danverschild wrote: (list deleted)

Danvers,

Was there a provision for a Project Manager in the original contract, or was editorial content subject to review and approval by the Publications Committee of the AFA or some such entity?

To your knowledge, did that entity ever request changes to/of the content and if so were reasons given?

Ms. Goodrich

To your knowledge, was there ever any actual 'censorship' of any kind of anything that to date has been published in the PF?

If so, please provide substantiation as well as the name of the Project Manager at the time the censorship occurred.

If not, your charge as stated in the title of this thread (Ink & Anvil was being censored by Mike Nolan)is nothing more than a scurilous, rumormongering attempt to discredit the AFA's Project Manager, Mike Nolan.

Should the facts prove otherwise, I will gladly issue you a public apology.

Rick Burten wrote: Yes there was a Project Manager. The original Project Manager we worked with was Pat Gallahan, who was succeeded by Rick Garrison. Rick later chose to share that role with Bryan Quinsey.
No. More often than not, if there was something that seemed questionable or controversial, I contacted the Project Manager and we discussed it.

This does bring up a point that I think is germane. Prior to my service as Editor of Professional Farrier, I served on the Publications Committee. As a member of that committee, and later as editor of the publication, I repeatedly requested that the Publications Committee establish a Policies and Procedures manual. At one point, I even drafted such a manual and submitted it for review. Neither of the committee chairs felt that such a doc-ument was necessary, and it was never developed. Had such a docu-ment been developed and adopted, maybe this situation could have been avoided, although I doubt it . In any case, as one who has both taught and attempted to practice Journalistic Ethics, I firmly believe that --no matter what side of the fence you're on--it's best to have written guidelines....

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
Well said, Mr. Tom. I rarely find myself in an "amen choir," but I've found myself singing hymns with you since the UseNet.

danverschild wrote: Danvers,

Do you still have a copy of the manual that you produced?

Hi all,

I really am completely confused about everything going on in the AFA at this time...

I want to say that I personally have no bones to pick with Rick or Ron and want them to have sucessful campaigns for office.. If that sounded like an endorsement for Ron, well I can't go there but Hey would you want your better half to be VP... I'll never get that cell phone dislodged from his head.
OF course I do believe that if elected RT would be an awesome VP!


I feel that a lot has been happening and we members DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT IS!

I spoke with Ron and I agreed to give him 24 hours to get more information on this subject matter. I want to state clearly I am not trying to harm but I do want to be informed CORRECTLY...

I also have to be fair, I personally DO NOT care for Mike Nolan's style of dealing with me as an AFA member... Ya'll of course are allowed your thoughts as well...

I am exhausted and do not know how anyone can blog all the time, thanks for the forum.. good night, and good news I hope comes for tomorrow... Oh yes Rick I really am a huge Pollyanna, we can all get along...

Bunny

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
Probably on an old computer or storage device around here somewhere....

TRUTH SEEKER wrote:
aww... Bunny. Had you only started your evening's conversation with this statement rather than ending with it....

Rick Burten wrote:

WOW!

I go away for 24 hours and miss all the fun.

Since Bunny brought up the fact that I posted the email she sent me about the LA task force, please allow me to show you where her email proved my conclusions regarding LEADERSHIP in the face of chaos:

From my post on 10-1-06:
From the Bunny's email about RT and Dick's leadership:Please note that neither Dick, RT, or Fergie approached the AFA leadership about forming an AFA task force. All three were present at the mid year meeting. Ron K. was not at the mid year meeting. Yet he was the one who contacted the AFA leadership directly and asked for official AFA involvement. He was also the one that kept on top of the all the details and the logistics planning.

Here is the logistics planning accomplished by RT:The first rule of being a good farrier is SHOWING UP. But showing up without any tools and supplies? What was the plan?
All "WE" have to do is ask? It was Ron K. that did the asking, and the followup, and cut through all of the bureaucracy with the suppliers in order to make sure that these supplies arrived in time for the task force to use them. It was Ron K. that kept track of the number of horses, on a daily basis, and thus determined how many volunteers to send and how many to hold in reserve. Otherwise, way too many farriers would have arrived in LA, thus placing a huge strain on housing and food resources for the volunteers.

These details seemed to escape RT's recollection of the events. Which again proves my point: These guys were in over their heads, and they didn't know it.

