Matt Gillis in gray, deletia.

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.

If I chose to use a colored pencil, it would be blue, as was customary for proofreaders in the era of hot type and page galleys.

I sincerely appreciate your saying I missed my calling, I have a great deal of respect - but no aptitude - for the teaching profession. When I came to that particular fork in the road in the road, I chose a committee saddle and a shoeing box over academia.

In retrospect, it was the correct choice - but thanks for the flowers.

Matt Gillis wrote: That is an outright lie. Those words have never, as in not ever, crossed my lips or eminated from my fingers into cyberspace.To paraphrase Will Rogers, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damn lies, and Double Damm lies." You sir are guilty of all three varities.They why don't you take your damnable self and your political motivations and all the other dirty garbage you have spewed forth in just a few short days and deposit yourself at that gabage heap you are now the editor of.Well, if lead by example means to hide away from issues and let your talking heads speak for you, then by all means vote for the other candidates. But if leadership involves meeting your critics as well as your supporters face on, and answering the questions and proposing strategies, then the only real choice is to vote for Ron and me. Seems like the only stand up guys in this election have been standing up in front of everyone right from the start. The others, for whatever reason(s) motivate them, have been 'nil heards' or at best 'barely heards'. You don't like what we have to say? Fair enough. But at least your hearing more than the sound of silence eminating from the other candidates.You are very good at writing your autobiography. And in just this short time, you've validated every single charge about yourself.

Now that your true colors are on display, it is little wonder why Mr. Davidson chose you to be the replacement editor for PFM when he was still the publisher, and why you have chosen to remain the editor of his new rip off of the AFA magazine. You have chosen to lie down with dogs, don't be suprised twhen you wake up with fleas.

I'm popping corn anyone want some?

Matt Gillis wrote: Matt,

That you and others believe that I am so powerful and influential that the members of the EC and the ED of the AFA tremble and quiver to satisfy my every whim is delightful. Somewhat inaccurate, but delightful.

If anyone is pressing the mute button here it is the EC who are doing so and as you of all people should know 3 of the 5 have little or no use for me and the other 2 I’m not so sure are not in the same boat as them. But, if in fact I am influential enough to have those MEN that do not like me all agree with a point of view that I have espoused, then I suspect that it must be a fairly well thought out and well balanced point of view. If they have taken action on something, they have done so on their authority and for the good of the AFA as they have seen it. If you or anyone else has a complaint you should take it to them.

That I&A was not able to agree with allowing your employer to direct you in the proper course of your employment is exactly why you folks say you canceled your contract. In that I would say you folks are not much more than disgruntled former employees that have an ax to grind and because I was able, with a little effort, to do***ent the facts so that anyone with an IQ over 10 could understand that the facts and your claims did not equal each other is what this is all about. You folks claim to love the AFA but you do things deliberately to damage it and its members. You claim to be dedicated to the AFA’s welfare but you don’t care enough to keep your dues current.
Matt Gillis wrote: I do not recall this. If Bryan acted it was on his own dime. As I recall I did have several conflicts with Bryan over his trying to change the composition of the task forces membership. Bryan seemed to feel that RT could request the changes without consulting me. RT and I got a little crosswise with each other over it as well but have gotten past it like adults. In the end everyone that was there and contributed was recognized and that was what was important.
Matt Gillis wrote: Yes I did spend hours reviewing the facts at hand and encouraging you to do exactly what you were asking Rick and I to do. I felt that if you and Scott wanted to report on the matter that was appropriate, but apparently regardless of how many facts you had in hand, including everything posted on this site, you folks didn’t have the stones to write a report on your dime where when the manure hit that fan it might blow back on you.
Matt Gillis wrote: Frankly I do wish you would get your facts right. I have never used the phrase “Journalistic Neutrality” in anything that I have written. What I have pointed out and that others apparently feel is an important issue is the staff of the AFA in general and the editorial staff of PFM in particular should not be trying to shape the very events that they are either reporting on or involved in. A reporter of fact can not be seen as unbiased if they are involved in the efforts trying to shape those facts.
Matt Gillis wrote: The line is drawn when a person who has a fiduciary responsibility to the AFA for something affecting the AFA is put in a position that their loyalty to the AFA could be questioned. In Mr. Child’s case as the managing editor of PFM he is expected to be perceived as a neutral reporter of fact. He must in effect be like a judge, once he puts on the robes he is expected to avoid commentary upon the cases that may be pending before him.
Matt Gillis wrote: If Mr. McLain were working in his role as chairman and he was put in a position that he would have to make a decision between doing something that would benefit Mustad or that would benefit the AFA I would hope that he would of his own choice disqualify himself and let someone else make the decision. If he didn’t and someone were to challenge his decision it would be just another scandal that would need to be handled. It really doesn’t matter that no one really believes that he would sacrifice his duty to the AFA, it matters that anyone could have the perception that he did. And that very much is at the central core of this issue, perception.

