coerce someone with excited kids and a time investment.
When did it become ok to not be honest? No ones “owes” anyone outside the law but that is a completely crap attitude and has no moral fortitude. Do unto others…
[QUOTE=Angela Freda;8104463]
Good Lawd do I feel stooped for not have a clue who PO is…[/QUOTE]
Yep. Me too…:o
[QUOTE=stoicfish;8104507]
Never mind horses here is basic business courtesy.
If someone tells you they are going way out of their way to come pick up something from you, have the decency to tell them the interview process is not complete.
“You can stop by but I reserve the right to not send the pony with you, OK”
I think it is complete bs to let someone go through that to pick up a horse and have “unspoken reserves”. We would be furious if we went to Home Depot to pick up a saw and they made us buy a hammer also or decided not to sell us the saw because we don’t know how to use it. If there is reserves on the sale, they should be made public or it can be a legal issue. Selling and “giving away” are both transactions with defined boundaries. A dollar is still a sale.
Judge it this way, if most sellers did this kind of business, they would be out of business. If you advertise a horse for sale and do not list the reserves that would prevent the sale, then you are wasting peoples time.
The posted correspondence did not say anything about reserves of the deal or warn the OP that the deal was not a sure thing. From a business point of view, this is not good practice.
Some posters have been very cruel based on extrapolated ideas about the OP and using it as an excuse for poor buisness. There is always two sides to a story. But based on the info given (which is all the info supplied), the business practices were not good, regardless.
I feel bad for the OP, if there were no other major factors left out of the story.
I agree with being picky about placing a horse, but let the buyer/new owner know ahead of time so they can plan accordingly or look somewhere else. The saddle excuse is very poor, if it was an excuse and not just someone that was trying to coerce someone with excited kids and a time investment.
When did it become ok to not be honest? No ones “owes” anyone outside the law but that is a completely crap attitude and has no moral fortitude. Do unto others…[/QUOTE]
I disagree – we don’t know if OP pierced out pieces of the conversation to better support her case, BUT, it is very clear the PO was making NO promises in the dialogue the OP did supply…
No comment on the saddle, again, we don’t know what really happened.
OMG - it jumped from 18 pages to 26!
Can I just say, I have laughed out loud multiple times. Especially at “je suis pony owner.” Good God, I can’t stop whispering it to myself and then cackling loudly. My poor, poor coworkers.
[QUOTE=Angela Freda;8104463]
Good Lawd do I feel stooped for not have a clue who PO is…[/QUOTE]
me neither… but I’ll live unless someone tells me… I did not even try to figure it out.
[QUOTE=californianinkansas;8104517]
Yep. Me too…:o[/QUOTE]
In post 135, the OP placed a quote of an exchange she had with the PO, which included metadata of the PO’s username on COTH, her join date, and the number of posts she had. When she posted that, please note, she edited out the PO’s username, but not the join date and post count. Later, the OP went and edited those things out, too, but not before the original post was quoted in post # 137, which showed, and still to this very day shows! the join date and post count of the PO.
Clever investigators have gone to the member list, sorted by join date, found the join date (June 18, 2011) and seen that among the 7 or so users who registered that day, only one had a high post count comprable to the post count seen in post 137, which is something like 1,536 or something I forget.
Therefore! It is not difficult to follows those clues and find, in the members’ list, the username of the user who registered on Jun 18, 2011 (or whatever, forget now the details) and figure it all out.
I think the PO is showing extreme sense and grace by not participating in the thread. It was completely tacky of the OP to air this dispute in this manner. At one point I was PM’ing the PO about the pony in question, and it was made very clear to me that the pony is a beloved member of her family, and a perfect fit was a must. It was PO’s preference that I and at least one of my children fly to FL to try the pony before we made any decisions. I got to check out the pony, and she got to check out me and my family. There was to be a contract signed that the pony went back to her if I could not keep it for any reason.
I was completely fine with all of the conditions, because I would have done the EXACT same thing if I was re-homing my child’s first pony. And yes she did say to me that she would like if I considered the saddle and other tack, as the saddle was perfectly fitted to the pony. This isn’t a dealer flipping a pony, or someone looking to offload an animal that eats but they can’t use. This is a generous woman looking to do the right thing by a fabulous pony.
and you still did not get/buy/adopt/lease the pony? what was the reason/excuse?
rustbreeches, that is a very sensible post, and it makes perfect sense. I personally can find that exchange more explainatory for the OP’s experience, and that she really probably did reinterpret her exchange with the PO to fit her hopes. Sad thing. Nice job, Rustbreeches.
