Gary Hill wrote:
Actually, I think it's Tayler. See post #90.

When Davners threw his saddle on this particular horse, he started riding for the brand. Whether rounding up cows or sitting on a bar stool at the Silver Dollar saloon, he is going to be associated with the brand he rides for. So , regardless of the time or place, once he is perceived as "riding for the AFA" as managing editor of the PFM, his words, his actions, especially on subjects/issues directly pertaining to the AFA, will be perceived as having the 'official weight/position' of the AFA behind them. He doesn't get to pick and choose when he rides for the brand, he always rides for the brand so long as he is in the position he is in.
No different for any of those who hold office in the AFA, nor will it be different for any of us who get elected to office.

Does this mean that you will refrain from speaking in favor of the Guild of Professional Farriers or participating in that organization in any way since it could be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as politically conflictive?

Does this mean that you would have every officer, committee chair, and board member who currently has affiliations connections or ties with a non-affiliate organization, company, or entity remove him or herself from either the AFA or that other affiliation?

As sweetbranchforge has pointed out here, there are conflictive relationships and affiliations that run throughout our organization, including the officers, committee chairs, and board members.

If we’re to use your analogy of “riding for the brand” it would seem that Danvers is riding for one brand (the AFA), yet you and lots of others could be perceived as riding for two or more. In your case it would be the AFA and the GPF. I think that at least one person on these discussions has talked about you having a double standard, and this certainly appears to be one. One standard for you and another for Danvers.

And, just as a point of information... If you review the postings on these political discussions, I think you'll be hard pressed to find much if any of what Danvers has said that could not be considered as a defense of his brand, the AFA.

RT Goodrich, CJF

NorthBayFarriers wrote: No it does not. It means that when elected, I will not compare the two organizations unfavorably or by action or deed cause harm to either.. I will continue my membership in both organizations and may, following the example of our current President, take a membership in the BWFA too. I intend to continue my role as an Examiner for the Guild of Professional Farriers, and see no way anyone can rightfully misconstrue that activity. Especially since the two organizations are so different in nature and composition.No it does not. The question appears to be leading somewhere or implying something that is not evident. Perhaps you would provide a bit of clarity here.Really? None seems to be very apparent or of much concern to the membership. Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to these conflicts and how they have negatively impacted the AFA?If Danvers is indeed riding for the brand, then he needs to maintain neutrality when it comes to the candidates for office. Unless of course, the AFA is taking an official position on who is deemed to be best for the AFA. In that case, Danvers can/should publicly support that position.No sir, not in the least. What's next? If I'm a registered Democrat, will that preclude me from being an officer in the AFA? how about my religious persuasion, or lack thereof? Is that going to cause a conflict too? You're reaching and you are doing so in a rather disgusting manner.

Besides, I'm not the editor of a magizine that is the official magazine of either organization. You perhaps understand the difference?I think the question is his public support for his friend and candidate, and in that action, his negative cast towards his friend's opponent.

Tell me R.T., had you stayed in the race and had the editor of PFM come out in favor of someone other than you, how would you have felt? Would you have meekly stood by, or perhaps, cried, "foul"? How about if someone cried "foul" on your behalf?

Rick

sweetbranchforge wrote: Wrong, Donny.

I am an Examiner with/for The Guild of Professional Farriers. See, we in the Guild are not testing the candidates, we are examining the finished product they create to determine if it accomplishes the task stated and does so in an acceptible manner. The Guild practical is evaluated on a "Pass/Fail" basis.

For more information on the process, visit http://www.horseshoes.com/assoc/national/guild/rjfguide.pdf

Rick

Rick stateing that Danvers has to remain neutral during political campaigneing in an association of farriers is an insult to every voteing member in the AFA. Basicly it comes across as if you see farriers as ignorant. I value the opinions of every AFA member no matter what there current role in the AFA is. If I were a candidate I would not be threatened by Danvers's posistion in the AFA as you and Ron seem to be. Basicly I would state my views, vision for the future, answer questions and let the cards fall where they fall, not a big deal. I also would respect the final decision of the members. Ron's efforts to have Danvers remain neutral and his accusations that others are useing negative campaigneing anytime some one questions his past and intentions for certification is comeing across as a way to protect his chances of getting elected and this is suspect in my mind.

If you feel it is important for Danvers to remain neutral because he is the editor of the PF, does this also mean he has given up his right to vote as a member? Technicly voteing is an opinion isnt it?