The membership does not trust the AFA’s leadership. The BoD, aka chapter presidents and representatives, do not trust the EC, the EC doesn’t trust them or the membership. No one trusts anyone and no one is appears to be working to create a set of cir***stances that will establish a solid foundation that can be built upon to earn and keep the membership trust and participation. I believe that PFM can be the cornerstone of this re-wining the trust and support of the membership. I believe that Danvers maybe the only man that has the chance of standing in the role of Managing Editor and establishing the image of PFM as a completely neutral and accurate reporter of the happenings of the AFA and the world of farriery. But to do that Danvers is going to have to do something that no one else in that position has ever managed to do. He is going to have to build and maintain an aura of absolute neutrality, honesty, and integrity. Danvers is going to have to be the quintessential journalist, always gathering information while staying completely out of the fray, regardless of his feelings or personal opinions.

What you and other are so roundly trying to pillory me for is for speaking up and suggesting that we start moving the AFA in a new and better direction from the beginning of the business relationship with the new publisher, instead of allowing the same opinions about the unfair and bias coverage that plagued I&A’s term to get established and started in the Sebastian Publishing term as Publisher. It is called leadership, it is called seeing a problem and having the stones to stand up and say that I believe it is a problem even though I know that it is something that might **** people off.

Rick Burten in gray, deletia

Well, if lead by example means to hide away from issues and let your talking heads speak for you, then by all means vote for the other candidates. But if leadership involves meeting your critics as well as your supporters face on, and answering the questions and proposing strategies, then the only real choice is to vote for Ron and me. Seems like the only stand up guys in this election have been standing up in front of everyone right from the start. The others, for whatever reason(s) motivate them, have been 'nil heards' or at best 'barely heards'. You don't like what we have to say? Fair enough. But at least your hearing more than the sound of silence eminating from the other candidates.

I most respectfully disagree with the preceding statement and suggest you're swinging too big a loop. As a prospective AFA member, I've used this forum to ask several questions of the candidates concerning issues that I consider to be important to any AFA member or prospective member.

Dick Fanguy responded eloquently and on a point-by-point basis, as did both yourself and Mr. Kramedjian. I'm deeply appreciative of your responses, but there were three, not two.

Thanks again to all who responded.

Don,

First and foremost you can always use Ron.
sweetbranchforge wrote: I have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about. Lt. Col. Livers of the Kentucky National Guard arranged our accommodations in LA. Col. Livers is a farrier and a member of the AFA and has been for quite some time. The guard unit that we stayed with was thrilled to have us and it was a honor to meet some of the men and women that were serving their fellow citizens in that time of need. But the reality is that as we were arriving most of the service people that had been staying there were shipping out on leave and we were repeatedly assured that our presence was not causing any problems.
sweetbranchforge wrote: The protocol that I was using on the horse that I remember required the use of the grinder. I discussed the pro’s and con’s of the protocol with Dr. French and explained all of the steps involved before it was applied. The horse in question was a foundered horse in a fair amount of pain. Not only was the horse sedated if I recall correctly I asked Dr. French to block both front feet. I followed up with Dr. French once we had returned home and he indicated that all of the horses we had worked on were better leaving than when they came in. Now if you have any real curiosity about the status of that horse I would strongly suggest that you contact Dr. French directly at LSU instead of just relying on rumors and stories that have been circulated by anyone. Most importantly in this is that Dr. French knew what I was going to do, and both approved and observed the protocol. If he didn’t have a problem with it, why do you?
sweetbranchforge wrote: I do not recall using the grinder on any other horses but I might have, in my area of practice, middle TN, it is a fairly common thing to see. The only one I accurately remember is the founder horse. I do however remember asking that a couple of others be sedated. In our meeting on Sunday evening prior to us starting work it was agreed all around and I must say at Dick Fanguy’s insistence that if any of us felt that any horse might have a problem standing still that we were to call one of the vets and get the horse sedated. Dick did not want any of us taking a chance and wanted us to err on the side of self preservation. So when in question I did request that a horse be sedated. I know that Mo Shaw remembers having a stallion sedated because there were so many mares around that he couldn’t keep his mind on the job of standing still. I do not know if anyone else did but given the number of horses with sever foot pain I would be surprised to here that there were no others sedated, if only to give them some relief from the pain while they were being tended to. Had you actually been there and observed the state of chaos that existed while we were there you would be more surprised that we didn’t have almost all of them sedated.
sweetbranchforge wrote: That you would say this to anyone, but especially in print, is a true sign of your character. Men do not need to threaten other men with physical violence.

