Yeah... what Phil said... in spades Baby.
Funny how it's okay for the matched pair to twist and publicly try to wash the brains of us peons to their way of thinking but that same heat they spew out causes them to whine like little school girls when it gets headed back in their direction.
And Ron... it most DEFINITELY looked like whining to me.
Need help packing?
One more thing:
If I have learned anything about the people you accuse of being puppeted, it's that thier "Master" is their own hearts and consciences that are guided by humility and honor, not a self-inflated sense of importance. Ya can't blame 'em for seeing the humor in the mess you've created for yourself, and taking the action needed to help save the rest of us from ... what...??? Do you REALLY think you and Mr. Burten are an improvement over Mr. Furgeson?
Grandiosis would be my guess.

Next!

Rick Burten wrote:

Thin ice Bub... directly ahead.... just thought I'd give you a heads up...
Oh.. and if you can't discern my sarcastic endorsement from how I reall feel let me put it a little more plainly:
I've personally seen you in action. You're a pompous ass and have the skills within your hands of a drunk butcher. No talent. No class, (me neither so you don't have to go there) and the fact that you've taken the low road here proves you fit right in with Mr. Krmeeeeeegjjjoian... whatever.. and his brand of pig slop he peddles as truth.
Man... wouldn't you just have a baby cow if you found out I was one of your clients...
Oh wait... that's assuming you have any since you spend all friggin day on here blabbering til he-ll won't have it.
Did I mention you're a pompous ass?

sweetbranchforge wrote:
All wind no substance. You don't even have the intestinal fortitude to sign your real name to your posts. You've made some serious accusations. Now back them up you coward.

You sir or madam are without honor or dignity. I may be pompous, but you are contemptible.

Rick

Rick: Every action we have undertaken has been to keep the membership informed so long as legally permitted.



Lets see Rick, back when BOD members stated exactly the same legal reasoning you didnt care one bit. You engaged your mouth before your brain and lacked respect for others and trust in the process. Double standard Rick. In my view you and Ron have been manipulative and have attempted to win arguments by scare tactics. You call this running an ethical campaigne. You may be fooling some of the members, but your not fooling this member.

I believe anyone is capable of change. Maybe in time you will see what I am talking about. You want this so bad your blinded. Your starting to see what others have faced all along and now realiseing some issues cannot be discussed on an open forum and may cross the legal lines. You didnt take that into consideration when you wanted all the facts and wanted them discussed openly on this forum. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you have some empathy. Remember that word Rick, empathy. A true understanding, because your now liveing it and experienceing it.

As for Ron's reasons for Danvers remaining neutral. I don't see a conflict if that is what your eludeing to. What harm can Danvers do to Ron by being the editor of the PF. This is total BS and whineing. Ron could ignore a peeon like me, but when a credable source started to debate him well he needed a gag order. I think this is why Matt mentioned lack of spine. Show some back bone Ron and debate those with experience and knowledge. I know I am no match for you guys, but lets see how well you stand up to a real debate. I now see two big chickens.

Rick, truth and honesty is all that is needed. The problem is who is being honest. That seems to be a problem here.

How did it come about that Danvers remain neutral? Who initiated it and why? Answer that truthfully. If it was just Ron's idea, then I ask Ron truthfully why??........ without all the political and legal jargen. Keep it simple and honest for a ****** ass like me.

Rick Burten wrote:
Rick, who you talkin' about here, yourself, Ron or Matt? I'm only uncertain, because as far as I know, for all these past months that I've been closely following this board, you and Ron seem to (in a previously mentioned and confirmed (by you) mean spirited way, assassinate people's character FREQUENTLY, but Matt, I barely heard a word from him until today and I know first hand of some of the word trickery that Ron has used to further his suspect political purposes.

Hmmm?? :confused:

Ok where to begin.

First things first, while Mr. Child is the current managing editor he is doing so as a volunteer, which he concedes. He has no contract; he is not publishing an editor’s letter in the upcoming issue of the PF and receives no remuneration for his tasks. Mr. Child remains under a voluntary "gag" order and does so in an effort not to further harm the AFA, and he has informed me that he will make no statements until this issue is further reviewed.