We all have opinions and you know what opinions are like.

You don't need to respond Rick, I know I am not worth the effort in your mind. I just wanted to get my opinion out there for others to read.

Sorry Cordell, I waznt a veri good speler in scool!

(Phil Armitage) "Basicly it comes across as if you see farriers as ignorant."

Spot on Phil rick and ron both see everyone but themselves as ignorant when realisticly they are two people who are educated beyond there intellect.

Just read some of the posts that rick and ron have written especially rick over the last few years on these forums and you will see how he treats other members of this forum like retarded children.


Frank B. Lundist

Franky Lundist in gray

Spot on Phil rick and ron both see everyone but themselves as ignorant when realisticly they are two people who are educated beyond there intellect.

When you're plagerizing stuff, shouldn't you give credit to the author? The original Horace Porter quote is, "A mugwump is a person educated beyond his intellect."

Just read some of the posts that rick and ron have written especially rick over the last few years on these forums and you will see how he treats other members of this forum like retarded children.

I think it's a matter of perception. I don't agree with Rick and Ron on every issue, but I've never felt they've tried to talk down to me because we didn't see eye-to-eye on something or other. The intellectually disadvantaged might feel slighted by Rick's stuff because he doesn't suffer fools all that well, but that's a character flaw I can live with.

(tom stovel)When you're plagerizing stuff, shouldn't you give credit to the author? The original Horace Porter quote is, "A mugwump is a person educated beyond his intellect."

tom I didnt quote anyone I made a statement, I feel too be true about rick, and actually yourself for that matter.

As for ric ron yourself it is incredible the judgements you pass on people due to the persons inability to see everything or discuss everything in the world as if they were adressing a session of congress or presenting a case to the supreme court, face it tom you talk down to people so does rick and several others its really sad because it is exactly that pompus arrogant attitude that is killing the AFA.and making us all look bad.
You rick ron and several others that I have had the displeasure of meeting, or talking with could be the greatest farriers in the world however that wouldnt make a bit of difference when you have the personality of a wet toilet seat.

Frank B. Lundist

Phil Armitage wrote: I'd continue to ignore you, but this is too important to ignore.

"If" I feel it is important? There is no if, and's or buts about it. It is not only important , it is essential. And since you cannot either see or understand why this impartiality is so important for a person serving in the capacity of editor of the AFA's in-house magazine, then there is no way to explain it to you.No Phil it does not. why? because one casts his/her vote privately. You perhaps understand the difference between the two.You?

Rick

Franky Lundist in gray

Re: The original Horace Porter quote is, "A mugwump is a person educated beyond his intellect."

tom I didnt quote anyone I made a statement,

In reality, you quoted Porter. Perhaps you forgot where you heard it, but you quoted him nevertheless.

I feel too be true about rick, and actually yourself for that matter.

As I said, it's a matter of perception.

As for ric ron yourself it is incredible the judgements you pass on people due to the persons inability to see everything or discuss everything in the world as if they were adressing a session of congress or presenting a case to the supreme court, face it tom you talk down to people

I write just like I talk (without using quite as much profanity) and I won't insult a reader by presuming any need to "****** down" my stuff in order to fit their intellect. I think farrers are a helluva lot smarter than you give 'em credit for being: Are you projecting your personal feelings of intellectual inferiority on others?

so does rick and several others its really sad because it is exactly that pompus arrogant attitude that is killing the AFA.and making us all look bad.

Lemme see if I've got this straight: You associate polysyllabic words with arrogance instead of accuracy, so you feel their use is making "us all" look bad? Did I miss the election in which you were chosen spokesman for "us all"?

You rick ron and several others that I have had the displeasure of meeting, or talking with could be the greatest farriers in the world

I don't recall ever meeting or talking with you Mr. Lundist - and I make no particular claims of expertise beyond knowing which way to turn a nail.

however that wouldnt make a bit of difference when you have the personality of a wet toilet seat.

Rats! Here I thought my bubbling, effervescent, personality was a sterling example of impending senility and now I find myself compared to a wet toilet seat. Need I point out that's not a comparison you would make to my face without a smile on your face? (Apologies to Owen Wister.)