Another sign of your character is that on hearing all of these rumors and unsubstantiated allegations you, and apparently others, did not have the character to call or write me and ask me what had happened because what you were hearing was very upsetting to you. For a man that makes such great claims to moral superiority what happened to the simple courtesy of asking for the other side of the story?

IMHO and I do mean that. Ron problably had every right to do what he did, but it don't make it right, the whole Danvers thing I mean. Danvers oponion is well respected and people want to hear what he has to say. I have only met him once and he didint really have anything nice to say, but what he said was right. He was a tester for my attempt at CJF, and I left there with respect for the man and the test. Any way you cut it, people see this as a Gag order in favor of Ron, not in favor of the AFA.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote: You are, of course, correct. Which is why I ammend from "nil heard" to 'barely heard". I have no quarrel with what Mr. Fanguy said. On many issues, we seem to be in basic or even close, agreement. Your questions were meant to be insightful and gathered in one place, many of the things that Ron and I have been saying for quite some time. I'm heartend that Mr. Fanguy agrees with us, because I know that after we are elected, he will be someone who will be supporting us in our efforts to help the AFA and to restore its luster.

Rick

IRNWKR_2 wrote: Jason,

Ron is taking a lambasting and for what? Doing the right thing. Regardless, I understand and respect your position and opinion. But I must respectfully disagree that this outcome is not in favor of the AFA. Right now, it may seem that way to many people, but in the long run, the AFA will be stronger and better because this shouldn't happen again. Sometimes the leader takes the bullet to save and preserve the good of the many. In this instance, to paraphrase Captain Kirk, " The good of the many outweighed the good of the one". And for the record, this has been one of our guiding tenets as we embarked on this election journey. When elected, it will continue to be a guiding principle.

Rick

I would be very curious to hear Danver's take on this. While he might not be allowed to comment on the candidates or the election, I imagine he could discuss the role of the managing editor of the AFA's magazine relative to an election.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:

So I can assume you talked to Mr. Childs before you went whining with p*ss running down both pantlegs to the AFA for your gag order?

One more post like that and you're outta here. You want to ask a question, or make an observation, do it in the right way.

And don't bother arguing with me or spinning some conspiracy theories. Because that will clinch it.

Baron

Oh, jeepers almost choked on my popcorn. Getting good and entertaining.

sweetbranchforge wrote: Don,

Unlike you I am not playing the butt end of a rumor string. You have tried, convicted and are trying to hang me based upon something that you did not personally observe and that has been repeatedly debunked starting shortly after the task force finished its work in LA. You are repeating discredited gossip from the “people in” LA as fact and it apparently doesn’t bother you, Hmmmm, that is a good foundation for credibility.

I am able to observe with my own eyes, as are others, and make my own conclusions about Mr. Child’s behavior. Believe it or not I was not the first person to wonder about the propriety involved. I however am not aware of any “gag order.” I am aware however that as a condition of his employment as managing editor of PFM the AFA’s EC is asking that he maintain the strictest of neutrality across all lines. The instant he is no longer employed in that position I am sure he is free to speak to any topic he chooses in what ever forum he chooses.

Cyber Farrier wrote:
You would do me and the AFA the biggest Favor If you locked this one. But I can't say that it would end the arguement.

I was hopeing that Mike would have been able to post something here today but I guess he had better things to do than going around kicking hornets nests.

Just to clarify to everyone, the EC has demanded nothing of anybody, we asked really nice. Danvers makes no comment at his decision and because he doesn't want to hurt the association, John Blombach is the AFA treasurer, The AFA is not in dire dtraits and as far as I know neither is Mark Knoffler anymore. Dick Funguy has never turned away from anybody I have ever known critic or friend and to my knowledge he has always voiced his own opinion. While I don't know Mr. Elsbree as well I have known him to use his own voice on issues as well. All candidates for office this year are people who wish to see progress. If the AFA membership doesn't trust leadership they arn't speaking up, I would hope that my actions as BoD Rep has helped the Board trust the EC a little bit, and I don't think that Ron has ever soiled himself, regardless of the circ-c-umstance.

At this time of the year where we celebrate miricles and prepair for renewal I would hope that we all go back and review what we have written over the past year, look for the things that we have said that are positive and focus on those things. I would hope that we would learn from those that precede us, find fellowship with our contemperaries, and have paticence with those who follow us.

Btw way I never knew that proof readers used blue pencils. Another piece of information I can use if I ever go on Jepordy.