If I had tack which fit the pony well, I would want it to go with the pony, too. Depending on how the OP responded to that, it might be a deal breaker for me, either if she said it was too expensive, if she niggled at the price, or if she estimated that it didn’t fit, when I knew it did. It might well have been a red flag. Hopefully, all will settle down and the pony will one day find its perfect home.
[QUOTE=Cindyg;8104355]
If it were something this egregious, if the OP was an obviously unsuitable home, if PO had something to share that would clarify everything, PO would have come on here and said so. I am confident of that.[/QUOTE]
Or the PO understands the Streisand effect and knows that there is no upside to participating no matter what.
“The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.”
[QUOTE=french fry;8098205]
Okay, I’m going to go there.
From the conversations you shared, your enthusiasm is a little…off-putting, at least to me. I would have been a little bit cautious going into the situation of meeting you in person.
It’s possible that they were reserving final judgment on you/your family and when you got there in person they just didn’t get a good feeling, had a change of heart, decided they didn’t want you to take the pony after all, and started putting up road blocks.
Now, I’m sure you would have been a great home for this pony! But if the owner was posting her side of the story on COTH I suspect we’d be supporting her for trusting her gut when giving away a beloved outgrown pony.[/QUOTE]
Glad I’m not the only one who felt that way. I would have told you not to come, if it was my pony, after reading some of your messages.
[QUOTE=rustbreeches;8104603]
At one point I was PM’ing the PO about the pony in question, and it was made very clear to me that the pony is a beloved member of her family, and a perfect fit was a must. It was PO’s preference that I and at least one of my children fly to FL to try the pony before we made any decisions. I got to check out the pony, and she got to check out me and my family. [/QUOTE]
Which is why I think that in the end, this was a mutual miscommunication caused by over-enthusiasm on one side, and not being entirely clear on the other side. The OP, in her pony-search thread, mentioned that she’d prefer a pony that wouldn’t need vet expenses foreseeably because she was still nursing that mare for something or other; this is a person on a budget. Her expectation was likely that if she’s renting a trailer and making the trip, her husband is taking time off work, etc, the deal is pretty much done, or else she wouldn’t have gone to the expense.
But to PO, traveling to meet the pony and assess suitability is just part of doing business. If the person travels and the match isn’t perfect, too bad, so sad. Trailer rental, flight cost, whatever.
From my read of what OP posted, PO is being non-committal; OTOH, she also doesn’t clearly state “there is no agreement yet, this is just an assessment to see if this is a good match.” To be fair, OP is also waffly on the whole trial vice no trial issue, so her message also doesn’t scream “my understanding is that pony is mine.”
I guess the lesson would be to set crystal-clear expectations and get them in writing. If you’re the sort of person who won’t go to the travel expense without a contract in hand, then you need to hold out for the contract. IMO the PO could’ve been clearer too, rather than merely non-committal and “discuss when you get there.”
[QUOTE=Coanteen;8104653]
Which is why I think that in the end, this was a mutual miscommunication caused by over-enthusiasm on one side, and not being entirely clear on the other side. The OP, in her pony-search thread, mentioned that she’d prefer a pony that wouldn’t need vet expenses foreseeably because she was still nursing that mare for something or other; this is a person on a budget. Her expectation was likely that if she’s renting a trailer and making the trip, her husband is taking time off work, etc, the deal is pretty much done, or else she wouldn’t have gone to the expense.
But to PO, traveling to meet the pony and assess suitability is just part of doing business. If the person travels and the match isn’t perfect, too bad, so sad. Trailer rental, flight cost, whatever.
From my read of what OP posted, PO is being non-committal; OTOH, she also doesn’t clearly state “there is no agreement yet, this is just an assessment to see if this is a good match.” To be fair, OP is also waffly on the whole trial vice no trial issue, so her message also doesn’t scream “my understanding is that pony is mine.”
I guess the lesson would be to set crystal-clear expectations and get them in writing. If you’re the sort of person who won’t go to the travel expense without a contract in hand, then you need to hold out for the contract. IMO the PO could’ve been clearer too, rather than merely non-committal and “discuss when you get there.”[/QUOTE]
I’d be curious about the INITIAL communications. My gut feeling is that in there is the PO saying very clearly “a trial must happen FIRST to assess for mutual suitability.” The PO assumed OP understood that thereafter. The OP blew it off/didn’t get it. The PO didn’t think she needed to contintually re-state the ground rules she stated from the outset. I’d bet MONEY this was in the first substantive communication from the PO. PO didn’t feel the need to continually restate “don’t forget, we have to have a trial first” when she had said it to start. She figured if the OP wanted to rent a trailer and be over the top-- that was her decision because the ground rules had been laid. She probably had no IDEA until OP showed up that OP had never understood there to be any ground rules at all.