Second, because of the confidentially statement placed on Ron's email I am precluded from making any statement publicly concerning these emails and any alligations there in as are Ron Kramedjian, Rick Burten, Dave Ferguson, Bob Earle, Walt Taylor, John Blombach and Mike Nolan.

Third, because of that confidentiality statement, I will not make any statements and I remind the afore mentioned gentlemen that are members of this on-line community that they are bound by the same agreement unless Mr. Kramedjian grants permission to release portions or discuss content directly or indirectly pertaining to this matter. Regardless of where Mr. Gilles got his information, It does not make it right for either Mr. Burten or Mr. Kramedjian to discuss the issue in this forum, I would expect that they would cease and desist immediately from any further discussion on this matter until doc u m entation that releases them from the confidentiality clause at the bottom of the email is presented to the AFA office. In the event that Mr. Kramedjian grants that permission I would hope that in an effort to maintain transparency on this issue he would grant it to all those involved and not a select few. Mr. Burten has already violated the spirit of Mr. Kramedjian's copyright by discussing this issue here.

Further I will make no statement until the members of the AFA Board of Directors has been informed on this issue.

Wow typical AFA bickering, I love it Phil awesome work I love the way you call em as you see em, Matt great job! Sweetbranchforge I love it please dont stop you are the greatest.

rick ron well its about time that your profiecency at cut and paste and creative editing, not too mention your twisting of the truth has finally been called. rick I was also wondering when you will stop your intimidation tactics especially the you are a coward and afraid to post your name!!! That little ploy is really getting old, oh and rick you stated in one of your posts that too your knowledge no one has ever called you a liar? well if you go to the AFJ forums you will see where you have been called a liar and a manipulator of facts Just an FYI

I was told along time ago by my dear old dad that if you found a cowpie out in the field after it had set in the sun for awhile it wouldnt smell, but if you stirred that cowpie the stink would rise right up and smell just like what it was, cow****............. Seems to me that Matt stirred the cowpie of the r & r campaign and guess what it smells like cow****!!! Way to go Matt!!!!!!

T.N. Trosin wrote: Actually, I haven't, but since you seem to think otherwise, OK, I apologize.glad to know you're doing your job.

Rick

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote: Rick Burten wrote:


I have one other point of irony to note here. It appears as though often times, Rick and Ron windup on the defense here. Most noticeably, they wind up on the defense against EVERYONE (save each other and a handful of cheerleaders that will invariably rush to their defense in this post).


In most of these defensive posts that I'm referring to, they (R, R and company) viscously attack their "opponent" with a barrage of words and a denial of there being any credibility to the offending poster, regardless of who the offending poster is, how long they have been a part of, and how dedicated they have been to the AFA,.

What is positive or productive in nature about this kind of campaign, or this kind of leader?

It’s great to see common sense prevail, a little like this last November’s election, a merry Christmas indeed!

Franky Lundist wrote: Well how ya' doin' Frankie?

Thanks for that information. Wanna direct me a bit more specifically to the alleged comments? Better yet, go get them and post them here for all to see. Please be sure to include the post(s) in its(their) entire construct. Lets see who said what, what the subject was, and when the posting was made. Or, like I said, direct me to the post(s), and I'll bring them here for all to see.

Rick

Phil, no offense, but sometimes you still don't read to well. Its OK, this will all work out. Ron only innitiated the process, any candidate could have done it. It was done because Danvers seemed to be in a position of conflict of interest. As editor of PFM and speaking out in support of a candidate he put himself in a position that conflicted to the point he had to choose one or the other and if he didn't he could be legally wrong. He probably knew this and would have done so (kept quiet) but Ron insured that. Maybe Ron jumped the gun but it would have happened sooner or later in my opinion. Ron followed the rules, that point has to be clear.

Sweetbranch, you are a pri*ck. You have some things to say that may be important, but the lack of courage or morales that you have in attacking and back bitng without the bal*ls to show who you are is really sad. I can't believe how chicken****e you are. Stand up and be a man or woman or what ever and put your name where your mouth is or shut the f up. At least Matt has the guts to put it on the line and sign his name. Talk about hangin it out for the world to see or cut off. He at least has my admiration where you just have my contempt.

Franky, good to see you back, stir a little more, we don't mind, if you use your name and take responsibility for what you say. At least it gives us some entertainment.