NorthBayFarriers wrote: Huh? The Guild is not a farrier education organization. What conflict? The Majority of Guild members are also or have also been members of multiple farrier organizations including the AFA. Also many farriers hold positions of leadership in more than one organization - yourself included. Other than the confilct of how much personal time you decide to dedicate to each organization, what other "interest" do you see as conflicting? Why do you think that by serving one organization a person some how takes something away from a different organization?
I agree that Rick chose a bad analogy, but only because you and others have obviously misinterpreted the analogy. You are giving the equivocating membership with employment. The editor of a magazine is the employee of the organization what owns the publication. As the employee, certain business rules and ethics apply that do not apply to private individuals what are not "employed" by that organization.
Sorry you can only eat apples OR oranges, but not both? Please don't anyone send RT a fruitcake for Christmas unless you include a set of tweasers . . . then he can pick out whatever fruit . . . oh nevermind. Come on RT, you're realling crawling out on a dead limb here.
Um, no. Both danvers and Rick are Guild members.
I haven't seen anything what Danvers has said what could be considered as "Speaking as an EMPLOYEE of the AFA." However, once he becomes an employee, the public will have a strong tendency to attach an official standing to his words - even if he posts a disclaimer at the end of every sentence. We all know that Danvers is a standup guy. However, a casual stranger might not be able to distinguish the difference between what Danvers THE MAN says as A MAN and what Danvers THE EDITOR SAYS as THE EDITOR and official employee.

Bottom line, this ain't about Danvers. It's about the JOB POSITION. The name of the person doing the job is irrelivent to the discussion because its about the job description, not WHO has the job.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote: Well, what if he wasn't smiling, bless his heart, but followed up his pronouncement with a "bless your heart" ?

Okay, let’s just try this on for size and see if it fits.
I will grant you, and even apologetically, that I have been somewhat of a caustic so and so on my posts.
Crass, made some half witted comments that probably interjected my personal views maybe a bit too strongly for some folks tastes. Maybe even to the point it was over the edge.
I am guilty of not being transparent or too transparent, depending on your particular seat of view.
But… (you knew that was coming)…
What we’re really talking about, aside from or along with the issue of transparency is that transparency alone is not enough to qualify a person or persons as competent for an elected office.
So what if they’re transparent?
Maybe what we ought to be looking at is just “how” transparent they are. Completely? Or does it more closely resemble translucent?
I’ve been pretty harsh in my criticism not only of the two running for office but have also called into question the motives of the site owner. I feel have to at least entertain that angle due to their seemingly close friendship and the fact this site is a business, whether it’s lucrative or not. So there’s a lane of doubt that my skeptic brain has to at least look at.
If I’ve trashed a toenail or two, I’d like it to be chalked up to holiday humbug and my humanity that sometimes gets a little sideways before I know it.
Hey. I’m a horseshoer. I’ve been at it a while. I get cranky and can be an a-s-s- whole with little effort sometimes. Don’t try and tell me none of you have never wished you could lasso a few words and reel ‘em back.
So without further adieu, here is my position on this whole transparency thread.
1. Mr. Burten may not suffer fools gladly but his more than condescending attitude and aloofness, coupled with his apparent (at least to me) sense of superiority; be it intellectually, politically, or his method of leadership has left the kind of taste in my mouth that I’m sure would cause me to want to hide my membership from my clients in the future. I can’t imagine the AFA being a better organization with him at the helm - and I DO have one heluvan imagination.
So maybe his transparency has been a good thing. We’ve seen the real Rick Burten in action on how he treats people who he feels are inferior to him. At least that’s been my take. Examiner, tester, whatever… nitpickin’ to me to flank an honest inquiry.
2. Mr. Krme..e.. I’ll never be able to spell that name on my own… Ron.. For argument’s sake.
I have to go back to my original opinion on him, and use the Louisiana folks as my reference. I have to ask myself what kind of person would blow a National Guard troop bovine excrement in the midst of a crisis, claim authority over others in a bullying fashion AND … this is one of the parts I just shake my head at … feels the need to use an angle grinder on distressed horses to the point sedation is needed when other farriers are getting along just fine with other horses in similar condition using traditional nippers and rasps?
Very few, if any horses required sedation except for the ones being trimmed with the grinder and virtually all of them needed that. Whatever happened to compassion for the horse? “Oh look at me, I’m much faster and better..?”
One final comment on that: Had I been there and seen you doing that… you and I would have had a little set-to behind the barns that night bucko.. If I couldn’t have reasoned with you to stop at the time.
Jerk.
I think there’s where his lack of experience really shined through in a big way and put his character on center stage for us to see.
So my ultimate question may not be to these two but more to myself: It’s not what their motives may be for wanting to take the most prominent roles in leadership of the AFA, but rather, why would I WANT them there?
All bickering aside on the issue of transparency, email timelines, ideas for improvement, etc., what have we learned about these two in the past several months? I don’t hear or see this kind of behavior/attitude from any other candidate.
Maybe this is more like national politics than we may have originally thought in that we’ll take the lesser of the two evils.
And I’m sure I’ll catch some flack about that statement.
Oh well.
I’ve said my piece on this and that’s all there will be from me on it… unless I’m going to have to personally go to Louisiana and find the folks who were so adamant about Ron’s behavior and let them tell you themselves. But I don’t think it will come to that.