The fact that someone else (rustbreeches) went through a similar transaction with the PO and understood the ground rules clearly is telling. And that the ground rules seem very very similar to the ones articulated by the OP suggests that perhaps a large problem here (whether she will accept responsibility or not) stemmed from the OP’s inability/unwillingness to read/listen for comprehension.
Rustbreeches didn’t seem to have ANY problem understanding the ground rules. What is more likely given what we know from this thread? Between dealing with rustbreeches and the OP, the PO became a worse communicator or that OP, who has demonstrated some reading comprehension issues on this thread, didn’t understand a reasonably clear message from the PO similar to the message rustbreeches fully understood?
Add me to the list of folks who think there was a big fat miscommunication here. I think the true lesson learned is that PO has an obligation to do what she feels is right for her animal, no matter the consequences. Ghazzu followed her conscience and I expect PO did the same. Of course, that doesn’t mean OP wouldn’t have provided a fabulous home for the Pony, but methinks PO figured it wasn’t the right fit (for whatever reason). Nothing immoral in that. Because she does, in fact, have everything to lose in giving up her pony.
And I don’t see any commitment from PO in any of the quotes inappropriately posted here.
Second lesson - don’t count your ponies until the paperwork is signed.
ETA: the fact that OP lacked a saddle and discussed minor financial details (gas, etc.) would probably have convinced me OP would sadly not be able to care for my precious pony in the manner I wished. Yeah, I would have backed out. I probably would not have given the same reason, but the reason given really isn’t the key issue, I think.
Yes, ideally PO should have told OP early on there wasn’t a deal yet. But miscommunications happen even with the best intentions.
[QUOTE=Coanteen;8104653]
Which is why I think that in the end, this was a mutual miscommunication caused by over-enthusiasm on one side, and not being entirely clear on the other side. The OP, in her pony-search thread, mentioned that she’d prefer a pony that wouldn’t need vet expenses foreseeably because she was still nursing that mare for something or other; this is a person on a budget. Her expectation was likely that if she’s renting a trailer and making the trip, her husband is taking time off work, etc, the deal is pretty much done, or else she wouldn’t have gone to the expense.
But to PO, traveling to meet the pony and assess suitability is just part of doing business. If the person travels and the match isn’t perfect, too bad, so sad. Trailer rental, flight cost, whatever.
From my read of what OP posted, PO is being non-committal; OTOH, she also doesn’t clearly state “there is no agreement yet, this is just an assessment to see if this is a good match.” To be fair, OP is also waffly on the whole trial vice no trial issue, so her message also doesn’t scream “my understanding is that pony is mine.”
I guess the lesson would be to set crystal-clear expectations and get them in writing. If you’re the sort of person who won’t go to the travel expense without a contract in hand, then you need to hold out for the contract. IMO the PO could’ve been clearer too, rather than merely non-committal and “discuss when you get there.”[/QUOTE]
I agree, and think that travel is somewhat relative. Last summer I picked up a 5 month old puppy. The breeder travels to shows all of the time. She and a good friend travel with multiple dogs in a motor home all summer. I’m about 6 to 7 hours away. In preparing to drive down there for the puppy, she made the comment, “You’re so close!” I didn’t feel like I was right next door, but then a drive like that is an unusual event for me. The other puppies did go farther in many cases, and most drove to get them to check them out and so the breeder could assess fit in person (even though references had been checked beforehand).
I got the sense that the OP is on a budget because of the first post about looking for a healthy pony due to veterinary expenses for her TB. I don’t know the PO, but she may not be on a strict budget and she may be used to traveling to look at horses, for shows, for clinics, etc.
The travel may have seemed like much less of a deal to PO, especially for a safe pony (which can be hard to find). I suspect it was a big deal to OP. For that reason, hindsight being what it is, it would have been helpful of when the OP sent the message about making sure everything was “good,” the PO had said that she was really picky, that it was far from a done deal, and that while it was ok to come and look at the pony with a trailer just in case, it wasn’t final. But she may have had a different perspective.
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