This is a sad situation. We, all of us involved, are really tearing at the very fabric of the AFA and making a mockery of this whole political process. It's getting as bad as real politics. All negatives about the opponent and nothing positive about the association or them selves any more. This really has taken a sad turn.

JV, I'm not saying any of this to help anyone, just pointing out that the fact some use their names and take responsibility shows they are stand up straight forward people. Those who don't are cowards and have no credibility. If you feel they do then you must have different views about credibilty, morals, and life than me. If they can't stand behind what they say by signing their name then they should not be saying anything at all because those with real standards will hold no credibility to them. So they waste thier time and ours as I am here. I can't believe I get into this crud. I hope this election gets here soon so we can go back to farrier discussions about farriery.

T.N., thanks for clearing the muddy water a little, we will wait for more when it's available.

Rick Burten wrote:
As you often say... Irrelevant
Rick Burten wrote:
I've already discussed in the past the exchanges that Ron and I have had and Ron's convenient (almost Ronald Reagan like??) relevant memory loss.
Rick Burten wrote: Yeah, you do have to wonder, why does he want this job so badly? I mean, he spends all his own money (one would presume it's his own $) to travel out to the mid-year meeting and AAEP, and every other place where he can campaign. Then he spends countless hours of time cajoling paperwork, emails, records and faxes from the AFA office and every other party affiliated with business dealings of the AFA office, then he spends even more hours posting the details of those previously private records. All this during the first few years of being a farrier who has not even had the time advantage of attending a farrier school. I don't know how he does it all, and I sure can't imagine why, but he sure is persistent and determined. :confused:
Rick Burten wrote:
No, I hadn’t asked myself why today, but I just took for granted that it was some sort of wonderful Christmas gift.
Rick Burten wrote:
No, I wasn't aware that he wasn't a member. However, considering that you and Ron are always pointing out how exclusionary it is for "us" AFA members to keep AFA business on the AFA's web-site, and instead "encouraging" us all to air our laundry hear where everyone can participate fairly, I don't see the relevance of Matt's membership status.

Hmmm, the funny thing about using a lot of words (like I know I have here) and like R&R ALWAYS do, is sometimes, they can be used against you.

(Your turn, R, R and pep squad) do what you always do now, tear me up, exercise your positive campaign stylings.

Actually Jim, you are no longer worth the effort.

When a stand up guy like Matt who says very little speaks I listen. Another thing when stand up candidates like Dick and Andrew speak I listen. I have seen little trash talking from these guys. They state there posistion, have knowledge, experience and integrity. That is all I need to cast my vote for them. When Dave ran his campaigne he stood for something, he has a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience in the trade, this is why I voted for him. I did not know Craig that well, however I have talked to farriers that know him and learned he is a very talented farrier and passionate about the trade and the AFA. Danvers is another very talented farrier with a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge.

Rick and Ron are running there campaigne on transparency, open and honest communications, however all of a sudden the people who can shed some light on facts have to be carefull of what they say.

It appears to me that one of the biggest complaints members had was the lack of communications from people who know what is going on. These guys start communicateing and all of a sudden someone calls fowl.

What the heck is going on. Are we going to discuss the political issues openly and honestly or not?

The best forum for this is probably on the AFA discussion forum, however we have the delema of non-members being a part of this.

Look we can't have it both ways, if it is going to be open and honest then let it be open and honest. I see no harm with Danvers debateing political issues. Put it out there and let the members decide.

Rick and Ron might be great for the job, however just like any political process debates invovleing the competency of canditates and AFA issues need to be discussed. This has been the most informative election I have seen and I don't consider that a bad thing.

Rick and Ron, back when I showed my support for Dave you called me unethical and dishonest. You guys attacked my character and continue to do so. I know that Ron is ignoreing me and has clearly stated in the past that he would.

I will say this for Dave, he has asked for civil discussion and for everyone to play nice on the AFA forum. I have not visited the AFA forum to see what the latest discussion is, however I do recall Rick lambasteing Dave for asking everyone to be civil. Rick I think you like to hit below the belt and play hard ball. Well the game is being played hard and now it seems like your on the ropes and waiting for the bell to ring.