Cyber Farrier wrote:
I think it would be very controversial to make negative comments in a professional manner using a thesaurus. But if this is your wish then I could sign up for Rick's online course. I hope it does not become boring replies about what proof do you have, where is the data, some will make hidden derogatory remarks that require a dictionary then feel offended after the fact. Maybe I'm wrong. What does Redhush think?

Traditional Farrier wrote:
This is a sticky subject. Probably best to start a new thread.

Phil Armitage wrote:
Humor me. (And I'm not just "speaking" to you.)

Baron

Maybe I should have said "directly glued shoes do not respect the fundamentals of farriery, thus are not a useful tool" instead of "they suck"...
Jason

Phil Armitage wrote:
Well Phill, thank you i appreciate the good feedback. I try to keep emotions out of the picture and remain * objective *.

Forums can be a place for people to unleash frustrations they otherwise would not have the guts to pass on in real ' non virtual ' life.
The web is a place where people can become who they wish they were, without barriers or ' consenquences ' of their actions.

But, when your name is in your signature, also being part of a small circle, keep in mind this is what people will think of you.

If you post nasty, degrading and childish comments, people that do not know you will rememder this of you and make a jugement based on this of you wether they know you already or not, subconsiously.

On the other hand, you can improve your reputation, communication skills and network by staying professional and positive even when a peer brings you down with harsh criticizm.

Remember, potential clients will often google your name and find out about you this way. The internet is a powerfull tool if you use it well.

As a strong but harsh example, some people here i don't even know and they scare me to death and i would'nt let them toutch my horse with a 10foot pole. They might be excellent, but their approach and attitude preceeds their talent. Others might not be as good, but they have helped me so much and were so kind that i would trust them blindly.

One can influence other people's opinions of themselves simply by being in control of what they type. It's easier than real life where body language often betrayes you !

I agree some people here are quite ' mouthy ' and lack the technical knowledge to back up their statements. I agree something should be done about this.

Jason Maki wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what you should have said. I knew you had the ability. You've clearly demonstrated it. Now continue to use it.
And just as important, when making a statement such as that, SUPPORT it. Why are you making that statement? What is your reasoning? Simply throwing it out there with no underlying rational is useless.

Baron

Baron,
Sure... Your post came as I was posting... so did not realize my feeble attempt at humor by re-using a slang term had been proscribed. This is a sincere apology, though it seems to read a bit tongue in cheek. I assure you it is not.
Jason

A directly glued shoe requires a hard substance to bond directly to the wall, whiteline and sole. This process will exert pressure on the horny sole, sensitive sole, and possibly cause an impingemnt of the circumflex artery resulting in a thrombosis which can create eschemic changes in all the structures mentioned. If sufficent glue is used to bond a shoe for a cycle, sole pressure is virtually garunteed.
The sigafoos has built in compressable rim pad, and an adaptable cuff bonding system which allows for attachment without impingement of any sensitive structures.
Here is a pic after the removal of one directly gled shoe. The track continued from wing to wing and had infiltrated both heel regions.
Jason

Now that's the way a post should read. (Lousy photo, though....)

Baron

I would not be offended if you dislike glue on shoes of any type, but I would find your wording to be unprofessional. To label any type of shoe as "sucks" seems totally inappropriate. Steve O'Grady uses direct glue shoes, as do Ric Redden and Paul Goodness. Does their work suck? Of course not! The point is there are better ways to say what you think, if not to learn something from those who do things differently. Craig did make the comment " I have never had my book of horses look and be as sound as they are now and be dismissed as an idoit so quickly because of toe clips." Point taken. Why dismiss a great farrier's work out of hand? Same for Smitty. All of this debate over a technique you have never used? It sounds like a pointless argument to me. It might boost the numbers, but to me it is lacking in professional standards.

Jason Maki wrote:
There ya go Maki; people skills!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

i direct glue shoes all the time and i have done dozens of them and only once had a horse abcess under them and in that instance i told the owner i thought the horses feet were to short for glue ons and i advised againt it. i've other wise never had a problem with clueing them directly to the bottom of the foot . works for me and i had a horse win a 150,000 race in them not long ago so they worked for him .

This thread is waaaaaaaay off topic now, so if you want to discuss glue-ons (or any other techniques), start a thread in the appropriate forum.

Baron