I would like to thank Bunny for supplying me with complete affirmation of my assertions regarding Ron's leadership and management skills.

danverschild wrote: Thanks, Danvers.A very good and wise idea.Do you perhaps, still have a copy of that draft? If so, I'd like to see it if you are willing to share it with me.Highlighting once again the problem with amatuers, well meaning though they might be, trying to run a corporation.Pity.Perhaps not, but it would have gone a long ways towards mitigating the conflict.

I do note however that the current contract, in Paragraph 26, provides a mechanism for dispute resolution. It is unclear whether this procedure was followed either in full or in part. It appears that a call to the office is in order.AMEN!!

First of all, on this site, there seems to be an epidemic of over inflated sense of self-importance. You all try to sound more like lawyers than shoers.
Even the so-called owner of this site , who at fiirst was going to can the discussion then waffled and decided to not take his toys and go home. This thread nor site (the battlefield he spoke of) is not for his personal amusement. When things go his way, which is usually antagonistic as proven by his allowing and even egging participants on with this discussion, everything is hunky dorey but the threat of closing a discussion is ever present. That is censorship.
I wonder if Mr. Perry has ever sent anything to the magazine because I have read several articles from non-credentialed and non-AFA members.
From what I read of the Katrina ordeal, Mr. Kramedjian and all of his two years of experience proved he was neither a leader nor farrier and certainly not a leader of farriers.
This is not about legal-eeze. It's about the AFA. The organization will never go forward if it continues to chew people up and spit them out. The road is littered with America's most talented farriers, discarded by the AFA, deemed no longer useful. Dick Becker, Phil Fisher, Randy Luikhart, Dave Duckett, and Mitch Taylor all come to mind.
Mr. Davidson's temperment aside, he assumed all the risk, financial, emotional and his reputation to provide the membership with a very high quality magazine. And now it looks like he too will join the list of those discarded.

It's disturbing to me that so many identify Mike Nolan as being the representative of the AFA when it actually belongs to the members.

Rick, go back to the beginning of this post. Do you think it's acceptable to give unilateral control to the ACTING Executive Director because of what two dues-paying members wrote? Have you even read those letters? Do you think it would be appropriate to withhold those opinions from the membership?
Do you think it's appropiate to prevent censorship as soon as it rears it's ugly head or should it be allowed then dealt with later. It's clear that Ink and Anvil stood on principle regarding the issue of protecting the member's voice and forwarding the mission of the AFA (read what the mission statement is, because you have been long winded in distracting us from that.)
Has the administration been doing that? No, they have been doing damage control because they have been doing damage to the AFA.
Regardles of the outcome, this is another huge blemish to the organization and I for one am discouraged that it can recover.

sweetbranchforge wrote: This is rich. I have to tell you, Sweetbranch, you've provided the participants of these Forums the best laugh they've had in a long time. Probably needed, considering the subject matter being discussed. Here you are, after, how many, 5 posts in these Forums, making accusations about me. I'm having a hard time typing I'm laughing so hard. Me, waffle? 10 years I've been running this site, and I'd advise you to do a bit of research before accusing me of waffling. I've been called a lot of things, but a waffler isn't one of them. There was no waffling in my post. I put it out as plain as day - either the poster revealed their identity, or the thread was history. Simple as that. There are rules in these Forums, and my job is to enforce them. Admittedly, there is no specific rule that one must use their real name, but over the years the "unspoken" rule has become that if you want credibility on these Forums, you at least end your posts with your real name. Particularly if you're bringing up controversial material. As the final arbitor of what appears here, I made the judgement call that due to the very "highly charged" nature of the material, the posted had to reveal their identity. That's waffling, huh? If the poster hadn't done so, and I let the thread continue, that would've been waffling. And those people who've been on these Forums for years will tell you, I don't waffle. Ever.
And where did you get the really strange idea that I thought it was? Just letting a thread such as this one continue, exposes me to tremedous pressure and criticism from some quarters. I could make my life a lot easier by removing the Political Forums completely. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
"My way?" You're once again revealing your total ignorance concerning my stewardship of these Forums. I don't have a "way." I simply strive to maintain order in what can at times be a chaotic environment. I never realized that allowing participants to post, and even encouraging them to do so, was censorship. Hmmmmm... You must have a dictionary that I don't have access to. In 10 years, and hundreds of thousands of posts, I've removed less than 10 posts for "stepping over the line." Yessiree, that sounds like heavy handed censorship to me.

