In the other thread, Bruce said, in part,
My questions are:

How is the format 'easier'

Why could this not have been accomplished using the old web site?

Who owns the web site and its content?

If the answer is, "The AFA", then why is everything copyrighted to April Raines|EquiDesis?

Why, if we now have "people who are on the ball running it and working it" were they not doing the same with the old Web site?

How much did and will it cost the AFA for this service?

Has a written contract between the parties been signed and ratified by the BOD?

If so, when was this done? If not, why not? Especially considering the brouhaha and vitriol that surrounded the question of contracts with the outside/former IT consultants.

When will the rest of the links be up and running?

Are there ever going to be non-members open forums as there was until late in the game, with the old web site?

Why was this not accomplished with the IT committee months, if not years ago?

Shouldn't the new web site have been fully ready to be 'rolled out', including testing it, before it was put online?

How does the AFA leadership justify/explain the huge amount of money and volunteer hours that were spent upgrading, updating and moving the old web site to a new location, giving "ownership" to the AFA, and then trashing it(well, sort of, since its pretty much the same stuff as was on the other web site, dressed up and packaged a bit differently) and again having to spend more money to get what it now has?

Other than the updated 'look' what is so new, improved or different about the new web site?

The site looks fantastic!!! It's a wonderful positive change for the AFA...
I'm sure you'll remove this post tooo...it's just not negative enough for the Political Forum.

Thanks ever so much for your most responsive answer to my questions.

Your reply has provided the tasting that proves the pudding that is the AFA

By the way Susan, where is Andrew in all this? Why are you posting in his stead? Especially since his new vaunted blog now requires moderator approval of any and all comments that are posted in response to what he posts there.

You are complaining about the moderators here, yet somehow feel that censorship on Andrew's blog is OK? ROTFLMAO!

Perhaps, since the questions I asked, although pointed, are directly related to matters about which Andrew should have full,. first hand knowledge, he will reply to them. Probably not, but hope springs eternal.

Apparently the IT Committee just couldn't get the job done. One look at Kramedjian.com says it all. That's quite a site!

unbridled wrote:
Your other post was removed because it had nothing at all to do with the topic of the thread. That thread was soliciting input concerning whether or not to close the Political Forum. It was not appropriate for you to put a post extolling the new AFA site in that thread. There's no connection at all between the two subjects. You've posted a few "The AFA's new website is fabulous" posts now, and none were removed except for the one which was completely off topic. Stick to the topic and you're fine. Positive, or negative.

Baron

Thank you..you made my point.

unbridled wrote:
You need to get better information. It was not the IT committee's job to revamp the web site, rather our job was to insure the safety of the contents, and to put the web site under AFA control and ownership. Demonstrably, we did just that.

However, it WAS and IS the job of the Website Committee to affect and effect the look, tone, tenor and contents of the website. So perhaps your slings and arrows are better sent in that direction instead of more vitriol and character assassination of a man who demonstrably did nothing wrong except to pour his heart, soul and time into trying to help the AFA. Your attitude is proof positive that only those who rolick in foolishness, volunteer to work on behalf of the AFA and demonstrates why no one in their right mind wants to step up anymore.

By the way, you might want to refer back to the attorney's letter that Andrew, et al, received admonishing them not to engage in libelous and/or defamatory remarks, either in print or in person, with regard to Mr. Kramedjian.

Since you have been acting as Andrew's surrogate, he is in technical violation of that legal document. Persist in your actions at your own peril.

Rick

ps: Do say Hi to Andrew for me. I'm sure he's standing right there, looking over your shoulder as you bang away at the keyboard.

Andrew can speak for himself, and Rick, you know where to reach him.

I have my own opinions about the farrier and horse industries and as you can read I liberally share them for the betterment of horses, farriers and owners.

Your negativity, mud-slinging and ridiculous arguments over symantecs and personalities make the wholle of farriers look foolish to the horse-owning public. The farrier industry has image problems as it is and this forum contributes to the poor light farriers are held in by most of the equine industry. Again, sling your mud face-to-face or in private and stop presenting yourselves like *****s. Perception matters in the equine industry, if you'd step up to the plate and embrace your position as the foundation to the multi-billion dollar horse industry you'd all be so busy and making so much money that you wouldn't have time for the garbage you spew on this site for the whole world to see. And, oh by the way, don't blink or this post will be removed by the subjective administrators/moderators of horseshoes.com

unbridled wrote:
That point being... that you're supposed to be allowed to post completely off-topic items into a thread because you want to? That there's something special about your post, regardless of whether or not it belongs in the thread? OK. I guess we're all entitled to think our posts are special.

Baron

unbridled wrote:
Oh... not on a bet. Your post was priceless. I'll leave it to others to explain why. That's not my job.

Thank you for your participation.

Baron

unbridled wrote:Really, then why doesn't he do that instead of sending you up on the forums to sling mud for him.

And he knows where and how to reach me. Regardless, since we have no other venue available to us, here is where he needs to come to face the membership and be held accountable. Or is accountability a foreign concept?

By the way, though he has been told not to directly contact me, in this one instance, he may do so, in writing. That said, responding to my questions on this forum, is not part of the cease and desist requirement placed upon him.

What, currently, might that alleged negativity, mud-slinging , etc might that be?

And, in the spirit of educational collegiality, its spelled, "semantics"

Male Bovine Solid Fe-cal Matter!

But, if you think that is so, then one can only wonder at the poor light cast by the AFA...........

You might want to try following your own advise and descriptive analogy.

And right now you are being such a wonderful ambassador!

Better take a closer look around. Demonstrably, we are and remain as busy as we want to be, and still find time to participate here and elsewhere.

And rather than spewing garbage, generally speaking, we are the clean up crew for all the trash than eminates from points south and east of me, as well as north and east of me.

Of course, if you(individually and your collective) weren't creating garbage, then we wouldn't have to clean up the mess you(the collective) seem to continually make.

You might want to ponder and then apply the adage that "when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging."

unbridled wrote:

Yes, the site looks fantastic. So what? It is not full functioning and has the same old content as the other one. Just a new dress for the Saturday night dance. Same old site with a new look. I applaud the efforts and time to get it up and going but have to ask, "Why the heck was the members only section not one of the first things completed?" You come here and gripe about the talk and negativity here but we have no choice, the AFA website still does not have a place for us to discuss things. That section should have been the first one completed if you all want things to change in where AFA business is discussed. Fumble!!!

Then there is Andrew's blog. What is that really about? Him showing how much he is in charge, how he is running things, how much better he is than the rest of us? Andrew is not the AFA (this is just my opinion), he is a member of the AFA, the president of the AFA, a representative of the AFA, he is an elected official who represents the members and works for us, not commands us or dictates to us. I hope he does a great job, but at this point it looks like he just wanted to be in charge. Only time will tell. Maybe when the members section is up he will actually get on and tell us or put it in his blog. Who knows.

Really it's sad, new year, same old complaints, same old arguments, same old BS, and yet nothing new to show for the hassle. I remember having these same discussions with and about Dave Ferguson and it alll got us nowhere. Finally got to meet Dave and he turned out to be a good guy as he was my tester for my CF and I could of disqualified him if I wanted, but figured he was man enough and had the integrity to let old dogs lie and be fair. All true, I hope Andrew has the same and can relate to all AFA members instead of the elite only. Who knows.

Rick,

You are in a state of delusion if you think I speak for anyone other than myself.

unbridled wrote:
Well, what can I say Susan? If I'm in a state of delusion, then demonstrably, you are in a state of denial. Or don't you and Andrew ever talk to each other?

I can't deny it Rick...I speak for myself and myself alone.