Sincerely,

"Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm but the harm does not interest them." T.S. Eliot

Danvers, T.S. Eliot Quote sums it up well.

All I have gleaned in the short time I have spent here on horseshoes.com is that people enjoy a self image that includes a set of principles a sound moral compass and some ability to think and reason. So I was surprised when some of the folks who post regularly here did not come to the same conclusions about Rick and Ron as I have. When things seem to me to be so painfully obvious it is hard to imagine that other intelligent people can perceive things differently, but they do.

My original post was put up because I had learned of Ron’s alleged, attempts to press the mute button on Danvers, while at the same time he espoused a policy of “ honesty, integrity, transparency” That angered me for a few reasons. One being, I knew that this was not the first time Ron had attempted to have the office of the AFA intervene in such a way. The first was following the Katrina effort, Ron had called, then, Executive director, Bryan Quinsey and asked him to intervene on Ron’s behalf to quiet R.T. Goodrich. Ron said, public comments R.T. and Bunny had made could be detrimental to Ron’s campaign for secretary. R.T. told Bryan that he had quit saying anything derogatory about Ron weeks prior to Bryan’s phone call, as Ron no longer was worth his time, and did not occupy any space in his head. The second is during the period of time in which you, Ronny, were screaming to see the head of Mr. fergason on a platter, you called me, more than a few times, to tell me that, “it was my duty as a journalist to investigate and print the whole story”. You would call and lecture me for hours about my responsibility to the AFA as a journalist to find the truth and report it. When the truth reflects poorly on you, you sing a different tune. The premise of the editor of the PFM maintaining Journalistic neutrality while he is not wearing his editor hat is, in my view, opportunistic and hypocritical. It’s pretty convenient to find a principle that elicits strong emotion, such as Journalistic neutrality, that one can hide behind and not have to engage in substantive debate. The Idea that venders to the AFA, must maintain neutrality is ludicrous. (Not referring to the hip hop guy) Where do we draw the line on what is a conflict of interest? Who should we consider as having an inappropriate conflict of interest? Should officers profit from AFA certifications? For years the AFA has said, “We do not sell certifications” Quinsey would not allow pre-cert clinicians to be paid for the clinics we conducted, and yet our sitting president conducts classes, at his home, for profit, specifically designed to help a person pass those tests. He holds the actual tests on site and, to the best of my knowledge he remains an AFA examiner.

Should Myron Mclain have to choose between his long standing role as rules committee chairman or Mustad? Should John Blombach stop producing study guides for profit, while he is our AFA secretary? Has john, or would john argue against changes in the written test to avoid production cost associated with reprints? Should Walt be forced to choose between the AFA and the World Farriers Association, an association that receives funds and denotations from the AFA? Rick I think that the guild would benefit a great deal if Farriers disenchanted with the AFA and it’s certification process left the AFA and joined the Guild. If the president of the AFA tells people that the guild test is superior to the AFA test, you and Ron have both said that, would The AFA lose revenue from testing?.. Point being Rick and Ron pick and choose morality and ethical standards to fit their immediate need of the day. The AFA is in dire straights and there is no room for politically motivated, opportunistic people, who have demonstrated their contempt for anyone who posses an opinion other than their own. If the AFA is to survive it must be led by leaders who are prepared to listen, and lead by example. Characteristics you both have demonstrated are Patronizing, condescending, self important, political aggressive, stop at nothing, the end justifies the means, and dishonest. Ron go home, pull and clinch for a while, your way to out of shape to jump all the way from the bottom rung to the top. The ladder can’t take the stress! Rick, just go home! Mr. Stovall, get out the red pencil, I have included a great many errors in sentence structure and basic grammar, as I feel you have missed your calling in public education.
VOTE FOR ELSBREE AND FANGUY!!