I suggest you stick to the issues of the thread, and not how I moderate these Forums. In that regard, no matter which side of the debate the participants are on, you'll find you're a majority of "one" in your views of how I handle these Forums.

Baron

Maybe I should start a new thread titled "Sucking Up to the So Called Owner", his lack of walffing kept the thread going, as Bunny had the fortutide to identify herself we must note that sweetpants forge hasen't.
Thanks again Baron,
Bill

sweetbranchforge wrote: Whatever we are, at least we are not so cowardly as to hide behind a nom d'plume. By the way, it appears from comments you have made that you are a member of the AFA. If so, then a cursory perusal of the membership list does not identify any member who lives in Liberty Center, OH. Care to comment?"So called owner"???? Don't you really mean, defacto, verifiable and absolute
owner of this site?GONG!! Wrong. Baron clearly stated that unless a certain individual who was posting under a nom d'plume, identified him/herself, the thread would be removed. In response, said individual indentified herself as Bunny Goodrich. Thus, she fulfilled the mandate and no action on Baron's part was necessary. So, your charge of 'waffling' is proven wrong, your mendacity exposed, and your credibility plunges below zero where it had previously hovered.Really? How have you arrived at this astonishing conclusion?

As I am wont to say, you are hoist by your own petard.A wag might opine "His sandbox, his rules"Nope it sure ain't. If you can produce even one instance where Baron has acted inappropriately or outside the boundaries of his responsibilities as both Owner and Moderator of this site, then I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and pillory Baron without regard for his personal or professional wellbeing.This is a slanderous accusation and one worthy of utmost contempt. The facts have repeatedly shown the opposite of what you allege. Doubt me? Try reading Tom Bloomer's reply to Ms. Goodrich. And, while you are at it, use all of your apparently limited intellectual capacity, to read for content in context.Wrong again. Its about fulfilling the legal obligations as provided in the Publishing Contract. And in that respect it is about the AFA and the leadership's responsibility to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the membership.

I again reiterate that this is about a vendor under contract to the AFA. Take the personalities out and deal with that and that alone.Unfortunately, at this time, that seems to be the nature of the beast.Perhaps you can show me where someone held a gun to Mr. Davidson's head and forced him, under the penalty of death or other dire consequence, to travel the path he chose. And, we cannot cast aside Mr. Davidson's temperment. It is that temperment that placed him in a quagmire of his own making with apparently no one willing to pass him a rescue line.Are you perhaps a card carrying member of the Doofi Nation? For better or worse the membership identifies its elected officers and for some, the members of the AFT, as the representatives of the AFA.Excuse me, the Acting ED was appointed Project Manager with the full approval of the Executive Committee. And it had nothing to do with what two members wrote. Further, under the articles of the Publishing Contract, the Project Manager was acting completely within his jurisdiction. Again, no censorship occurred, nor has any censorship ever occurred.

Doubt me? Then read,for content in context, Danver's precise reply to me on this issue dating back to when he was Editor of PF. Still doubt me? Then do your due dilligence and provide me of even one instance where there was censorship enacted.
quote] Have you even read those letters?[/quote]
Several times.Nope. But what was being asked for was that before those letters were published, the accused be given an opportunity to respond so that both sides of the issue would be presented at the same time. Not such an unreasonable request(or if you like, demand), is it?

And it is noteworthy that Mr. Ferguson was given an opportunity to respond to the Duckett letter prior to publication, and when he did not avail himself of that opportunity, the letter was published. Hardly a shining(or tarnished as the case may be) example of censorship don't you agree?Should censorship, in your words, 'rear its ugly head'. then it should immediately dealt with. In this case, nothing of the sort happened. What did happen is that apparently Mr. Davidson got his undies all twisted up over the idea that the AFA was going to exercise its contractual rights with regard to publication of the PF magazine. Rather than approach this as a businessman, apparently Mr. Davidson let his emotions rule the day, and as a result, now finds himself and his vendor company in a rather precarious position, with little support or approval. If Mr. Davidson is counting on the membership of the AFA to back him during his temper tantrum and fit of pique, then I beleive he is laboring under a false hope and I would counsel him(were I to be asked) to grow up, act like a businessman and fulfil his contractual obligations without being a female cat. If he then wants to take his case, as an AFA member, to the membership so be it. Thus far, we, members and non-members alike, have not heard one word from Mr. Davidson. Only from his what appear to be, his talking heads. The AFA on the other hand, has responded publicly, within the constraints placed on them by their legal counsel, directly and succinctly.